Iraq treatens to hurt US financially if we allow lawsuits against them

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, so after Bush coerced the Iraq War spending into the Defense Budget Bill, it included an overlooked provision allowing people who suffered under Saddam to sue the current Iraq government for damages. I believe the sufferers include US soldiers from the first Gulf War.

Bush Plans to Veto Defense Policy Bill

Quote:

Democratic congressional leaders complained that Bush's move was thrust upon them at the last minute. The controversy centers on one provision in the legislation dealing with Iraqi assets. The bill would permit plaintiffs' lawyers immediately to freeze Iraqi funds and would expose Iraq to "massive liability in lawsuits concerning the misdeeds of the Saddam Hussein regime," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.

"The new democratic government of Iraq, during this crucial period of reconstruction, cannot afford to have its funds entangled in such lawsuits in the United States," Stanzel said in a statement....

...The Iraqi government has warned that former U.S. prisoners of war from the first Gulf War might cite this legislation in an attempt to get money from the Iraqi government's reported $25 billion in assets now held in U.S. banks, they say.

Unless Bush vetoes the legislation, the Iraqis have threatened to withdraw all of their money from the U.S. financial system to protect it from the lawsuits, Democrats said. The White House contends the legislation subject to the Bush veto would imperil Iraqi assets held in the United States, including reconstruction and central bank funds.

Here we are propping up this government paying for the majority of their defense costs with our tax dollars and one, they have all these assets of their own, why aren't they paying the war costs?; two, they have the gall to threaten our financial markets if we dare seek compensation for people wronged; three, Bush didn't stand up to the Iraq government, he prefers to stick it to the handful of people who might sue Iraq; and four, just how do these assets fit into the picture in the first place? Are they Iraqi tax revenues? Is it money we have paid to anyone? Are they oil revenues? Is it money corrupt politicians are worried they won't be able to pilfer if the lawsuits are won? Are they assets that have been invested around the globe since before Saddam was toppled? And if 25 billion are in the US, what is the total global figure? Is this money they need for day to day operations?

I can understand the need not to have all the assets frozen but is that really what we are talking about here? If you sue for a couple million I assume you don't freeze 25 billion in assets. I need a bit of economics education here to decide how outraged I should be. Thanks in advance.

[egslim]

I imagine the people who could potentially claim suffering from Saddam number into the millions. They include everyone who fled the country under him, some 500,000 US soldiers, and everyone who lost a family member under Saddam. All great personal tragedies, no doubt. But if a mere 10,000 people each sue for a couple of million, those 25 billion can be gone very rapidly.

In my opinion, right now the one and only priority should be to stabilise Iraq into a country that is not a breeding pit for Islamic fanatics. Anything that detracts from reaching that goal is a very bad idea.

[Lensman]

Quote:

In my opinion, right now the one and only priority should be to stabilise Iraq into a country that is not a breeding pit for Islamic fanatics. Anything that detracts from reaching that goal is a very bad idea.

Hear! Hear!

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by egslim

In my opinion, right now the one and only priority should be to stabilise Iraq into a country that is not a breeding pit for Islamic fanatics. Anything that detracts from reaching that goal is a very bad idea.

Since Bush is the one who turned it into that breeding pit in the first place, how can we expect him or anyone who agrees with him to fix it?

[Praktik]

This sounds similar to the principle of "odious debt". Another good exploration of issues like this here.

To me, its perfectly reasonable for the Iraqi government to take the stance it is - why should THEY be responsible for the actions of a madman?

Skeptigirl, I get the feeling many Iraqis would return your outrage for saying the following:

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Here we are propping up this government paying for the majority of their defense costs with our tax dollars and one, they have all these assets of their own, why aren't they paying the war costs?

I'm not sure all Iraqis share the average American's take the Iraq invasion was a "noble enterprise", and would actually be fine with America paying for THEIR AMERICAN occupation.

As a non-American citizen, I see nothing wrong with American taxpayers shouldering the entire burden of the American misadventure in Iraq.

You made this bed, now you can lie in it. Exposing the fragile government America needs to succeed to liability for wrongs committed by a mad dictator was a foolish thing to include, and the Iraqis have every right to be pissed off about that clause.

I'm not even Iraqi, and I find it to be foolish and "rage worthy".

[Charlie Monoxide]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Since Bush is the one who turned it into that breeding pit in the first place, how can we expect him or anyone who agrees with him to fix it?

Hear hear!

Does Bush just read these bills the second before he signs them? Why was there no negotiations before hand?

Any litigation brought against Iraq (ie Saddam) would take years to process through and as we can see the surge going so swimmingly, Iraq will be self governing and policing shortly.

Charlie (think of those poor lawyers as well) Monoxide

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by Charlie Monoxide

Does Bush just read these bills the second before he signs them? Why was there no negotiations before hand?

Read? Bush?

Obvioulsy his 'bill on tape' wasn't ready until yesterday.

[Michael Redman]

I think Iran has a pretty good claim to damages suffered from Saddam's regime.

However, Saddam's regime no longer exists. The current government is not responsible for Saddam's actions. I don't see the benefit in making the people of Iraq pay for the crimes of the past regime (any more than they already have/are), especially considering the state of the Iraqi economy.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Michael Redman

I think Iran has a pretty good claim to damages suffered from Saddam's regime.

Indeed they do. The way their warnings of Saddam's use of chemical weapons against their cities and troops were downplayed by the US/UK is a pretty sad example of Western moral bankruptcy. The whole Iran/Iraq war is a story that should be told more often - it would have helped us to understand why for example, Saddam might have wanted to keep the appearance of having WMD's up, or why Iran has a "go it alone" policy since the world pretty much left it to die at the hands of a maniacal, gas-happy thug.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Praktik

I'm not sure all Iraqis share the average American's take the Iraq invasion was a "noble enterprise", and would actually be fine with America paying for THEIR AMERICAN occupation.

While I agree that we should pay whatever is necessary to stabilize the place, Iraq has not been technically occupied since 2004, when power was handed over to the Iraq government.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by WildCat

While I agree that we should pay whatever is necessary to stabilize the place, Iraq has not been technically occupied since 2004, when power was handed over to the Iraq government.

Ya (cough) forgot about that...

[egslim]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Since Bush is the one who turned it into that breeding pit in the first place, how can we expect him or anyone who agrees with him to fix it?

Whoa there. How does exposing Iraqi funds in the US to a potential freeze from court cases contribute in any way to "fixing" the situation in Iraq? I can only see detrimental effects from such a bill. It would reduce Iraqi-US relations on all levels and hurt an already fragile Iraqi economy, causing further destabilisation.

Regardless of my position on most of Bush's policies, this measure was a very bad idea and therefore I consider its veto a good thing.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Praktik

This sounds similar to the principle of "odious debt". Another good exploration of issues like this here.

To me, its perfectly reasonable for the Iraqi government to take the stance it is - why should THEY be responsible for the actions of a madman?

Skeptigirl, I get the feeling many Iraqis would return your outrage for saying the following:



I'm not sure all Iraqis share the average American's take the Iraq invasion was a "noble enterprise", and would actually be fine with America paying for THEIR AMERICAN occupation.

As a non-American citizen, I see nothing wrong with American taxpayers shouldering the entire burden of the American misadventure in Iraq.

You made this bed, now you can lie in it. Exposing the fragile government America needs to succeed to liability for wrongs committed by a mad dictator was a foolish thing to include, and the Iraqis have every right to be pissed off about that clause.

I'm not even Iraqi, and I find it to be foolish and "rage worthy".

I await knowing more about who really owns these funds and who they will eventually benefit. With the mess being the fault of this country, I agree. With the fact we continue the mess by propping up a pro-American/pro-Western oil corporation friendly government (that needs propping up why?) I am looking for more information before so readily buying the party line.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by fishbob

Read? Bush?

Obvioulsy his 'bill on tape' wasn't ready until yesterday.

Hey, don't bad mouth books on tape, they are a great way to use otherwise useless hours of commuting time.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I will look into more specifics of the bill. However, no one here seems too concerned about the threat of withdrawing funds and thus damaging financial markets. Whose side is this puppet government on? Is Bush being manipulated vis his incompetence? Is he blaming the Iraqis as an excuse?

I am particularly concerned about the manipulation via threats as much as anything else. Without suggesting any conspiracy theories, that doesn't mean there isn't another story here to find by following the money. After all there are billions of tax dollars shipped to Iraq IN CASH still unapologetically unaccounted for under Bremer's watch. And I don't buy the claim Cheney has no ties to Haliburton or that there aren't billions of dollars here being fed to the corporate trough they all feed from.

Don't you Republicans really care about your tax dollars? Or are you just unable/unwilling to consider corruption on a mass scale. It can't possibly be true, is that the idea?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Text of section 1083 (scroll down to SEC 1083)

Quote:

(1) NO IMMUNITY- A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case not otherwise covered by this chapter in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support or resources for such an act if such act or provision of material support or resources is engaged in by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency.

(2) CLAIM HEARD- The court shall hear a claim under this section if--

`(A)(i)(I) the foreign state was designated as a state sponsor of terrorism at the time the act described in paragraph (1) occurred, or was so designated as a result of such act, and, subject to subclause (II), either remains so designated when the claim is filed under this section or was so designated within the 6-month period before the claim is filed under this section; or...

... (ii) the claimant or the victim was, at the time the act described in paragraph (1) occurred--

`(I) a national of the United States;

`(II) a member of the armed forces; or

`(III) otherwise an employee of the Government of the United States, or of an individual performing a contract awarded by the United States Government, acting within the scope of the employee's employment;...

... (g) Property in Certain Actions-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (3), the property of a foreign state against which a judgment is entered under section 1605A, and the property of an agency or instrumentality of such a state, including property that is a separate juridical entity or is an interest held directly or indirectly in a separate juridical entity, is subject to attachment in aid of execution, and execution, upon that judgment as provided in this section, regardless of--

`(A) the level of economic control over the property by the government of the foreign state;

`(B) whether the profits of the property go to that government;

`(C) the degree to which officials of that government manage the property or otherwise control its daily affairs;

`(D) whether that government is the sole beneficiary in interest of the property; or

`(E) whether establishing the property as a separate entity would entitle the foreign state to benefits in United States courts while avoiding its obligations.

So this only applies to US government and military personnel, not everyone under the Sun as egslim suggests.

And it is interesting to note the frozen assets might include some corporate assets not directly in the hands of the Iraqis. I wonder what part that played in this?

Edited to answer my last question: Not likely, it appears most of the assets frozen are in bank deposits but I'm still looking into it.

[egslim]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

However, no one here seems too concerned about the threat of withdrawing funds and thus damaging financial markets.

I hope not, for one I consider an additional setback for the situation in Iraq far worse. Two, I expect the markets are liquid enough to restrict any damage to the financial markets to no more than a minor dip. Financial markets go up and down all the time.

Either way the measure is a bad idea for the situation in Iraq, and that consideration should carry the most weight.

Quote:

So this only applies to US government and military personnel, not everyone under the Sun as egslim suggests.

Does this still include the US soldiers from the first Gulf War you mentioned? I believe they number some 500,000.

edited to add: Can anyone who opposes Bush on this issue explain what good they expect the measure to accomplish? So far my impression is that the arguments boil down to either "Bush vetoes it, therefore it must be a good idea", or an emotionally driven reflex not to give in to an Iraqi threat.

[peptoabysmal]

From the link in the OP:

Quote:

...
Sovereign nations are normally immune from lawsuits in U.S. courts. An exception is made for state sponsors of terrorism and Iraq was designated such a nation in 1990. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, however, Congress passed a law and Bush issued a decree stating that Iraq was exempt from such lawsuits.

After that exemption was passed, the administration challenged and successfully overturned a $959 million court ruling for members of the U.S. military who said they were tortured as prisoners of war during the first Persian Gulf War.
...

1) It seems to me that there is already precedent in this case, I'm not sure the bill would hold up in court if passed.

2) This is another reason I likely won't be voting Democrat again. It seems that the best they can come up with are provisions intended to embarrass Bush, regardless of the consequences to the stability of Iraq. I was considering changing party, given the Republican choices in this election.

3) When you are a soldier, part of the gig is that you might be captured and/or tortured. However, if anyone owes them compensation, how about the government who put them in harm's way?

4) Maybe there is a job waiting for John Edwards if this bill passes.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by egslim

Iedited to add: Can anyone who opposes Bush on this issue explain what good they expect the measure to accomplish?

It appeases the trial lawyers, a major source of Democrat campaign funds.

30% of $25 billion is $7.5 billion in the pockets of trial lawyers!

It would be the biggest money grab since the incredibly stupid tobacco lawsuits a few years back.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by egslim

I hope not, for one I consider an additional setback for the situation in Iraq far worse. Two, I expect the markets are liquid enough to restrict any damage to the financial markets to no more than a minor dip. Financial markets go up and down all the time.

Either way the measure is a bad idea for the situation in Iraq, and that consideration should carry the most weight.


Does this still include the US soldiers from the first Gulf War you mentioned? I believe they number some 500,000.

edited to add: Can anyone who opposes Bush on this issue explain what good they expect the measure to accomplish? So far my impression is that the arguments boil down to either "Bush vetoes it, therefore it must be a good idea", or an emotionally driven reflex not to give in to an Iraqi threat.

500.000 lawsuits, I don't see that as realistic.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by peptoabysmal

From the link in the OP:

...
2) This is another reason I likely won't be voting Democrat again. ...

I take it you missed the part where this provision was wholeheartedly supported by the Republicans?

[egslim]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

500.000 lawsuits, I don't see that as realistic.

The number is not even all-inclusive. And at a few million dollars per case you only need a few thousand lawsuits to burn through 25 billion.

Much worse is the Iraqi relations disaster this could provoke. Imagine the reaction of Iraqis who since the US invasion have lived in a hellhole. They are torn between hating the US for initialising this hellhole and thankfulness for it removing Saddam. Now they learn their new, supposedly "free" country is being held responsible for Saddam's cruel actions, and continues to be treated as a state sponsor of terrorism.

That will only tip the balance towards hating the US, and how many more deaths will that cause?

I also notice you did not answer my previous question: "Can anyone who opposes Bush on this issue explain what good they expect the measure to accomplish?" It wasn't meant as retorical one.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Praktik

I'm not sure all Iraqis share the average American's take the Iraq invasion was a "noble enterprise", and would actually be fine with America paying for THEIR AMERICAN occupation.

Not so sure the average American shares it either. Polls these days aren't showing a lot of love for the war.

Quote:

As a non-American citizen, I see nothing wrong with American taxpayers shouldering the entire burden of the American misadventure in Iraq.

You made this bed, now you can lie in it. Exposing the fragile government America needs to succeed to liability for wrongs committed by a mad dictator was a foolish thing to include, and the Iraqis have every right to be pissed off about that clause.

I'm not even Iraqi, and I find it to be foolish and "rage worthy".

I am an American. What you stated is a longer version of Colin Powell's observation: "if you break it you own it."

Your point of view on this is both practical and sensible.

Hmm, might that be praktikal and sensible?

Kluge und weiser, vieleicht?

DR

[peptoabysmal]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

I take it you missed the part where this provision was wholeheartedly supported by the Republicans?

Yes, I did. Would you be so kind as to point it out?

Unless you are saying you believe this statement:

Quote:

...
House and Senate Democrats said Friday the first time they'd heard of any White House concerns with the legislation was after Congress sent the bill to Bush for his signature.

"The administration should have raised its objections earlier, when this issue could have been addressed without a veto," Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a joint statement. "The American people will have every right to be disappointed if the president vetoes this legislation, needlessly delaying implementation of the troops' pay raise, the Wounded Warriors Act and other critical measures."
...

... hardly an endorsement.
I can't find where it says anything close to that.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by egslim

Either way the measure is a bad idea for the situation in Iraq, and that consideration should carry the most weight.

I see Bush as easily the worst president of my life. But I think he's probably right here.

As to skeptigirl's comments about all the Iraqi assets and why doesn't the US just start letting the Iraqis use their own assets to run their own country:

That is more or less what I have thought was the right path for quite a while now. The notion that the Americans are accomplishing something by siding with this group or that group, killing some folks and pretending like if the US wasn't doing this everything would be terrible looks like it might just be typical self serving crap that is routinely believed by the occupying country or at least claimed by the leaders of the occupying country. But the reality might just be that the best way to end this mess is to gradually get out of the way and let the Iraqis sort it out. What the US is doing now is making sure that all sides have got lots of cool weapons to kill each other with when it leaves but it is real hard to see that the US is making something better for the Iraqis unless the complete ethnic cleansing of Iraq is the goal.

But despite my views about this, I don't see any benefit to allowing a bunch of US lawyers to initiate endless litigation about the crimes of Hussein. This is the Democrats scheming to enrich one of their interest groups (trial lawyers) rather than Democrats doing the best they can to help end this mess.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by peptoabysmal

Yes, I did. Would you be so kind as to point it out?

Unless you are saying you believe this statement:

... hardly an endorsement.
I can't find where it says anything close to that.

Well allow me to spoon feed you then, even though it wasn't exactly hard to check on who supported the provision.

Bush does about-face on defense policy bill

Quote:

It was also an embarrassment for some in Congress, including Republican senators who co-sponsored the provision, such as John Cornyn of Texas and Ted Stevens of Alaska. Republican senators joined Democrats in approving the broader defense bill overwhelmingly, but they backed the White House yesterday. Sen. John Warner of Virginia, who led the Senate Republicans in drafting the defense policy bill, said he was now swayed by the administration's arguments that it could endanger Iraq's new government.

The provision was not addressed at Iraq specifically. It was an amendment to another law adding an exemption against the ban on suing foreign governments. The exemption allowed lawsuits to proceed against governments declared to be state sponsors of terrorism. I guess everyone forgot that included Iraq prior to Saddam's demise.

It's interesting that before the Iraq war the US had already seized Iraq's foreign assets (I assume they were later unfrozen), but the odd thing is the frozen assets amounted to less than 2 billion. Now the amount of Iraq money in US banks is 20-30 billion.

No one has yet chimed in with any background information for us on just whose money this is, where did it come from, who currently controls it and so on. I was hoping someone here might know.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by davefoc

... This is the Democrats scheming to enrich one of their interest groups (trial lawyers) rather than Democrats doing the best they can to help end this mess.

Boy, everyone just puts out their favorite preconceived notions as if those assumptions are facts without checking on anything.

This was a provision against declared state sponsors of terrorism, a favorite Republican brownies points action. It had nothing to do with the campaign invented talking points lie that the Democrats are pro trial lawyers.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Boy, everyone just puts out their favorite preconceived notions as if those assumptions are facts without checking on anything.

Well, this certainly appears true in my case, but I don't know about everyone.

Quote:

This was a provision against declared state sponsors of terrorism, a favorite Republican brownies points action. It had nothing to do with the campaign invented talking points lie that the Democrats are pro trial lawyers.

I guess it must be some other party that controls California than the Democratic Party, because whatever party is in charge of California certainly has gone out of their way to do what trial lawyers want, regardless of who gets screwed along the way.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not to derail the thread but briefly, when there was a flu vaccine shortage before the 04 election, the Republicans put out a talking points memo that one of the reasons for the shortage of vaccine manufacturers was they had been driven away due to lawsuits.

It was a complete lie. There has been a no-fault insurance fund called the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund for many years to protect manufacturers from any lawsuits arising from vaccine adverse events. There had been something like 2 lawsuits in the previous 20 years against any influenza vaccine manufacturer.

The problem, Dave, is slogans and 30 second campaign ads only serve to stop people from thinking and actually investigating issues. There are 2 sides to lawsuits and a few mitigating factors as well. First there is the injured party. In medicine we have somewhere around 100,000 DEATHS a year from preventable medical errors. And that is the low estimate. Here's the high estimate:

Quote:

An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company.

The HealthGrades Patient Safety in American Hospitals study is the first to look at the mortality and economic impact of medical errors and injuries that occurred during Medicare hospital admissions nationwide from 2000 to 2002. The HealthGrades study applied the mortality and economic impact models developed by Dr. Chunliu Zhan and Dr. Marlene R. Miller in a research study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in October of 2003. The Zhan and Miller study supported the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) 1999 report conclusion, which found that medical errors caused up to 98,000 deaths annually and should be considered a national epidemic.

On the other side, no one wants to pay the high costs of medical malpractice or see all the obstetricians leave town because malpractice rates make it impossible to practice. Then there are the high profile cases which make the news and look like people won the lawsuit lottery. And there are big corporations who put out the propaganda to get all damages capped.

If you let the 30 second ads and the outrageous news reports confirm your stereotypes of a Democrat and/or a Republican, you let the corporate advertising control your vote. This issue in particular cannot be boiled down to the lie that the Democrats support trial lawyers. Maybe the Dems lean more toward victims and maybe Republicans lean more toward business, but the issues are not so simple.

[egslim]

Originally Posted by davefoc

The notion that the Americans are accomplishing something by siding with this group or that group, killing some folks and pretending like if the US wasn't doing this everything would be terrible looks like it might just be typical self serving crap that is routinely believed by the occupying country or at least claimed by the leaders of the occupying country. But the reality might just be that the best way to end this mess is to gradually get out of the way and let the Iraqis sort it out. What the US is doing now is making sure that all sides have got lots of cool weapons to kill each other with when it leaves but it is real hard to see that the US is making something better for the Iraqis unless the complete ethnic cleansing of Iraq is the goal.

I think you're right. Eventually the sectarian violence in Iraq will die down, because the people from one side are either dead or gone from the local neighbourhood. So you end up with different sectarian groups, each in its own enclave, and a lot of people in refugee camps.

Then what? Perhaps all the different groups can come to some kind of understanding, creating a national Iraqi politics in the process. Then they can rebuild their country. If they fail to reach an understanding, then Iraq will either continue as a failed state eventually becoming a dictatorship, or the country will fall apart in different nations. US forces can prolong the process, but eventually it will be up to the Iraqis.

Quote:

But despite my views about this, I don't see any benefit to allowing a bunch of US lawyers to initiate endless litigation about the crimes of Hussein. This is the Democrats scheming to enrich one of their interest groups (trial lawyers) rather than Democrats doing the best they can to help end this mess.

You may be right. I'm not into partisan politics, I despise both major parties and consider most minors nutbars. But I'm still waiting for an answer from one of the proponents of this measure what good they think it'll accomplish.

[Beerina]

Didn't the US end up shouldering much of the rebuilding burden, financially? Even after they said they were gonna use Iraq oil profits for it? This to help keep down this war burden on what they hoped was a new democracy?