[DNeurococo]

Our Veterans from the Gulf War need your support!

The Bush Administration is currently trying to PREVENT American POWs who were tortured from collecting compensation from the Iraqi Government.

Why? One reason may be that it might open the door for the U.S. government to be sued by the Iraqis tortured at Abu Ghraib, and at other locations.

Shame on the Bush Administration for opposing the POWs!

Article ===>


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, Times Staff Writer [Los Angeles Times, 2/15/05]


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.

[AKA Arizona]

Yes I will..................

[linskyjack]

Have they no shame???????

[bassetman]

I'll be writing my Senators this afternoon!

[rawmeat]

While I agree in principle that the Iraq "state" now is not the Iraq that tortured the prisoners, it is unthinkable that we did not just pay the settlement for Iraq. Those soldiers deserve the award for their pain and suffering while doing their duty for our government. No cap on this one! This is morally indefensable.

[Dreambringer]

Morally no, but can you really put a price on torture. Does that mean that anyone that is tortured they can sue? I dont mean to make light of the subject... but lets look at the def of torture..

torture
n 1: extreme mental distress [syn: anguish, torment]
2: unbearable physical pain [syn: torment]
3: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical
pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned"
[syn: agony, torment]
4: the act of distorting something so it seems to mean
something it was not intended to mean [syn: distortion,
overrefinement, straining, twisting]
5: the act of torturing someone; "it required unnatural
torturing to extract a confession" [syn: torturing]
v 1: torment emotionally or mentally [syn: torment, excruciate,
rack]
2: subject to torture [syn: excruciate, torment]


So this being said, some of the things I go thur daily are torture does that mean I can sue?

As part of a "war" things happen, I am not arguing that torture is ok, just that it is a part of war. It has been a part of war, and we need to relize that we cannot just go around sue'n everyone for everything.

I do very much support my troops, and I am in no way a supporter of bush, I belive that really no matter what the illuminati wins.

But what I do not support is the nieveness (sp?) of people that belive that war is a peaceful thing, we have to accept that not everyone belives the same thing we do, and that there are parts of war that are not going to be ok.

Originally Posted by rawmeat

Those soldiers deserve the award for their pain and suffering while doing their duty for our government

I dont agree with this. The award of paid and suffuring is their freedom, they are still alive, they are not hostages somewhere being tortured anymore, they are not under a suppressing goverment, and dont give me the line about our goverment suppresses us, because if we really wanted to makes changes we could...

Originally Posted by The Declaration of Independence

All men are created equal and there are certain unalienable rights that governments should never violate. These rights include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When a government fails to protect those rights, it is not only the right, but also the duty of the people to overthrow that government. In its place, the people should establish a government that is designed to protect those rights. Governments are rarely overthrown, and should not be overthrown for trivial reasons. In this case, a long history of abuses has led the colonists to overthrow a tyrannical government

Again I am not saying I support our goverment in not allowing them to, I just disagre with the idea of doing it to begin with.

[jd_957]

Originally Posted by bassetman

I'll be writing my Senators this afternoon!

write a letter of support to our troops maybe, and let them know we care.

http://anyservicemember.navy.mil/

They Need It.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by jd_957

write a letter of support to our troops maybe, and let them know we care.

http://anyservicemember.navy.mil/

They Need It.

Been doing it individually, but I'll do this too!

[WarC]

Theres one problem.

That Iraq doesn't exist anymore.

The leader of that Iraq is seeing bars right now. And gardening. He no longer operates a country.

The Baathists are gone.

Sorry, POWs.

Your enemy has been conquered.

[ComputerFix]

I think WarC has hit on it.

To honor one debt of the former Iraq would be to honor them all.

As to the supposition in post #1, that is what has these guys mad. Compensation has been awarded/given to maltreated prisoners, so these guys are REALLY pissed because they got jack for their time in Abu prison. There is a certain irony to not receiving their money because their government removed the Saddam regime.

I hope they win their suit. While Iraq does need to leave much of the past behind if they are to have the money (or our money) to move forward, there are some debts that should be paid.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by ComputerFix

I think WarC has hit on it.

To honor one debt of the former Iraq would be to honor them all.

As to the supposition in post #1, that is what has these guys mad. Compensation has been awarded/given to maltreated prisoners, so these guys are REALLY pissed because they got jack for their time in Abu prison. There is a certain irony to not receiving their money because their government removed the Saddam regime.

I hope they win their suit. While Iraq does need to leave much of the past behind if they are to have the money (or our money) to move forward, there are some debts that should be paid.

You got me curious about what happened after WW II:

Japan's dilemma on WWII reparations


Adrienne McPhail

In an unusual ruling last week, the Hiroshima High Court overturned a March, 1999 lower court ruling and ordered the Japanese government to pay 40 plaintiffs 1.2 million yen each in compensation to the group of South Koreans who had been forced to work in a Mitsubishi plant during World War II.

Once again, the subject of alleged Japanese war crimes and reparations has surfaced in the contemporary nation of Japan. As the former West German chancellor, Willy Brandt, stated while visiting a memorial for the Jews in Warsaw, "No people can escape their history."

The comparison between the Japanese reaction to suspected war crimes versus the Germans is striking. While Japan has chosen to downplay this issue, Germany has formally apologized and compensated the victims. According to Balbina Hwang, an Asian expert at the Heritage Foundation, the international community is skeptical about Japan's intentions when they are unwilling to embrace their own history. She questions how Japan can become a political and diplomatic leader without addressing this issue.

Now that Japan is attempting to secure a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, this issue may very well become a major obstacle. The standard argument that Japan has already addressed their obligations under the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty is unconvincing. The United States was mistaken in negotiating this treaty when China, Taiwan, North and South Korea were not allowed to participate. These Asian countries should not have to recognize a treaty to which they were not a party when they are the alleged victims of these acts.

Two of the most glaring war crimes that will have to be answered are the Rape of Nanking and the "comfort women" stations. While there is a wide disparity in the actual numbers of Chinese POWs and civilians killed during the Japanese occupation of Nanking in late 1937 through early 1938, the most reliable sources state that there were between 50,000 to 100,000 illegal deaths. First hand accounts estimate that 40,000 people were killed during the first week of occupation. The rape figures are more difficult to estimate but most experts agree there were a minimum of 20,000 women raped. Although there have been less than 60 cases filed by the women forced to work in the sex comfort stations by the Japanese military, a U.N. commission study sights that 200,000 women were enslaved.

The Global Alliance for Preserving the History of World War II in Asia, a federation consisting of 40 organizations that began in 1994, is just one of a number of groups calling for both a formal apology from the Japanese government and just compensation for the victims. In the United States 33,587 U.S. military personnel and 13,966 U.S. civilians were captured by Japanese forces, many of whom were used for forced labor. The state of Georgia has adopted and passed a resolution calling for reparations and other states are pressuring the U.S. Congress to address this issue.

Although former Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama personally apologized for illegal war crimes in 1995, he failed to obtain support in the Diet for an official apology by a margin of almost 2 to 1. In fact, there was a national campaign in which 4.5 million signatures were gathered against Murayama's resolution for an apology. The excuse that it has been over 60 years is also weak. It was not until the 1980s that the United States formally apologized and paid compensation — $20,000 per person — for the illegal internment of Japanese-Americans during the war.

...
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=comment&id=717

[rawmeat]

I don't know if it made a difference, I would think so, that the US allowed the Japanese emperor to remain in power. Therefore, the government of post-war Japan was the same government as before and during. Germany and Iraq have completely overhauled governments.

As to not being due any award for pain and suffering because they are now alive and not being tortured, I have to disagree that they should be glad just to be alive. If the definition of torture is permanent damage, then they are still suffering and OUR government should take care of them forever for their sacrifice. Honor and duty should be a 2-way street. Too often in the past, our government has broken its promises that it made to those that sacrificed the most for all of us.

[bassetman]

[linskyjack]

Gee, Rawmeat has absolutely no knowledge of the post-war history of Japan. The emperor was retained as a ceremonial leader----had absolutely no power. The government of Japan was totally remade--new consitution etc. By the way, this is the same Rawmeat who calls people idiots! You can only laugh.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Gee, Rawmeat has absolutely no knowledge of the post-war history of Japan. The emperor was retained as a ceremonial leader----had absolutely no power. The government of Japan was totally remade--new consitution etc. By the way, this is the same Rawmeat who calls people idiots! You can only laugh.

I still agree with this part of what he had to say.

...Honor and duty should be a 2-way street. Too often in the past, our government has broken its promises that it made to those that sacrificed the most for all of us.
...