US Fights Verdict Backing Ex-POWs

[Theophylact]

From the New York Times (FRYYY, but I'll post the whole thing for those of you who can't be bothered to register):

When 21 freed American P.O.W.'s returned home from the Persian Gulf war in March 1991, Dick Cheney, then secretary of defense, welcomed them at Andrews Air Force Base, Md.

"Every man and woman who cares for freedom," Mr. Cheney said, "owes you a very special measure of gratitude."

Of those 21 former prisoners of war, 17, who had been tortured by their Iraqi captors, would like something more tangible. This month they won a court award of almost $1 billion against Iraq, and a federal law says they may be paid from frozen Iraqi funds.

The Bush administration has expressed sympathy for the plaintiffs over what they endured but is fighting them about the money, saying it is urgently needed to rebuild Iraq.

But Richard W. Roberts, a federal district judge in Washington, has ordered the government to keep enough Iraqi money in the United States to satisfy $653 million of the award, the amount of the compensatory but not the punitive damages he ordered paid to the former prisoners.

The Iraqi government never responded to the suit, which was filed in April 2002, and Judge Roberts acted after hearing evidence only from the plaintiffs. He set out his findings, in harrowing detail, in a 118-page decision.

The judge is to hear government arguments today asking him to rescind his order setting aside the $653 million and to cancel the award itself. The government cites "foreign policy interests in ensuring a safe and successful transition in Iraq."

Taylor Griffin, a Treasury spokesman, said that in March, President Bush ordered the seizure of about $1.7 billion of Iraqi money, already frozen. Mr. Griffin added that under a provision of a second federal law, the U.S.A. Patriot Act, that money became government property unavailable to the former prisoners. The parties disagree on how the two laws should be interpreted.

Mr. Griffin said the government had been periodically transferring those assets to Iraq, in cash, to pay Iraqi pensioners and civil servants, to provide working capital for Iraqi ministries and to buy equipment for the Iraqi police.

One lawyer for the former prisoners, Stephen A. Fennell, said changing conditions in Iraq should be of no consequence. Under the Geneva Convention, he said, "these types of liabilities run with the states, not the governments."

John Choon Yoo, who until recently was a Justice Department lawyer specializing in international issues, said the prisoners' suit was dangerous. "I terrifically sympathize with their personal situation and what they went through," he said, "but the use of the courts and damages remedies interferes with the president's conduct of foreign policy."

One plaintiff, Lt. Col. Richard Dale Storr, now with the Washington Air National Guard, said the administration's position troubled him. Colonel Storr endured beatings in Iraq that broke his nose, dislocated his shoulder and burst his left eardrum.

"It's sending a conflicting message to our troops," he said of the administration's recent court filings. "Congress and the judicial branch say, 'Let's protect our guys to the maximum extent possible,' " while the executive branch is "saying the opposite."

"Disappointing," he added, "would be a good way to put it."

[J-Excel]

Theo, I can't tell from your post... do you support the government taking money from the POWs and giving it to the Iraqi people or are you criticizing the government for not taking money from the Iraqi people and giving it to the POWs?

My opinion is ~$60 million each is way too much money to be awarded in any case, especially this one. These people were soldiers. If they were captured and tortured in the line of duty then too bad for them. It’s a hazard of the job. I don't remember any POWs suing Vietnam.

[M_Six]

Agreed. The US Military Code of Conduct says nothing about being able to sue after you're released. What's next, parents and widows suing for wrongful death?

[ben-the-slacker]

I agree w/ J-excel and M-six. Just because they were tortured doesn't give them the right to sue. They were soldiers so they knew that in case they were captured, there's a very high possibility that they'll be tortured. Suing just makes them look like a bunch of greedy thieves that are trying to get their hands on some...or maybe all... of that frozen Iraqi money.

[Epidemic]

I go for paying them but 60 mill seems a bit steep.

1 or 2 mill would be more in line IMO. You cant pay them for what they lost but they can be made compfortable for life.

What makes them feel more eligible for payment then all those who lost legs, eyes, and blood over there.

I feel bad for the soldiers but to give them a lottery for getting caught is not exactly fair either.

[SiliconJon]

Yes, serving our country is a selfless service. It is absolutely horrible that they were tortured. But to get rich from the experience is not what I would call exceptable. And to say the president is saying were're not to protect our men: they're just pouting over the money, nothing more.

I do think some sort of retrobution should be paid, but that sum is rediculous. Besides, wouldn't a public torturing of those responsible be more rewarding??? Not that we would, though

[Theophylact]

I thought it was an interesting article, but if you want my point of view:

(1) I don't think soldiers should be able to sue for injuries, whoever inflicted them (though they weren't seeking damages against the US Government but against Iraq).

(2) Regardless of (1), I think the amount awarded was absurdly high.

(3) However, it was awarded by a judge, and the propriety of the award was not challenged.

(4) Now, however, the US says it needs the money to rebuild Iraq (we needn't discuss into whose pockets the money will actually go), and it's using

(5) the USA Patriot Act (that Swiss Army Knife of laws) to take the money away from the ex-POWs.

In short: I think that an excessively broad law is being used to achieve whatever ends the Administration chooses, and this is just another example.

Clear?

[Warthog]

That amount is insane! Even $2 mil is on the high end.

Warthog

[M_Six]

Theo, my friend, your analytical talents are impressive. Good points. I must learn to look beyond the obvious, for I miss the subtle beauty of so many debates.

Thanks for the quick lesson.

[sharder8]

Originally posted by Theophylact
I thought it was an interesting article, but if you want my point of view:

(1) I don't think soldiers should be able to sue for injuries, whoever inflicted them (though they weren't seeking damages against the US Government but against Iraq).

(2) Regardless of (1), I think the amount awarded was absurdly high.

(3) However, it was awarded by a judge, and the propriety of the award was not challenged.

(4) Now, however, the US says it needs the money to rebuild Iraq (we needn't discuss into whose pockets the money will actually go), and it's using

(5) the USA Patriot Act (that Swiss Army Knife of laws) to take the money away from the ex-POWs.

In short: I think that an excessively broad law is being used to achieve whatever ends the Administration chooses, and this is just another example.

Clear?

Well put Theo!

I fully agree with you! The two things that bothers me, is . . . .

At what point in time, did POW's start sueing and winning?

BTW, I wouldn't label this as "greedy soldiers", but rather greedy lawyers getting involved!

Harder