Bush Says Screw You to Former POW's

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Nickdfresh
    SUPER MODERATOR

    • Oct 2004
    • 49205

    Bush Says Screw You to Former POW's

    February 15, 2005

    White House Turns Tables on Former American POWs
    Gulf War pilots tortured by Iraqis fight the Bush administration in trying to collect compensation.

    _
    By David G. Savage, LA Times Staff Writer
    WASHINGTON — The latest chapter in the legal history of torture is being written by American pilots who were beaten and abused by Iraqis during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. And it has taken a strange twist.
    The Bush administration is fighting the former prisoners of war in court, trying to prevent them from collecting nearly $1 billion from Iraq that a federal judge awarded them as compensation for their torture at the hands of Saddam Hussein's regime.
    _ _
    The rationale: Today's Iraqis are good guys, and they need the money.
    The case abounds with ironies. It pits the U.S. government squarely against its own war heroes and the Geneva Convention.
    Many of the pilots were tortured in the same Iraqi prison, Abu Ghraib, where American soldiers abused Iraqis 15 months ago. Those Iraqi victims, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said, deserve compensation from the United States.
    But the American victims of Iraqi torturers are not entitled to similar payments from Iraq, the U.S. government says.
    "It seems so strange to have our own country fighting us on this," said retired Air Force Col. David W. Eberly, the senior officer among the former POWs.


    The case, now being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, tests whether "state sponsors of terrorism" can be sued in the U.S. courts for torture, murder or hostage-taking. The court is expected to decide in the next two months whether to hear the appeal.
    Congress opened the door to such claims in 1996, when it lifted the shield of sovereign immunity — which basically prohibits lawsuits against foreign governments — for any nation that supports terrorism. At that time, Iraq was one of seven nations identified by the State Department as sponsoring terrorist activity. The 17 Gulf War POWs looked to have a very strong case when they first filed suit in 2002. They had been undeniably tortured by a tyrannical regime, one that had $1.7 billion of its assets frozen by the U.S. government.

    The picture changed, however, when the United States invaded Iraq and toppled Hussein from power nearly two years ago. On July 21, 2003, two weeks after the Gulf War POWs won their court case in U.S. District Court, the Bush administration intervened to argue that their claims should be dismissed.

    "No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of this very brutal regime and at the hands of Saddam Hussein," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told reporters when asked about the case in November 2003.

    Government lawyers have insisted, literally, on "no amount of money" going to the Gulf War POWs. "These resources are required for the urgent national security needs of rebuilding Iraq," McClellan said.

    The case also tests a key provision of the Geneva Convention, the international law that governs the treatment of prisoners of war. The United States and other signers pledged never to "absolve" a state of "any liability" for the torture of POWs.
    Former military lawyers and a bipartisan group of lawmakers have been among those who have urged the Supreme Court to take up the case and to strengthen the law against torturers and tyrannical regimes.

    "Our government is on the wrong side of this issue," said Jeffrey F. Addicott, a former Army lawyer and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in San Antonio. "A lot of Americans would scratch their heads and ask why is our government taking the side of Iraq against our POWs."

    The POWs' journey through the court system began with the events of Jan. 17, 1991 — the first day of the Gulf War. In response to Hussein's invasion of Kuwait five months earlier, the United States, as head of a United Nations coalition, launched an air attack on Iraq, determined to drive Iraqi forces from the oil-rich Gulf state. On the first day of the fighting, a jet piloted by Marine Corps Lt. Col. Clifford Acree was downed over Iraq by a surface-to-air missile. He suffered a neck injury ejecting from the plane and was soon taken prisoner by the Iraqis. Blindfolded and handcuffed, he was beaten until he lost consciousness. His nose was broken, his skull was fractured, and he was threatened with having his fingers cut off. He lost 30 pounds during his 47 days of captivity.
    Eberly was shot down two days later and lost 45 pounds during his ordeal. He and several other U.S. service members were near starvation when they were freed. Other POWs had their eardrums ruptured and were urinated on during their captivity at Abu Ghraib.

    All the while, their families thought they were dead because the Iraqis did not notify the U.S. government of their capture.
    In April 2002, the Washington law firm of Steptoe & Johnson filed suit on behalf of the 17 former POWs and 37 of their family members. The suit, Acree vs. Republic of Iraq, sought monetary damages for the "acts of torture committed against them and for pain, suffering and severe mental distress of their families."

    Usually, foreign states have a sovereign immunity that shields them from being sued. But in the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, Congress authorized U.S. courts to award "money damages … against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage [or] hostage taking."

    This provision was "designed to hold terrorist nations accountable for the torture of Americans and to deter rogue nations from engaging in such actions in the future," Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and George Allen (R-Va.) said last year in a letter to Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft that urged him to support the POWs' claim.

    The case came before U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts. There was no trial; Hussein's regime ignored the suit, and the U.S. State Department chose to take no part in the case.
    On July 7, 2003, the judge handed down a long opinion that described the abuse suffered by the Gulf War POWs, and he awarded them $653 million in compensatory damages. He also assessed $306 million in punitive damages against Iraq. Lawyers for the POWs asked him to put a hold on some of Iraq's frozen assets.

    No sooner had the POWs celebrated their victory than they came up against a new roadblock: Bush administration lawyers argued that the case should be thrown out of court on the grounds that Bush had voided any such claims against Iraq, which was now under U.S. occupation. The administration lawyers based their argument on language in an emergency bill, passed shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, approving the expenditure of $80 billion for military operations and reconstruction efforts. One clause in the legislation authorized the president to suspend the sanctions against Iraq that had been imposed as punishment for the invasion of Kuwait more than a decade earlier.
    The president's lawyers said this clause also allowed Bush to remove Iraq from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism and to set aside pending monetary judgments against Iraq.

    When the POWs' case went before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,, the three-judge panel ruled unanimously for the Bush administration and threw out the lawsuit.
    "The United States possesses weighty foreign policy interests that are clearly threatened by the entry of judgment for [the POWs] in this case," the appeals court said.

    The administration also succeeding in killing a congressional resolution supporting the POWs' suit. "U.S. courts no longer have jurisdiction to hear cases such as those filed by the Gulf War POWs," then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said in a letter to lawmakers. "Moreover, the president has ordered the vesting of blocked Iraqi assets for use by the Iraqi people and for reconstruction."

    Already frustrated by the turn of events, the former POWs were startled when Rumsfeld said he favored awarding compensation to the Iraqi prisoners who were abused by the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib.

    "I am seeking a way to provide appropriate compensation to those detainees who suffered grievous and brutal abuse and cruelty at the hands of a few members of the U.S. military. It is the right thing to do," Rumsfeld told a Senate committee last year.
    By contrast, the government's lawyers have refused to even discuss a settlement in the POWs' case, say lawyers for the Gulf War veterans. "They were willing to settle this for pennies on the dollar," said Addicott, the former Army lawyer.
    The last hope for the POWs rests with the Supreme Court. Their lawyers petitioned the high court last month to hear the case. Significantly, it has been renamed Acree vs. Iraq and the United States.

    The POWs say the justices should decide the "important and recurring question [of] whether U.S. citizens who are victims of state-sponsored terrorism [may] seek redress against terrorist states in federal court."
    This week, Justice Department lawyers are expected to file a brief urging the court to turn away the appeal.
    Last edited by Nickdfresh; 02-15-2005, 09:41 AM.
  • BigBadBrian
    TOASTMASTER GENERAL
    • Jan 2004
    • 10625

    #2
    Disgraceful. One more reason that Cunt Rumsfeld needs to leave the scene. He's behind it.

    I'll see if I can find more on this on the DAV or American Legion website.
    “If bullshit was currency, Joe Biden would be a billionaire.” - George W. Bush

    Comment

    • blueturk
      Veteran
      • Jul 2004
      • 1883

      #3
      Strange that Dubya looks the other way if his pals at Custer Battles LLC skim $15 million or more from Iraqi money. This shit shows where Bush's priorities are. As if there were any doubt in the first place.

      Comment

      • Rikk
        DIAMOND STATUS
        • Jan 2004
        • 16518

        #4
        Jesus. That's disgusting. But not surprising. Republicans have been shitting on Vets and POWs for forty years.
        Roth Army Militia

        Originally posted by WARF
        Rikk - The new school of the Roth Army... this dude leads the pack... three words... The Sheep Pen... this dude opened alot of doors for people during this new era... he's the best of the new school.

        Comment

        • blueturk
          Veteran
          • Jul 2004
          • 1883

          #5
          Bush poster girl Jessica Lynch has probably made more than these guys will ever get. Utter fucking bullshit!
          Last edited by blueturk; 02-15-2005, 02:43 PM.

          Comment

          • Warham
            DIAMOND STATUS
            • Mar 2004
            • 14589

            #6
            Originally posted by Rikk
            Jesus. That's disgusting. But not surprising. Republicans have been shitting on Vets and POWs for forty years.
            That's funny you say that. My dad's a vet and voted for Bush, Reagan and a few other Republicans. He was also drafted during Vietnam, I believe during a Democrat's term, if I remember years correctly.

            Why would he vote for a Republican when they've been shitting on him since 1968?

            Comment

            • ODShowtime
              ROCKSTAR

              • Jun 2004
              • 5812

              #7
              Originally posted by Warham
              That's funny you say that. My dad's a vet and voted for Bush, Reagan and a few other Republicans. He was also drafted during Vietnam, I believe during a Democrat's term, if I remember years correctly.

              Why would he vote for a Republican when they've been shitting on him since 1968?
              probably the same reason your dumb ass sucks at gw's teat.
              gnaw on it

              Comment

              • Warham
                DIAMOND STATUS
                • Mar 2004
                • 14589

                #8
                Amazing how you know so little for being around for so long.

                I disagree with Bush on quite a few things actually, our border situation for one. I do however agree with him on the bigger picture, and I am a conservative, so that wouldn't really put me in Howard Dean's corner now, would it?

                Comment

                • BigBadBrian
                  TOASTMASTER GENERAL
                  • Jan 2004
                  • 10625

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Rikk
                  Jesus. That's disgusting. But not surprising. Republicans have been shitting on Vets and POWs for forty years.
                  Actually, spending is up on Bush's watch over his Democratic predecessor concerning Veteran's Benefits. Your statement is in error and shows an obvious bias.
                  “If bullshit was currency, Joe Biden would be a billionaire.” - George W. Bush

                  Comment

                  • Nickdfresh
                    SUPER MODERATOR

                    • Oct 2004
                    • 49205

                    #10
                    Originally posted by BigBadBrian
                    Actually, spending is up on Bush's watch over his Democratic predecessor concerning Veteran's Benefits. Your statement is in error and shows an obvious bias.
                    Hmmm..wonder why that is?

                    Of course, veteran's are paying more for their drug coverage.

                    Comment

                    • BigBadBrian
                      TOASTMASTER GENERAL
                      • Jan 2004
                      • 10625

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Nickdfresh
                      Of course, veteran's are paying more for their drug coverage. [/B]
                      Not so...I don't pay a dime and I'm on some pretty substantial stuff.
                      “If bullshit was currency, Joe Biden would be a billionaire.” - George W. Bush

                      Comment

                      • LoungeMachine
                        DIAMOND STATUS
                        • Jul 2004
                        • 32576

                        #12
                        Originally posted by BigBadBrian
                        Not so...I don't pay a dime and I'm on some pretty substantial stuff.
                        That clears things up for me...
                        Originally posted by Kristy
                        Dude, what in the fuck is wrong with you? I'm full of hate and I do drugs.
                        Originally posted by cadaverdog
                        I posted under aliases and I jerk off with a sock. Anything else to add?

                        Comment

                        • Warham
                          DIAMOND STATUS
                          • Mar 2004
                          • 14589

                          #13
                          It just goes to show how foolish some people look when they post things they know little about.

                          Clinton, the Democrats' biggest hero of the last twenty years, did hardly anything for veterans or the military as a whole. I'm surprised there WAS still a military when Dubya took office.

                          Clinton on the military during the Super Bowl pregame with President G.H.W. Bush..."I'm proud of what President Bush and ALL of our veterans over the years have done in the name of freedom. I elected not to serve, dodged the draft and headed overseas to England to wait my time out...but, I admire our men and women in the military, and especially those serving in Iraq right now. God bless them."

                          Last edited by Warham; 02-15-2005, 07:00 PM.

                          Comment

                          • LoungeMachine
                            DIAMOND STATUS
                            • Jul 2004
                            • 32576

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Warham
                            It just goes to show how foolish some people look when they post things they know little about.

                            Clinton, the Democrats' biggest hero of the last twenty years, did hardly anything for veterans or the military as a whole. I'm surprised there WAS still a military when Dubya took office.




                            Clinton signs $288 billion military spending bill into law


                            August 9, 2000
                            Web posted at: 11:06 p.m. EDT (0306 GMT)


                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            In this story:

                            $20 billion increase

                            'Unrequested programs'

                            WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The men and women of the U.S. military soon will be getting a 3.7 percent pay raise, and funding for their health care needs will jump by 9 percent, after President Clinton signed a military spending bill into law.

                            "I have signed this bill because, on balance, it demonstrates our commitment to the military, meets our obligations to the troops, maintains readiness, and funds modernization efforts that will ensure our technological edge in the 21st century," Clinton said Wednesday.

                            $20 billion increase
                            The Department of Defense Appropriations Act allocates $288 billion to military needs for the fiscal year beginning October 1. The amount is $20 billion more than was appropriated for the last fiscal year and $3.3 billion higher than Clinton requested.

                            "The bill approves funds to cover the (Defense) Department's most critical needs, consistent with my request that reflected my strong commitment to our nation's security," said the president in a statement announcing his signature.

                            "Our high military readiness must remain our top national security priority," Clinton said.

                            'Unrequested programs'
                            While Clinton applauded the pay raise and a provision that allows military retirees older than 65 to get prescription drug benefits, he criticized Congress for approving "a host of unrequested programs at the expense of other core government activities."

                            The president did not cite specific examples of excess spending. But Arizona Sen. John McCain and Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, both Republicans, said during Senate debate over the bill that it included more than $7 billion in "outrageous pork-barrel spending" that was not requested by the Pentagon.

                            They cited a long list of special projects requested by legislators, ranging from $1.5 million for research on chronic fatigue syndrome to $4 million for desert tortoise research in California.

                            Clinton also objected to provisions classifying $1.8 billion in spending, including $1.1 billion for operations in the Balkans and over Iraq, as emergency supplemental funding for the 2000 budget year.

                            He said the bill also failed to fund a key chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia, and fails to provide the requested funding level for a joint strike fighter and an amphibious ship program.

                            CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace and Reuters contributed to this report.
                            Originally posted by Kristy
                            Dude, what in the fuck is wrong with you? I'm full of hate and I do drugs.
                            Originally posted by cadaverdog
                            I posted under aliases and I jerk off with a sock. Anything else to add?

                            Comment

                            • Warham
                              DIAMOND STATUS
                              • Mar 2004
                              • 14589

                              #15
                              Measured in 1995 dollars, U.S. defense spending has declined from a Cold War high of around $375 billion in 1988 to around $265 billion in 1997, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Defense spending for the USSR was around $260 billion in 1988. With the break up of the USSR, Russia's defense spending has declined to around $30 billion annually. Nevertheless, U.S. military leaders warned that funds were needed to fill alarming gaps in military readiness.

                              Comment

                              Working...