Few months ago, the 1600 Crew bitch-slapped the survivors of the Holocaust, in court, taking sides with the Insurance Industry. Well, seems that they might have been looking for protection from some one else, a group they just love to hate. Who?
Veterans. Surprised? Didn't think so. Seems that some of the POW's from Desert Storm wanted compensation for their plight at the hands of the Iraqis, fiiled suit, and won since the Iraqi's defaulted by not showing up. So they got to split a verdict of $653 million dollars, nice money. But wait. The 1600 Crew doesn't want them to get it.
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."
They should have been suspicious when those words left that miserable draft-dodgers mouth.
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.
...
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.
The Patriot Act? What else did the congresscritters toss in there that they didn't read before voting on it in such a hurry? That's a travesty...using that piece-of-shit legislation against Veterans.
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."
For the cash (literally) "but the use of the courts and damages remedies interferes with the president's conduct of foreign policy." Anyone out there with Lexis might want to see if that quote matches up with the language that was used in the Insurance Industry/Holocaust Survivor suit. I think it's pretty damn close, if not the exact 1600 Crew talking point.
Many Vets keep voting republican because? Not a freaking clue.
posted by Jo Fish on 07.30.03 at 01:14 AM
Comments:
"For the cash (literally) "but the use of the courts and damages remedies interferes with the president's conduct of foreign policy." Anyone out there with Lexis might want to see if that quote matches up with the language that was used in the Insurance Industry/Holocaust Survivor suit."
From the SC decision issued:
"Held: California’s HVIRA interferes with the President’s conduct of the Nation’s foreign policy and is therefore preempted. Pp. 14–31."
The Amicus Brief filed by the administration is available here.
posted by: Seb on 07.30.03 at 04:45 AM [permalink]
While the Bush Administration seems to despise (and ignore) the entire Bill of Rights (so far, only the Third Amendment has not actively been trampled on by it-- though I daresay, I can see my house being used for barracks any day now...) it seems clearly to have a LEAST favorite Amendment-- the Fifth:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Seems like this reading of the Patriot Act kind of makes hash of the last part, don't you think?