Cash convoys to Kuwait, huh? Doesn't sound to me like those bills are gonna end up back in Baghdad.

What does International Law provide with respect to this cash, as well as other assets confiscated by the U.S. and Britain? Is there such a thing as a "Prudent Conquerer" rule that requires preservation of such assets?

Hey, Shag, here's one answer, from an official US Government site.
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2003/20693.htm

My first thought about all this is that the citation only addresses "state" funds and not those judged or assumed to be "personal property" of any of the Husseins. Whether or not that's a moot question is immaterial in International Law. Since Mr. Lanzilotti only addresses the issue of state funds, and not personal property, I'd be willing to speculate that any cash found anywhere will be deemed "personal property" and will disappear - somewhere.

It's common wisdom that in dictatorships the assets of the dictator and the state become easily mixed, and quite often the dictator views the state funds as his own.

There's a brief discussion of this here:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1912/a09.html?341

Here's a report of an individual's assets being seized in forfeiture because of linkage to terrorism.
http://www.ict.org.il/spotlight/det.cfm?id=94

There's a .pdf file from a Tulsa oil lawyer about what's *supposed* to happen to Iraqi oil here.
www.energy.uh.edu/documents/behind_the_gas_pump/ Langenkamp_FullPaper.pdf

But, again, barrels of oil, pieces of anitquitarian history and documented funds recorded as assets of the Iraqi government are properly protected by international law.

Cash is so nice, so portable, and so untraceable. Is Saddam going to pop in one day at Mr. Bremer's palace and ask for his $100 million in hundred dollar bills? I suppose Mr. Bremer would ask him to prove it was his.

Lurch,
Although I am not well versed in international law, if the private funds or assets of Saddam were stolen from the state, the state should have a valid claim for those private funds or assets. So the state's claim should be stronger that the finder's forfeiture claim against Saddam. Maybe we can get Baker Botts to take this on a contingency.

Hey, Shag, props to you for a good logical argument.

Now: go prove to the 1600 crew that the cash was really Iraq's and not Saddam's.

And I know you will accept the "honest count" of the cash that may or may not eventually surface for public consumption. I trust 'em.

Don't you?

In an odd twist to this this story, a related piece proves once again proves that serendipity in news exists.

Seventeen US POWs from Gulf War I sued the Iraqi Government after their release because they were tortured. Their lawsuit wound its way through the Federal Court system and they prevailed.

They were awarded $653 million for damages.

Simultaneously, Occupant Codpiece had ordered the freezing of Iraqi assets in the US, amounting to some $1.7 Billion.

Sounds like a slam dunk, neh?

Naw.

The Administration that loves and supports its troops far better and more than those evil Democrats who are objectively pro-Saddam claims the vets can't be paid from this $1.7 Billion, because it needs that money to pay off Halliburton, Bechtel, and KBR.

Here's the money quote:

" ...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.'..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/29/politics/29POW.html?th

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams