Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
They are legal debts that are being cancelled on the basis of the moral-based theory of "odious debt".
|
Say what? Apparently our government doesn't take the position that Hussein-era debts are "odious." Let me repeat what that article said, since you keep avoiding it:
- The Justice Department argued in its pleadings that it now opposes the POWs judgment simply because it needs the money in question for the reconstruction of Iraq, but it has been unwilling to open talks with the POWs about that issue (despite ongoing payments to Kuwait for Gulf War damage). And it is certainly a dramatic coincidence that its opposition to this historic precedent against torture emerged only during the period of now-repudiated legal arguments, dumbing down the legal definition of torture.
The Justice Dept. says this simply because it needs the money, and Iraq continues to make payments to Kuwait. So what am I "reaching for?"
eta:
Very odd for you to know be suggesting that the role of the legal system is only to shift ill-gotten benefits from beneficiary to victim, and not to also condemn a wrong, when not too long ago you were chiding us for failing to appreciate that people supporting Bush because he expresses their values, whatever their economic interests.
