Support Our Troops? Ha...ha..ha!

[reconeil]

You're getting better than ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Only the blind cannot see through all your canned DNC Writings and/or typically echoed attacks against all opposing and/or political BS.

NOW you're even calling anyone opposing all you ilk and/or The Democrat/Socialist/Leftists posing as Liberals: "Adolescent,
moronic and simply childish",....which is pretty-childish in itself.
I guess that's the best that Career Political & Military Undermining Leftists like yourself can do?

Fortunately, not as many Americans were taken-in by your and clique's typically deceptive and vile garbage spouted,...and thusly NO DOUBT WHY CURRENTLY, PERPETUALLY & QUITE WHININGLY THE BIG LOOSERS.

Regardless Gimpy, if you're REALLY interested (doubt it very much) whom are the better suited for supporting The Troops, instead of just perpetually demoralizing or undermining "Them",...why not ask The Troops themselves whom "They" would prefer?

I doubt very much if very many in The U.S. Military would prefer: "I despise The Military" and/or; "Lover-boy" Bill Clinton or ANY of his foreigner-favoring Democrat Leftist Gang coming back to COMMAND The Military and RULE America?

Besides Gimpy, we're AT WAR and America cannot afford large numbers of valued military personnel resigning or leaving,...such as did during CLINTON's LORDLY REALM.

Hell,...when: "Slick Willy" was Commander-In-Chief MANY of The U.S. Military ACTUALLY RESENTED having to Salute The Worst Oval Office Desecrator (dirtier also) in American History.
Don't believe that MANY would even except a cigar from: "Lover-boy",...since well known how they were pre-moistened by subordinate Maidens of His Court?

Neil

[Gimpy]

Originally posted by Seascamp In the aftermath of World War I, President Wilson warned against the reparations demanded by the greedy and vindictive French, Italians and Brits stating they only guaranteed another war. He was right and World War II was on the plate the moment he was ignored. Plus the grinding poverty these reparations caused gave a strong foothold to the then fledgling communists and let another evil genie out of the bottle that is still reaping a grim harvest to this day. US WWII Vets/former POWs have been trying to get reparations from Japan and Germany for decades but to no avail. No doubt the Korean and Vietnam Veterans have a case but I know of no litigation that is pending. The GWI abused former POWs probably have a case as well but will be standing in a long, long, line of litigants that include Iran, Kuwait, the Kurds, the Shiites, France, Germany, and Russia just to name a few. So I suppose Bush could ignore the sage advice given by Wilson and let the litigation storm loose. Or maybe the next US Pres will be inclined to litigate Iraq into oblivion but he or she would have to totally ignore historical realities and known results. I think Saddam Hussein said it best when he lamented, ?The line of those waiting to pick my bones clean is endless?. He is gone now but the line isn?t, not by a long shot.

Scamp

Finally!.............A response that has some merit and relevance for adding to the debate!

Thanks Scamp for at least not resorting to "tactics" of other folks around here and offering at least a semblance of factual history that sheds light on the subject matter!

However, I have "highlighted" (in red) several portions of your response to show the elements or factors that distinguish the contrasting legal and international significance of this situation.

This latest chapter in the legal history of torture is being written by American pilots who were beaten and abused by Iraqis during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. And it has taken a strange twist.

The current Bush administration is fighting the former prisoners of war in court, trying to prevent them from collecting nearly $1 billion from Iraq that a federal judge awarded them as compensation for their torture at the hands of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Their rationale: Today's Iraqis are good guys, and they need the money.????


The case abounds with ironies. It pits the U.S. government squarely against its own war heroes and the Geneva Convention.
Many of the pilots were tortured in the same Iraqi prison, Abu Ghraib, where American soldiers abused Iraqis 15 months ago. Those Iraqi victims, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said, deserve compensation from the United States.


But the American victims of Iraqi torturers are not entitled to similar payments from Iraq, the U.S. government says. "It seems so strange to have our own country fighting us on this," said a retired Air Force Col., David W. Eberly, the senior officer among the former POWs.


This case is now being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and tests whether "state sponsors of terrorism" can be sued in the U.S. courts for torture, murder or hostage-taking. The court is expected to decide in the next two months whether to hear the appeal.


The republican led Congress opened the door to such claims in 1996, when it lifted the shield of sovereign immunity - which basically prohibits lawsuits against foreign governments - for any nation that supports terrorism . At that time, Iraq was one of seven nations identified by the State Department as sponsoring terrorist activity. (Which is totally diferent than the past, historical cases you've mentioned prior to this one!) The 17 Gulf War POWs looked to have a very strong case when they first filed suit in 2002. They had been undeniably tortured by a tyrannical regime, one that had $1.7 billion of its assets frozen by the U.S. government.


This picture changed, however, when the United States invaded Iraq and toppled Hussein from power nearly two years ago. On July 21, 2003, two weeks after the Gulf War POWs won their court case in U.S. District Court, the Bush administration intervened to argue that their claims should be dismissed. "No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of this very brutal regime and at the hands of Saddam Hussein," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told reporters when asked about the case in November 2003. What a CROCK, huh????

Government lawyers have insisted, literally, on "no amount of money" going to the Gulf War POWs. "These resources are required for the urgent national security needs of rebuilding Iraq," McClellan and other whitehouse folks have said.


This case also tests a key provision of the Geneva Convention, the international law that governs the treatment of prisoners of war. The United States and other signers pledged never to "absolve" a state of "any liability" for the torture of POWs.


Former military lawyers and a bipartisan group of lawmakers have been among those who have urged the Supreme Court to take up the case and to strengthen the law against torturers and tyrannical regimes.


"Our government is on the wrong side of this issue," so says Jeffrey F. Addicott, a former Army lawyer and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in San Antonio. "A lot of Americans would scratch their heads and ask why is our government taking the side of Iraq against our POWs."

On the first day of the fighting during Desert Storm, a jet piloted by Marine Corps Lt. Col. Clifford Acree was downed over Iraq by a surface-to-air missile. He suffered a neck injury ejecting from the plane and was soon taken prisoner by the Iraqis. Blindfolded and handcuffed, he was beaten until he lost consciousness. His nose was broken, his skull was fractured, and he was threatened with having his fingers cut off. He lost 30 pounds during his 47 days of captivity.

He and several other U.S. service members were near starvation when they were freed. Other POWs had their eardrums ruptured and were urinated on during their captivity at Abu Ghraib.


All the while, their families thought they were dead because the Iraqis did not notify the U.S. government of their capture.
In April 2002, the Washington law firm of Steptoe & Johnson filed suit on behalf of the 17 former POWs and 37 of their family members. This suit, Acree vs. Republic of Iraq, sought monetary damages for the "acts of torture committed against them and for pain, suffering and severe mental distress of their families."


Usually, foreign states have a sovereign immunity that shields them from being sued. But in the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, Congress authorized U.S. courts to award "money damages ... against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage [or] hostage taking."

This provision was "designed to hold terrorist nations accountable for the torture of Americans and to deter rogue nations from engaging in such actions in the future ," Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and George Allen (R-Va.) said last year in a letter to Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft that urged him to support the POWs' claim.


The case came before U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts. There was no trial; Hussein's regime ignored the suit, and the U.S. State Department chose to take no part in the case.

On July 7, 2003, the judge handed down a long opinion that described the abuse suffered by the Gulf War POWs, and he awarded them $653 million in compensatory damages. He also assessed $306 million in punitive damages against Iraq. Lawyers for the POWs asked him to put a hold on some of Iraq's frozen assets.

No sooner had the POWs celebrated their victory than they came up against a new roadblock: Bush administration lawyers argued that the case should be thrown out of court on the grounds that Bush had voided any such claims against Iraq, which was now under U.S. occupation. The administration lawyers based their argument on language in an emergency bill, passed shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, approving the expenditure of $80 billion for military operations and reconstruction efforts. One clause in the legislation authorized the president to suspend the sanctions against Iraq that had been imposed as punishment for the invasion of Kuwait more than a decade earlier.

The president's lawyers said this clause also allowed Bush to remove Iraq from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism and to set aside pending monetary judgments against Iraq. So Bush apparently would rather see this money benefit the people of Iraq? Rather than our OWN TROOPS who suffered at the hands of Iraqis'???? Can you belive that $hit?????


When the POWs' case went before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,, the three-judge panel ruled unanimously for the Bush administration and threw out the lawsuit.

The administration also succeeding in killing a congressional resolution supporting the POWs' suit. "U.S. courts no longer have jurisdiction to hear cases such as those filed by the Gulf War POWs," then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said in a letter to lawmakers. "Moreover, the president has ordered the vesting of blocked Iraqi assets for use by the Iraqi people and for reconstruction."


Already frustrated by this turn of events, the former POWs were absolutely flabbergasted when Rumsfeld said he favored awarding compensation to the Iraqi prisoners who were abused by the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib.


His exact words were, "I am seeking a way to provide appropriate compensation to those detainees who suffered grievous and brutal abuse and cruelty at the hands of a few members of the U.S. military. It is the right thing to do," Rumsfeld told a Senate committee last year.


By contrast, the government's lawyers have refused to even discuss a settlement in the POWs' case , say lawyers for the Gulf War veterans. "They were willing to settle this for pennies on the dollar," said Addicott, the former Army lawyer.


The last hope for the POWs rests with the Supreme Court. So, as recent history has shown, not much of a hope for any relief there! Their lawyers petitioned the high court last month to hear the case. It has been renamed Acree vs. Iraq and the United States .
(Yeah, I guess SO...........since they can't seem to win anything rightfully from Iraq????)


The POWs say the justices should decide the "important and recurring question of whether U.S. citizens who are victims of state-sponsored terrorism may seek redress against terrorist states in federal court." Which as I said earlier.............is totally different than the history of "reparations" from earlier wars and conflicts!


This spring, Justice Department lawyers are expected to file a brief urging the court to turn away the appeal.

Like all other aspects of this administrations so-called "support" of our troops".............this should come as NO surprise!
-------

PS.....................Neil..................Do you suppose, just ONCE in a while, you could "offer" some substantive, quantitative and factual information to the "debate" as has Sir Scamp??????

Just asking???

[Seascamp]

I heard of this case sometime back, maybe more than two years ago, and at that time the litigants were going after Iraqi assets being held by the US Gvt. I can presume that holding those assets involves some stewardship, accountability and eventual return of the assets once a new Government has been established and is functional. Equally I can presume that the stewardship includes guardianship against dissemination of the assets through litigation. In similar vein, I would like to see how German and Japanese assets in the US were dealt with in the post war scenario and if any injured POW Vets asked for and received any of the seized German or Japanese assets. The litigants in this case are asking for reparations from a government that no longer exists and by going after seized assets are up against a long, difficult and precedent setting legal battle that will have very, very stiff international opposition. I certainly am not against those brave souls getting something but I don?t see this Pres. or past or future Pres. being the one that set or sets the precedent and opens the vault to seized assets.

If this administration caves in, it?s an absolute that the line of litigants trying to grab a piece of the action at the Fed Courthouse will be very long indeed. And then the rightful owners of the assets; the Iraqi People, are certainly not going to stand still for any such thing, bet on that as well. All in all, it?s a very though situation with a lot of history and I can clearly see the arguments on each side and have no good advise to offer of even think of. Tiz a no win argument and situation methinks.

Scamp

[Gimpy]

this particular "case" is profoundly different than past "precedent" setting situations of this nature.

You have raised some very good points................but I still don't think good enough to prevent these former soldiers and airmen from receiving their award.

Why? Because these former POWs launched their lawsuit in April 2002 under a 1996 law that allows terrorist nations, so designated by the State Department, to be sued for personal injuries to U.S. nationals, including prisoners of war. They argued that they were tortured in violation of the Geneva Conventions' ban on mistreatment of POWs.


Their position was strengthened in November 2002 when Congress passed and Bush signed into law a terrorism insurance bill allowing Americans to collect court-ordered compensatory damages from frozen assets of terrorist states.


U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts ordered Iraq on July 7, 2002 -- shortly after the fall of Hussein's regime -- to pay the 17 ex-POWs and their families $653 million in compensatory damages and $306 million in punitive damages for torturing the men. Roberts ordered a temporary freeze on $653 million in Iraqi assets, then held in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, as a source of funds for the settlement.


At that point, the Justice Department stepped in, asking the judge to throw out the judgment against Iraq.

The government's attorneys quoted L. Paul Bremer, the presidential envoy to Iraq, as saying, "Restricting these funds as a result of this litigation would affect adversely the ability of the United States to achieve security and stability in the region, would compromise the safety of U.S. forces and Iraqi civilians, and would be harmful to U.S. national security interests."


Now...................will someone PLEASE explain to me how a measley $653 million (already being held in this country from Iraq) plus another $306 million would "adveserly" affect any damn thing we (the U.S. of A.) did, or did NOT do in Iraq???

Especially when this COMBINED amount of $$$$$$ is LESS than ONE PERCENT (1%) of the total $87 billion in funds approved for by the U.S. Congress and President Bush in their first "go round" of funds designated to rebuild Iraq and fund the war effort???? Not to mention the OTHER $80 billion or so now being called for by the Pres.?????


Sorry...................but I gotta believe that the "shadow" of Abu Ghraib and our own soldiers conduct with regards to Iraqi prisinors is the "motivating" factor in this latest bit of unsavory shenanigens being committed against these Desert Storm vets and their attempts to rightfully gain what they were awarded!

Especially after "Dumb"ald Rumsfeld opened HIS big mouth!

[colmurph]

Gimpy.......you wouldn't be able to recognize "Truth" if it bit you in the a$$. I find little "Truth" in what you or the rest of the DNC people try to shove down our throats. Most of your "Facts" are distorted and your "Truths", lies.

[Gimpy]

In that shallow, little dark corner of the fantasy world YOU live in Smurph!

Show me where any of the "stuff" I've posted here is "distorted" or "lies".................if you can????

You're just like your "boy"........Preznit Double-Talk hisself.........all bluster, braggadocio, and bull$hit!

[Gimpy]

Here is the latest news regarding this posts original message.



#####

U.S. Gov't Again Seeks to Deny Tortured American POWs Justice

Tuesday March 22, 8:30 am ET

-Bush Administration Asks Supreme Court Not to Hear POWs' Case

WASHINGTON, March 22 /PRNewswire/ -- The United States government, under direction from the Bush Administration has asked the United States Supreme Court not to hear the appeal brought by 17 American POWs and their families in their case against Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqi secret police for the torture they suffered during the 1991 Gulf War.


The POWs are represented by Steptoe & Johnson LLP with co- counsel John Norton Moore, a former U.S. Ambassador and former Counselor on International Law to the U.S. Department of State.
Despite Secretary Rumsfeld telling Congress last summer that the "the right thing to do" was to pay Iraqi detainees injured by U.S. troops at Abu Ghraib , the U.S. government continues to fight in court to deny compensation paid out of Iraqi assets to the American Desert Storm POWs.

In July 2003, the POWs won a federal lawsuit brought in 2002 against Iraq for the horrors they endured -- including savage beatings, starvation, electrocution, whippings, mock executions, threats of dismemberment, broken bones, and confinement in vile, disease-ridden filth -- and since that time the POWs have been repeatedly blocked in court by the U.S. government from holding their torturers accountable.


Three additional briefs were filed in support of the POW group, all urging the Court to hear the case and correct the errors made by the court of appeals in its June 2004 decision.


The Washington Legal Foundation, which regularly argues in court in support of a strong national security and defense and filed an amicus brief supporting the POWs at the court of appeals, filed a brief on behalf of a bipartisan group of Members of Congress, including Senators Allen, Murray, and Harkin, and 17 U.S. Representatives.


The Members of Congress urge the Court to hear the case because it directly affects the right of Americans, including American POWs, to hold a foreign state liable for personal injuries caused by acts of torture and terrorism.


The brief of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University School of Law focuses on protecting U.S. military personnel held as POWs from torture, and the case's impact on eroding the nation's longstanding policy against the torture of POWs. The Center is joined on its brief by the National League of POW/MIA Families, the National Commander & National Adjutant of American Ex-Prisoners of War, and a distinguished group of American national security experts, including high ranking military, former executive branch officials, ambassadors, and legal experts.

The Center for Justice & Accountability, based in San Francisco, is a non-profit legal advocacy center that works to prevent torture and other severe human rights abuses around the world by helping survivors hold their perpetrators accountable. Its brief emphasizes the universal condemnation of torture under international laws, and the availability under U.S. law of a right to bring torture claims against the perpetrators. Nineteen eminent International Law scholars have joined the brief.

###############

I STILL can NOT for the life of me understand HOW Bush, Rumsfeld & Co. can recommend paying Iraqi prisinors for the abuse suffered from OUR troops , but DO NOT want our OWN American soldiers & airmen that were abused as POW's to get their "compensation" from Iraq????

This is "support" of our military??????

I don't THINK so!

[BLUEHAWK]

And now, we can exchange ancient history...

"Hallowed ground"
Took me ten years to get up the courage to finally go. The Wall was dedicated in 1982 and in 1992 at the tenth anniversary "reunion" my wife and made the trip to D.C. and spent four days there in Washington. Most moving and "cleansing" experience in my life! Been back every year since then except one (2001) and plan to go back every year I'm still breathing. My sister moved back to the D.C. area in 1994 (she lives in Arlington, VA about three blocks SW of the National Cemetary behind FT. Myer) and we visit her at least once per year.

Best time to go? At daybreak when the sun comes up behind you while facing the Wall. And, you'll be able to find a parking place near by at this time fairly easy.

Fourteen names on that Wall are either close, personal friends, old schoolmates, brothers-in-arms (several of who were KIA the night I got wounded) and ALL are "forever young" and will NEVER BE FORGOTTEN! God Bless them all."


I managed to get there at sunset (was working at daybreak)...

Can't say it was a "cleansing" experience, for myself... but I made it there, and gave my solemn hand salute, in Legion cover... for all the names known and unknown.

Made me think again of the idea that the politics involved just don't matter at all, in the end.

What matters is the names, the fright, the valor, the terror, the fight, the faith, the brotherhood, the nation, the flag, the chow, the girls, the kids, the uniforms, the critters, the Vets, the homeland... the love which passeth all understanding.

Salute, Gimpy!

Zoooooooomie Sir Blue

[Gimpy]

Your "post" was touching to say the least.

I feel the same way you do about the "Wall" and the hallowed ground in sits upon. I've been there nearly every year since 1992 and it has become a place of healing and great comfort for me and my familiy.

But................what in the heck has THIS to do with the original posts message or content????

Are you feeling OK???

You're not smoking any of that "funny" Tabacky, are ya?

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by Gimpy Your "post" was touching to say the least.

I feel the same way you do about the "Wall" and the hallowed ground in sits upon. I've been there nearly every year since 1992 and it has become a place of healing and great comfort for me and my familiy.

But................what in the heck has THIS to do with the original posts message or content????

Are you feeling OK???

You're not smoking any of that "funny" Tabacky, are ya?

Nope, but feeling fine...

Just thought support for troops means different things to different people, none or few of which are funny...