Reply
Fri 9 Apr, 2004 04:25 pm
contractors reported missing; thought to be taken as POWS.
War is over?
Mission accomplished?
If they get out of it alive, this may be their future, because, hey, we need the money to keep our tax cuts:
Bush/Ashcroft say no to American POWS
The Bush administration urged an appeals court yesterday to overturn a judge's order awarding nearly $1 billion in Iraqi money to 17 Americans taken prisoner by Saddam Hussein's government during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/099/nation/US_urges_overturning_of_1b_award_to_91_POWs+.shtml
Major Combat Operations have been over for several months. This is just the "mopping up" period, where we catch the stragglers.
Then I guess instead we can refer to them as "Prisoners of "mopping up"?
The war continues. But Major Combat Operations ended on May 1 2003.
State Department Information
The Vietnam Conflict was not a war either. They were still called POWs.
Which stragglers, Tarantulas?
The quote that started this thread refers us to a link where further down in the same article, the writer says:
Quote:Justice Department attorney Gregory Katsas said that foreign policy interests are at stake, and that the POWs' legal claims should be handled through diplomatic channels rather than the courts.
The administration maintains that countless people suffered at the hands of Hussein and plenty will be seeking compensation from the new government, jeopardizing its fragile existence. Once the Iraqi government gets on more solid footing, the administration believes reparations could be negotiated.
Can you honestly say this is not reasonable?
1 Billion for 19 victims is not worth jeopardizing the future of Iraq.
Anywho that has some interesting legal questions, does the US court get to rule on Iraqi money just because it's frozen here? I need to read up on that.
Any reparations should come from Saddam's personal money that he had stashed away, not from the new government. I would be in favor of giving Saddam's money to the people he tortured and the families of the people he killed. It will provide a great deal of personal satisfaction to the Iraqi people.
InfraBlue wrote:Which stragglers, Tarantulas?
There was an interview last nite on TV with an AP reporter who himself and one or two other people were detained and questioned by some baathists day before yesterday near Fallujah. These are remnants of Saddam loyalist he said, that's who most of the stragglers are.
Tarantulas,
In a way, it's the same. He didn't get that money for being an astute businessman but by being the head of the Iraqi state.
The monies seized from him were probably going to be put back into Iraq, so I think it's a moot distinction.
I'm hoping more and more of Iraq's creditors will simply forgive the debts and liabilities.
Countries rarely get a fresh start and I'd like to see it for once.
Does the US death toll now stand at 622 or 625?
I'm afraid we will be seeing 1,000+ by the election.
Also from the link: Stewart Baker, attorney for the POWs, told a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that his clients simply want the judgment in their favor upheld to affirm their suffering and allow them to collect at a later time.
Upheld, not denied. They don't care from where in Iraq the money comes from. It looks like the admin is just saying "NO, we'll think about it later and maybe make you an offer!" (negotiate)
Tarantulas "Any reparations should come from Saddam's personal money that he had stashed away, not from the new government. I would be in favor of giving Saddam's money to the people he tortured and the families of the people he killed. It will provide a great deal of personal satisfaction"
Yes, that would be just. It doesn't sound as if the admin plans to honor the judgement, no matter where the money comes from, though. (again, negotiate) It sounds to me like they plan to try to try and keep as much of that money as they can, for other purposes.
From the link: "(the administration) argued that President Bush formally seized those assets after the invasion of Iraq last year and that the money would be used for rebuilding the country."
Maybe after the country is "rebuilt", then he will support these servicemen?
Craven de Kere wrote:Tarantulas,
In a way, it's the same. He didn't get that money for being an astute businessman but by being the head of the Iraqi state.
The monies seized from him were probably going to be put back into Iraq, so I think it's a moot distinction.
I'm hoping more and more of Iraq's creditors will simply forgive the debts and liabilities.
Countries rarely get a fresh start and I'd like to see it for once.
As I understand it, Saddam diverted UN funds from the Oil For Food program and put the money into his pocket. They keep finding stashes of money here and there, like that one tanker truck that was carrying gold bars in the tank. I've seen another incident where soldiers opened up a house and started carrying out metal cans full of US dollars.
The Iraqis should ultimately decide what happens to that money. I would like to see them have a giant garage sale at each of Saddam's palaces so the people could own little pieces of what should have been spent on them. And I agree with forgiving Iraqi debt too. It will take a while for them to get on their feet as a government.
The Shia wanted Saddam out of power. Sadr's father was exterminated by Saddam. They were not a part of Saddam's military. They were oppressed by him. So, how are they stragglers?
Sure, some are Baathists, but not all.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace