Full Version: Bush administration vs. POWs
A story in yesterday's Detroit Free Press, U.S. court blocks payouts to ex-POWs, begins:
The headline in the paper, and the on-line headline are different, so it took me a long while and a lot of reading to locate the link. Along the way, I learned some things.
Former POWS to sue US govt., an article in news24.com provided some background on the story.
Measure Would Speed ex-POW Lawsuits, , an article in GreasyOnline.com points out that this is not a unique position for the U.S. Government to take.
Australian POWs Get Settlement appears to be an email from "POW-MIA InterNetwork." It outlines a settlement reached by Australian POWs from WWII.
Payouts to Japan PoW's could cost £200m, Racist MoD ordered to compensate Gurkha PoWs, and Egyptian claim demands compensation for POW deaths are all Links pointing out that such suits by Prisoners of War claiming reparations for slave labor, inhumane treatment, etc. are common throughout the world; and can take the rest of a lifetime to actually win any cash damages that one can place in a bank account.
PoW Compensation Now Rests on Canadian Government was a link though, which listed some of the pertinent treaties and international laws involved. A news release from "The War Amps," a group of Canadian amputee war vets is excerpted here in part:
United States Prisoners of War captured by Iraq during the first Gulf War, sued for reparations from Iraq and won. Saddam Hussein's government failed to pay them the damages awarded. President Bush led us to war against Iraq, and in the process seized what assets it could from Iraq. The POWs, United States Veterans from his father's war tried to attach those assets. The current Bush administration, it is being reported, is apparently doing its best to keep those assets for the U.S. Treasury as spoils of war. The soldiers who have been sent off to war in Iraq must be getting a really warm and fuzzy message. "This is going to take longer than we thought, can you stay an extra year?" "It's going to be more expensive than we thought, can you take a cut in pay?" "You might not have a job when you get back, but you'll have job skills and a resume that will help you stand out from the rest of the unemployed." "If you're a POW long enough, we'll give you a dental benefits package in case they kick your teeth out; but if you sue your captors, the President will join the defense team and fight the suit."
Questions to discuss:
If the President "wins" and prevents the American POWs from attaching Iraq's assets for the money they have already been awarded in the American court system, what message is he sending to the American military and to young people who might have planned to enlist in the future?
It appears that if the President "wins" the right for the U.S. government to attach Iraq's assets, that the POWs will then have the right, under what is known as the OPTIONAL PROTOCOL, to sue the United States government. Is he simply trying to delay the award until a Democrat is President, or is there a logical reason for his opposition to letting the courts disperse the money these POWs have already been awarded?
QUOTE
October 27, 2003
BY MILES BENSON
NEWHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is quietly piling up victories in a legal battle to block payments to 17 U.S. combat veterans who were captured and tortured in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and won a suit against Iraq for nearly $1 billion.
The former POWs -- whipped, beaten, burned, electrically shocked and starved by their Iraqi captors in 1991 -- say they are baffled by the administration's refusal to let them collect any of Iraq's assets now under U.S. control, and by the Justice Department's efforts to overturn a federal court decision upholding their claims to compensation.
BY MILES BENSON
NEWHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is quietly piling up victories in a legal battle to block payments to 17 U.S. combat veterans who were captured and tortured in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and won a suit against Iraq for nearly $1 billion.
The former POWs -- whipped, beaten, burned, electrically shocked and starved by their Iraqi captors in 1991 -- say they are baffled by the administration's refusal to let them collect any of Iraq's assets now under U.S. control, and by the Justice Department's efforts to overturn a federal court decision upholding their claims to compensation.
The headline in the paper, and the on-line headline are different, so it took me a long while and a lot of reading to locate the link. Along the way, I learned some things.
Former POWS to sue US govt., an article in news24.com provided some background on the story.
QUOTE
28/07/2003 17:31 - (SA)
Washington - Seventeen former POWs who won a $1bn reparations lawsuit for mistreatment in captivity during the 1991 Gulf War are now suing the US government to get the settlement paid from frozen Iraqi assets, the Washington Times reported on Monday.
Washington - Seventeen former POWs who won a $1bn reparations lawsuit for mistreatment in captivity during the 1991 Gulf War are now suing the US government to get the settlement paid from frozen Iraqi assets, the Washington Times reported on Monday.
Measure Would Speed ex-POW Lawsuits, , an article in GreasyOnline.com points out that this is not a unique position for the U.S. Government to take.
QUOTE
Press Release From The Office of Senator Bob Smith
Wednesday, 1 August, 2001
By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) _ Frank Exline is 83, living in Pleasant Hill and just trying to make a point.
For 39 months during World War II, he was a prisoner of war, forced to labor on the docks in Osaka, Japan, and often was tortured, once beaten for stealing a potato.
Now he's suing for compensation for his forced labor and finds his enemy this time is his own government.
"I doubt that anything will ever come of it," Exline said in an interview with The Associated Press. The odds are long, he said, but he will fight on.
Exline is among a group of 700 veterans suing Japanese companies for compensation for the labor they were forced to perform as prisoners. The lawsuits name such industrial giants as Mitsubishi, Mitsui and Nippon Steel.
But the U.S. State Department has intervened in many of the cases, arguing that treaties enacted since the war prohibit lawsuits over treatment of prisoners. Agency officials argue it's time to normalize relations and move on.
Wednesday, 1 August, 2001
By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) _ Frank Exline is 83, living in Pleasant Hill and just trying to make a point.
For 39 months during World War II, he was a prisoner of war, forced to labor on the docks in Osaka, Japan, and often was tortured, once beaten for stealing a potato.
Now he's suing for compensation for his forced labor and finds his enemy this time is his own government.
"I doubt that anything will ever come of it," Exline said in an interview with The Associated Press. The odds are long, he said, but he will fight on.
Exline is among a group of 700 veterans suing Japanese companies for compensation for the labor they were forced to perform as prisoners. The lawsuits name such industrial giants as Mitsubishi, Mitsui and Nippon Steel.
But the U.S. State Department has intervened in many of the cases, arguing that treaties enacted since the war prohibit lawsuits over treatment of prisoners. Agency officials argue it's time to normalize relations and move on.
Australian POWs Get Settlement appears to be an email from "POW-MIA InterNetwork." It outlines a settlement reached by Australian POWs from WWII.
QUOTE
Date: April 24, 2001
Payout for PoWs
By ANDREW PROBYN
AUSTRALIANS held captive in war by the Japanese will get about $25,000 compensation each from the Federal Government. The Herald Sun understands the Government will announce a $67.5 million deal for 2700 Australian survivors of Japanese PoW camps in the May 22 Budget.
It reflects similar compensation payouts announced in Canada and Britain last year and in New Zealand yesterday.
Payout for PoWs
By ANDREW PROBYN
AUSTRALIANS held captive in war by the Japanese will get about $25,000 compensation each from the Federal Government. The Herald Sun understands the Government will announce a $67.5 million deal for 2700 Australian survivors of Japanese PoW camps in the May 22 Budget.
It reflects similar compensation payouts announced in Canada and Britain last year and in New Zealand yesterday.
Payouts to Japan PoW's could cost £200m, Racist MoD ordered to compensate Gurkha PoWs, and Egyptian claim demands compensation for POW deaths are all Links pointing out that such suits by Prisoners of War claiming reparations for slave labor, inhumane treatment, etc. are common throughout the world; and can take the rest of a lifetime to actually win any cash damages that one can place in a bank account.
PoW Compensation Now Rests on Canadian Government was a link though, which listed some of the pertinent treaties and international laws involved. A news release from "The War Amps," a group of Canadian amputee war vets is excerpted here in part:
QUOTE
July 17, 1993, Ottawa, Ontario -- The question of whether members of the Canadian Military who were forced into slave labour by Japan during World War II will receive the compensation due them under the Geneva Convention now rests squarely upon the shoulders of the Canadian Government.
The War Amps of Canada, using its status as a non-governmental organization registered with the United Nations, has now submitted the claim against the Canadian Government, through the Human Rights Committee in Geneva, Switzerland.
The War Amps has been pursuing this claim since 1987. The previous submissions were all made directly to the Japanese Government, under the auspices of the Human Rights Agencies in Geneva. The Canadian Government refused to support the claim and it was stonewalled by the Japanese delegation during the most recent deliberations in Geneva.
This left us with no alternative but to submit the claim to the Canadian Government under what is known as the OPTIONAL PROTOCOL. This procedure permits a complainant to go directly to his or her own government if there is evidence that its failure to act represents a violation of human rights.
The claim against the Canadian Government is based on two specific factors.
The first is that, in signing the 1952 Peace Treaty with Japan, the Canadian Government failed to protect the interests of the Far East PoWs in accordance with international laws.
The second factor is that, in refusing to support the claim of Canada's Hong Kong Veterans and other Far East PoWs against Japan in the relevant international tribunal since 1987, the Canadian Government has been derelict in looking after a group of its own citizens.
The War Amps of Canada, using its status as a non-governmental organization registered with the United Nations, has now submitted the claim against the Canadian Government, through the Human Rights Committee in Geneva, Switzerland.
The War Amps has been pursuing this claim since 1987. The previous submissions were all made directly to the Japanese Government, under the auspices of the Human Rights Agencies in Geneva. The Canadian Government refused to support the claim and it was stonewalled by the Japanese delegation during the most recent deliberations in Geneva.
This left us with no alternative but to submit the claim to the Canadian Government under what is known as the OPTIONAL PROTOCOL. This procedure permits a complainant to go directly to his or her own government if there is evidence that its failure to act represents a violation of human rights.
The claim against the Canadian Government is based on two specific factors.
The first is that, in signing the 1952 Peace Treaty with Japan, the Canadian Government failed to protect the interests of the Far East PoWs in accordance with international laws.
The second factor is that, in refusing to support the claim of Canada's Hong Kong Veterans and other Far East PoWs against Japan in the relevant international tribunal since 1987, the Canadian Government has been derelict in looking after a group of its own citizens.
United States Prisoners of War captured by Iraq during the first Gulf War, sued for reparations from Iraq and won. Saddam Hussein's government failed to pay them the damages awarded. President Bush led us to war against Iraq, and in the process seized what assets it could from Iraq. The POWs, United States Veterans from his father's war tried to attach those assets. The current Bush administration, it is being reported, is apparently doing its best to keep those assets for the U.S. Treasury as spoils of war. The soldiers who have been sent off to war in Iraq must be getting a really warm and fuzzy message. "This is going to take longer than we thought, can you stay an extra year?" "It's going to be more expensive than we thought, can you take a cut in pay?" "You might not have a job when you get back, but you'll have job skills and a resume that will help you stand out from the rest of the unemployed." "If you're a POW long enough, we'll give you a dental benefits package in case they kick your teeth out; but if you sue your captors, the President will join the defense team and fight the suit."
Questions to discuss:
If the President "wins" and prevents the American POWs from attaching Iraq's assets for the money they have already been awarded in the American court system, what message is he sending to the American military and to young people who might have planned to enlist in the future?
It appears that if the President "wins" the right for the U.S. government to attach Iraq's assets, that the POWs will then have the right, under what is known as the OPTIONAL PROTOCOL, to sue the United States government. Is he simply trying to delay the award until a Democrat is President, or is there a logical reason for his opposition to letting the courts disperse the money these POWs have already been awarded?
QUOTE
If the President "wins" and prevents the American POWs from attaching Iraq's assets for the money they have already been awarded in the American court system, what message is he sending to the American military and to young people who might have planned to enlist in the future?
The answer is obvious, and the answer is that vets are treated like dirt by the very government they defended. Oh wait, they defended us! So we should pay, right?
Wait, wait, they defended Kuwait and Saudi! Those countries should pay.
And in the end, the vets get treated like dirt. The message is that. However, people joining up don't think along this line.
It's too depressing to contemplate. And besides, that was *then* and this is *now*. Nothing bad can happen to youth, until it happens.
Give the vets the bucks. What the heck, it's only a billion. Or maybe somebody else has his eyes on the prize?
More from the original news article:
So... a bunch of POWs sue Iraq in USA court. Iraq's government falls in March, so they can't possibly put on any kind of defense (not that they WOULD, mind you, but no one was left to turn off the lights, so they couldn't). And a judge rules in July that these POWs get $1 BILLION. Huh.
Insert your standard "I support the troops" message here.
But....
If my guess is right, the government has already used any seized assets for rebuilding and stabilizing Iraq, so the dirty secret here is that the money's probably not there to pay them anyway. We're giving $20 BILLION to Iraq to rebuild it; you don't think the frozen assets wouldn't have been used first?
Giving $1 BILLION to 17 of our own soldiers for their injuries sustained during a war doesn't seem like something to support. Especially since Iraq is already broke and the USA taxpayers (and others) are paying to fix it now.
I know that Congress passed a law last year allowing people to collect damages for terrorist acts by terrorist-sponsoring states. Not sure if the actions resulting from the 1991 Guld War truly fall into that category, since the war was triggered by our defense of Kuwait and not by Saddam committing terrorism against innocent USA civilians.
QUOTE
U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts ordered Iraq on July 7 -- three months after the fall of Saddam's regime -- to pay the 17 former POWs and their families $653 million in compensatory damages and $306 million in punitive damages for torturing the men. Roberts ordered a temporary freeze on $653 million in Iraqi assets then held in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, as a source of funds for the settlement
So... a bunch of POWs sue Iraq in USA court. Iraq's government falls in March, so they can't possibly put on any kind of defense (not that they WOULD, mind you, but no one was left to turn off the lights, so they couldn't). And a judge rules in July that these POWs get $1 BILLION. Huh.
Insert your standard "I support the troops" message here.
But....
If my guess is right, the government has already used any seized assets for rebuilding and stabilizing Iraq, so the dirty secret here is that the money's probably not there to pay them anyway. We're giving $20 BILLION to Iraq to rebuild it; you don't think the frozen assets wouldn't have been used first?
Giving $1 BILLION to 17 of our own soldiers for their injuries sustained during a war doesn't seem like something to support. Especially since Iraq is already broke and the USA taxpayers (and others) are paying to fix it now.
I know that Congress passed a law last year allowing people to collect damages for terrorist acts by terrorist-sponsoring states. Not sure if the actions resulting from the 1991 Guld War truly fall into that category, since the war was triggered by our defense of Kuwait and not by Saddam committing terrorism against innocent USA civilians.
Iraq owes between 60 and 130 billion in debts. All of the loaners want, and expect, their money back. The ex-POWs will probably never see a dime, but Bush isn't culpable for that.
$1 Billion to 17 POWs seems awfully excessive, even to a patriot like myself.
Legally, as Mrs. P said, the former Iraqi regime has billions upon billions of debt. Bush wants to forgive all of that debt in order to give Iraq a "fresh start". It would seems slightly disingenuous (internationally) to honor the debt to US POWs, but not to say, French arms dealers
.
Legally, as Mrs. P said, the former Iraqi regime has billions upon billions of debt. Bush wants to forgive all of that debt in order to give Iraq a "fresh start". It would seems slightly disingenuous (internationally) to honor the debt to US POWs, but not to say, French arms dealers
.
As always, thank you Amlord, for your undying feelings of love for my country. 
1 billion dollars!? 
Thats ridiculous. Why do they need to be paid so much?
How much compensation is the US going to pay to the children born in southern Iraq with genetic depleted uranium damage?
Thats ridiculous. Why do they need to be paid so much? How much compensation is the US going to pay to the children born in southern Iraq with genetic depleted uranium damage?
QUOTE(moif @ Oct 28 2003, 08:51 PM)
How much compensation is the US going to pay to the children born in southern Iraq with genetic depleted uranium damage?
None at all.
In other news... Iraq owes a lot of money. The US is now $480 billion in debt. THe combination of these factors means, deserving or undeserving as the soldiers may be, it's hopeless.
I'm confused as to how a United States court system can even make the determination that a foreign government thousands of miles away owes anything to any soldiers who either fought or were held prisoner there. I feel for those soldiers who were held for months and mistreated, but I wouldn't think that our legal system has the authority to determine or demand payment from a foreign government.
I also don't see where the amount of money would be necessary, even were the court systems to have such an authority. A billion dollars won't make the experience go away, and I would think the US government would pay for any medical or psychological help returning soldiers would need. As horrible of an experience as it may have been for the soldiers in question, I don't think that makes them eligible for or deserving of a lottery sum.
There seems to be a fault in the court system to me which has nothing to do with this administration or with past "failure" of Iraq to pay a price determined by a US legal court.
I also don't see where the amount of money would be necessary, even were the court systems to have such an authority. A billion dollars won't make the experience go away, and I would think the US government would pay for any medical or psychological help returning soldiers would need. As horrible of an experience as it may have been for the soldiers in question, I don't think that makes them eligible for or deserving of a lottery sum.
There seems to be a fault in the court system to me which has nothing to do with this administration or with past "failure" of Iraq to pay a price determined by a US legal court.
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Oct 29 2003, 09:56 AM)
I'm confused as to how a United States court system can even make the determination that a foreign government ...
This part really does make sense. The case was brought, and the plaintiffs requested $1 Billion as damages for the affected soldiers and their families. When the judge heard the case, the country of Iraq wasn't there to defend itself (being a bit busy with "major combat" going on), so the judge only heard the plaintiffs' side of the story. When time came to render the verdict, the judge was obligated to find for the plaintiffs, since Iraq did not defend itself, and the judge gave the plaintiffs what they requested. Since no country is there to appeal for Iraq, the judgement will stand, but will probably never be collected.
Was it all an exercise in silliness? Probably. I vaguely recall that the personnel from the US Embassy in Iran also collected something from Iran's frozen assets, so there's some precedent for it. Unless I recall wrongly....
QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 28 2003, 03:45 PM)
$1 Billion to 17 POWs seems awfully excessive, even to a patriot like myself.
Legally, as Mrs. P said, the former Iraqi regime has billions upon billions of debt. Bush wants to forgive all of that debt in order to give Iraq a "fresh start". It would seems slightly disingenuous (internationally) to honor the debt to US POWs, but not to say, French arms dealers .
Legally, as Mrs. P said, the former Iraqi regime has billions upon billions of debt. Bush wants to forgive all of that debt in order to give Iraq a "fresh start". It would seems slightly disingenuous (internationally) to honor the debt to US POWs, but not to say, French arms dealers
.Just a wild guess.
but I would think the French are no more to blame then the U.S. during the Iraq and Iran war. If my memory serves me correctly, we might have given Iraq a few arms And Horyok I had some of your good ole FRENCH FRIES today. Not FREEDOM FRIES
TOPIC REMINDER:
If the President "wins" and prevents the American POWs from attaching Iraq's assets for the money they have already been awarded in the American court system, what message is he sending to the American military and to young people who might have planned to enlist in the future?
...is there a logical reason for his opposition to letting the courts disperse the money these POWs have already been awarded?
If the President "wins" and prevents the American POWs from attaching Iraq's assets for the money they have already been awarded in the American court system, what message is he sending to the American military and to young people who might have planned to enlist in the future?
...is there a logical reason for his opposition to letting the courts disperse the money these POWs have already been awarded?
To Popeye : And I thank you for that, my friend! 
Horyok,
Please express personal commentary to another member via PM, as it really adds nothing to the debate at hand. Thanks
Please express personal commentary to another member via PM, as it really adds nothing to the debate at hand. Thanks
It seems to me that this thing is more of an international diplomatic thing than any sort of domestic or military policy decision. Right now the US is attempting to encourage nations who are owed large amounts of money by the Hussein regime in Iraq to forgive those debts. That would be a hard sell anytime, most especially with Old Europe, but if the US then allows debts owed to US citizens to be re-paid, it makes it almost impossible.
I don't really think it will have much of an effect on our men and women in the military. I doubt any of them are in the service for the purpose of getting captured, tortured and then recieving the big bucks for it afterwards.
I don't really think it will have much of an effect on our men and women in the military. I doubt any of them are in the service for the purpose of getting captured, tortured and then recieving the big bucks for it afterwards.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.