No Money For POWs?

cinch · November 10, 2003, 13:52

************************************
(Question period with Scott McClellan)

Q Scott, there are 17 former POWs from the first Gulf War who were tortured and filed suit against the regime of Saddam Hussein. And a judge has ordered that they are entitled to substantial financial damages. What is the administration's position on that? Is it the view of this White House that that money would be better spent rebuilding Iraq rather than going to these former POWs?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know that I view it in those terms, David. I think that the United States -- first of all, the United States condemns in the strongest terms the brutal torture to which these Americans were subjected. They bravely and heroically served our nation and made sacrifices during the Gulf War in 1991, and there is simply no amount of money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. That's what our view is.

Q But, so -- but isn't it true that this White House --

Q They think they're is an --

Q Excuse me, Helen -- that this White House is standing in the way of them getting those awards, those financial awards, because it views it that money better spent on rebuilding Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, there's simply no amount of money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering --

Q Why won't you spell out what your position is?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm coming to your question. Believe me, I am. Let me finish. Let me start over again, though. No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of a very brutal regime, at the hands of Saddam Hussein. It was determined earlier this year by Congress and the administration that those assets were no longer assets of Iraq, but they were resources required for the urgent national security needs of rebuilding Iraq. But again, there is simply no amount of compensation that could ever truly compensate these brave men and women.

Q Just one more. Why would you stand in the way of at least letting them get some of that money?

MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree with the way you characterize it.

Q But if the law that Congress passed entitles them to access frozen assets of the former regime, then why isn't that money, per a judge's order, available to these victims?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I pointed out that that was an issue that was addressed earlier this year. But make no mistake about it, we condemn in the strongest possible terms the torture that these brave individuals went through --

Q -- you don't think they should get money?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- at the hands of Saddam Hussein. There is simply no amount of money that can truly compensate those men and women who heroically served --

Q That's not the issue --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- who heroically served our nation.

Q Are you opposed to them getting some of the money?

MR. McCLELLAN: And, again, I just said that that had been addressed earlier this year.

Q No, but it hasn't been addressed. They're entitled to the money under the law. The question is, is this administration blocking their effort to access some of that money, and why?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't view it that way at all. I view it the way that I stated it, that this issue was --

Q But you are opposed to them getting the money.

MR. McCLELLAN: This issue was addressed earlier this year, and we believe that there's simply no amount of money that could truly compensate these brave men and women for what they went through and for the suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein --

Q So no money.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and that's my answer.
*******************************************

Thank you, Tom Tomorrow.

Official Link

Nubclear · November 10, 2003, 13:56

"No amount of money could ever compensate them...So let's just not give them any!"

Japher · November 10, 2003, 14:22

Do soldiers get money if the are wounded in battle?

SlowwHand · November 10, 2003, 14:27

All part of the job hazards. Wounded or P.O.W.

Gatekeeper · November 10, 2003, 14:55

Did POWs from WW I, WW II, Korea or Vietnam get paid for their misery and suffering (beyond their usual pay scales)?

If not, I don't think we should set a precedent and start giving POWs a share of a conquered nation's treasury. What's next? Wounded get in on it, too? Maybe those who weren't physically wounded, but bear mental scars? I don't want to sound callous, but isn't being wounded, killed or becoming a POW a natural risk of being a soldier in a combat zone?

Gatekeeper

DinoDoc · November 10, 2003, 15:07

We're looking for Saddam they can collect anything he has left after we get through with him.

MichaeltheGreat · November 10, 2003, 17:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Did POWs from WW I, WW II, Korea or Vietnam get paid for their misery and suffering (beyond their usual pay scales)?

If not, I don't think we should set a precedent and start giving POWs a share of a conquered nation's treasury. What's next? Wounded get in on it, too? Maybe those who weren't physically wounded, but bear mental scars? I don't want to sound callous, but isn't being wounded, killed or becoming a POW a natural risk of being a soldier in a combat zone?

Gatekeeper

(a) These are not conquered nation or occupied nation assets. They are assets that have been frozen for years by Executive Order, as part of the sanctions against Iraq. Much of the money seized under these executive orders are personal assets of members of Hussein's family and government. These assets are most likely not provably stolen, so there is no title issue that would automatically make them returnable to any particular party.

(b) The suit was not for being captured or treated as POW, it was for deliberate, extralegal physical and mental injury inflicted by agents of the Iraqi government. There is no privilege under US law which grants foreign governments or their agents immunity from liability for their illegal or unlawful actions. Why should we create something that amounts to such a privilege on a one-off basis just to screw over these 17 Americans?

(c) This isn't a case of "getting paid" - it's a case of collecting damages against solvent defendents who deliberately broke the law and caused physaical injury to the plaintiffs.

(d) Why shouldn't we set a precedent for punishment of wrongdoers in situations like this?

SlowwHand · November 10, 2003, 17:46

D) Like by nuking them.

Sikander · November 10, 2003, 21:42

A lot of people in Iraq have at least as much to gain by suing Saddam and Company, but as there is no functional legal system yet in Iraq they can't do so. There won't be enough money to pay off these claims, but by allowing these former PoWs to cash out first they'll get paid at the expense (eventually) of those hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who in many cases suffered much more.

MichaeltheGreat · November 10, 2003, 22:29

That's never a problem with other litigants, and Iraqis have no basis for suing Saddam in US courts. It's up to a future Iraqi government to decide if/how it wants to compensate Iraqis who were (legally, according to Iraqi law at the time) abused and victimized by the Hussein regime.

Meanwhile, this is an existing suit on a totally separate issue, done except for appeals by the US government. And Iraq sits on enough oil that I don't think the Iraqi people will have to worry about running out of money any time soon.

Gatekeeper · November 11, 2003, 04:19

MtG:

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating in favor of the former government of Saddam Hussein here. I was under the initial impression that these claims were against the general Iraqi treasury. If there's a way to bleed off Hussein's personal fortune, I'm sure as heck not automatically against it.

Gatekeeper

NeOmega · November 11, 2003, 06:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating in favor of the former government of Saddam Hussein here. I was under the initial impression that these claims were against the general Iraqi treasury. If there's a way to bleed off Hussein's personal fortune, I'm sure as heck not automatically against it.

Iraq is Saddam. Saddam is Iraq.

If you take money from Saddam, you are taking it from the Iraqis. I mean, where do you think he got his personal fortune from? Bake Sales?

Buck Birdseed · November 11, 2003, 06:30

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
illegal or unlawful actions

Just out of interest, what's the difference between an illegal action and an unlawful one?

MichaeltheGreat · November 11, 2003, 06:50

Illegal basically means a specific violation of statutory law, treaty, or regulation.

Unlawful also includes actions which are not expressly illegal, but are a general violation of civil law, common law duties, torts, etc.

Ted Striker · November 11, 2003, 06:55

it's late, get some sleep muchacho

Case · November 11, 2003, 07:13

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Kuwaitis still lined up to get all the reparations they were awarded from Iraq in responce to the damage caused during the invasion and occupation of Kuwait? If it's fair and reasonable for this money to be paid for breaches of international law (which AFAIK included the mistreatment of POWs), then it only seems fair for the American POWs to be compensated as well.

As for setting a precedent, I thought that it was long established principle (not law) that military personel who were mistreated while POWs deserve special treatment from their government (though there sadly is no law - other then war crimes trials, which are often forgone for political reasons - forcing the government who captured them to pay up). Given that the ammount of money the pilots are owed probably doesn't amount to much, I don't see why the US government doesn't just pay up on behalf of Iraq.

MichaeltheGreat · November 11, 2003, 07:17

One of the UNSCRs affecting Iraq ordered Iraqi payment of reparations to Kuwait, and imposed sanctions on Iraq for refusal to pay those reparations. The sanctions have been lifted, but AFAIK, the Kuwaiti reparations claim was not extinguished, it's just no longer a trigger for sanctions.

MichaeltheGreat · November 11, 2003, 07:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
it's late, get some sleep muchacho

You're up.

Besides, I'm working, too.

Chemical Ollie · November 11, 2003, 07:40

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
...

And Iraq sits on enough oil that I don't think the Iraqi people will have to worry about running out of money any time soon.

So does USA

Chemical Ollie · November 11, 2003, 07:45

British Andy McNab and American Jessica Lynch knew how to extract money from their POW experience - just write a book...