Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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?
|
Yes. The main issue was, is there a cause of action against a "state". The answer was, no. But, to get there, the US had to have permission to bring the motion - they got booted in lower court for moving to intervene too late. It's all tied together, and you need to read the whole thing. As to the "well, they don't say "odious debt, do they?" thingie, no. They talk about how Saddam was the correct target, and not the "state", or the people remaining there. You know - like my last four posts on the topic.
Quote:
|
I assume you thanked Gatti for the leg work by PM or something.
|
That would be the "Cool. Thanks!" that you quoted back to me.
