 |
| |
|
|
cinch
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Jul 2002
time: 22:31
|
|
************************************
(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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
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?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-11-2003 22:52
|