Thursday, April 08, 2004
Bush to American POWs: Get Stuffed!
The Bush Administration has gone to court to keep former US Desert Storm POWs who were tortured during the Gulf War from collecting a $653 million dollar judgement against the Saddam regime.
Their reasoning? Iraq is no longer on the President's list of state sponsors of terrorism, and the money is needed for the rebuilding of Iraq.
"What's at stake is the President's ability to conduct foreign policy," says the lawyer for the US.
My take: it's a stupid argument for a sound decision.
Let's look at the argument first:
Allowing the judgement to stand would only very marginally affect the President's authority to conduct foreign policy. Given the Republican controlled congress and the Bush Administration's incredible deficit spending binge, it's not as if $0.653 billion adds up to real money, in the grand scheme of things.
I wish the real conservatives on both sides of the aisle would fight pork barrel pirates and special interest groups for their money as hard as the Administration is fighting the veterans that this government sent into harm's way in the first place.
That said, I think there's a strong case to be made for overturning the judgement on its own merits. The idea is rooted in doctrine of Odious Debt.
(See also my December 16th post here.)
In a nutshell, the judgement was against Saddam Hussein and his regime. They were the ones who captured and abused the US POWs in the First Gulf War. The Iraqi people had nothing whatsoever to do with it. They had no say in the matter. They had no opportunity to select their own leaders. There was no democratic process in Iraq, through which the Iraqi people could influence policy whatsoever. They themselves were victims of the same monsters who tortured and sexually assaulted our servicemen and women.
As such, the Iraqi people bear no moral culpability for the crimes against our POWs.
And yet...and yet...
The odious debt argument collapses when one turns to analyzing moral hazard. The American POWs cannot be compared to a creditor under odious debt doctrine. Saddam Hussein's creditors financed his regime with full knowledge of his crimes, and full knowledge of the lack of democracy in Iraq, and with full knowledge that the money they extended to him would not be used to benefit the people of Iraq, but would instead go to support a brutal, oppressive, murderous regime in its suppression of its people.
As such, creditors to regimes such as Hussein's share a measure of moral culpability with the regime itself.
The American POWs share none of these attributes with Iraq's foreign creditors.
So it's not a cut-and-dried issue on either side. And yes, $653 million goes a lot further in Iraq than it does here.
My solution:
1.) The money belongs to the Iraqi people. It was stolen from them in the first place. It should be used exclusively for their benefit.
2.) When the United States invaded Iraq and took over the country, it assumed responsibility for any existing claims filed against Iraq by US citizens, in the same way one who purchases a business assumes responsibility for any accounts payable outstanding.
3.) The servicemen and women were sent to the Gulf by the people of the United States. Our elected representatives knew the brutality of the Saddam regime. They knew that any US servicemen or women captured would very likely be abused, tortured, or even killed. Our POWs were captured, and tortured, while serving the interests of the people of the United States. The US Government should make good on the judgement from other funding sources.
Splash, out
Jason
Their reasoning? Iraq is no longer on the President's list of state sponsors of terrorism, and the money is needed for the rebuilding of Iraq.
"What's at stake is the President's ability to conduct foreign policy," says the lawyer for the US.
My take: it's a stupid argument for a sound decision.
Let's look at the argument first:
Allowing the judgement to stand would only very marginally affect the President's authority to conduct foreign policy. Given the Republican controlled congress and the Bush Administration's incredible deficit spending binge, it's not as if $0.653 billion adds up to real money, in the grand scheme of things.
I wish the real conservatives on both sides of the aisle would fight pork barrel pirates and special interest groups for their money as hard as the Administration is fighting the veterans that this government sent into harm's way in the first place.
That said, I think there's a strong case to be made for overturning the judgement on its own merits. The idea is rooted in doctrine of Odious Debt.
(See also my December 16th post here.)
In a nutshell, the judgement was against Saddam Hussein and his regime. They were the ones who captured and abused the US POWs in the First Gulf War. The Iraqi people had nothing whatsoever to do with it. They had no say in the matter. They had no opportunity to select their own leaders. There was no democratic process in Iraq, through which the Iraqi people could influence policy whatsoever. They themselves were victims of the same monsters who tortured and sexually assaulted our servicemen and women.
As such, the Iraqi people bear no moral culpability for the crimes against our POWs.
And yet...and yet...
The odious debt argument collapses when one turns to analyzing moral hazard. The American POWs cannot be compared to a creditor under odious debt doctrine. Saddam Hussein's creditors financed his regime with full knowledge of his crimes, and full knowledge of the lack of democracy in Iraq, and with full knowledge that the money they extended to him would not be used to benefit the people of Iraq, but would instead go to support a brutal, oppressive, murderous regime in its suppression of its people.
As such, creditors to regimes such as Hussein's share a measure of moral culpability with the regime itself.
The American POWs share none of these attributes with Iraq's foreign creditors.
So it's not a cut-and-dried issue on either side. And yes, $653 million goes a lot further in Iraq than it does here.
My solution:
1.) The money belongs to the Iraqi people. It was stolen from them in the first place. It should be used exclusively for their benefit.
2.) When the United States invaded Iraq and took over the country, it assumed responsibility for any existing claims filed against Iraq by US citizens, in the same way one who purchases a business assumes responsibility for any accounts payable outstanding.
3.) The servicemen and women were sent to the Gulf by the people of the United States. Our elected representatives knew the brutality of the Saddam regime. They knew that any US servicemen or women captured would very likely be abused, tortured, or even killed. Our POWs were captured, and tortured, while serving the interests of the people of the United States. The US Government should make good on the judgement from other funding sources.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Post a Comment
