Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Cool. Thanks! I'm glad I didn't just rely on Ty's totally neutral source - seems he was confused about some things. Like, the essence of the case, and all.
|
Explain this to me. The first part of the decision you quote suggests that the plaintiffs have no cause of action against states. Then you quote a portion suggesting that there is an exception for states that support terrrorism (a category that apparently included Iraq at the time of the torture). But then you quote a portion suggesting that President Bush exercised statutory authority to essentially remove Iraq from this list, meaning -- I surmise -- that although the plaintiffs
did have a cause of action at one point, their ability to sue Iraq was later (retroactively) eliminated by action of the federal government. And the authority by which the latter was done doesn't owe to a general doctrine of odious debts, but derives from specific laws passed in connection with our occupation of Iraq. Have I got any of that wrong?
I assume you thanked Gatti for the leg work by PM or something.
