A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I understand that reptilian insurance-defense types and Chamber of Commerce shills would say otherwise, but please.

Speciesist fuck.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(1) They should recover for the same reasons that other tort victims should recover.

But, recover from whom? SH? I hear he's broke. The Iraqi people? They've got their own butcher's bill to submit. A central concept of tort law (well, in the olden days) was that you can only recover from a tortfeasor. If these guys should prevail, why should any government go along with the odious debt concept and cancel Iraq's debts incurred for the aggrandizement of SH?

(2) More importantly (to me, anyway) is the principle of vindicating these rights. The position our government is taking adds up to less than full opposition to torture. I have no idea whether it's because of the optics of the juxtaposition of this and Abu Ghraib, or what, but it's wrong.

You have posted in the past about how people want their government to reflect their values, regardless of the efficacy of a policy initiative. Well, here you go. Whether or not it really helps these vets to get money as compensation for what they endured, the bigger point here is the moral one. We ought to be against torture.

We are against torture. We deposed SH partly on that basis. In other words, we got the "social justice" that the plaintiffs claimed to be seeking already. Now, you want the co-victims to pay for our guys' verdicts? I can't reconcile a discussion of rights with that approach. If Joe runs me down with his car, yeah, I should have a "right" to compensation, but not from Sally, who Joe ran over last week. The "right" doesn't trump the "just".

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
Now, you want the co-victims to pay for our guys' verdicts? I can't reconcile a discussion of rights with that approach. If Joe runs me down with his car, yeah, I should have a "right" to compensation, but not from Sally, who Joe ran over last week. The "right" doesn't trump the "just".

How about recovering from Bob, the owner of the car that Joe drove? Even though Bob's a nice guy, and he doesn't have the car anymore (your kids and the skink trashed it after they chased Joe into one of the 10,000 lakes)?

The fact that any payment made by the Iraqi government means that there will be less money for the Iraqi people doesn't change, regardless (hi, TM!) of whether SH is still in charge or not. Do you think that he would have cut a check from his personal account to pay any judgment? When the US as a tort defendant pays damages, does the president pay from his personal account at Riggs Bank?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
But, recover from whom? SH? I hear he's broke. The Iraqi people? They've got their own butcher's bill to submit. A central concept of tort law (well, in the olden days) was that you can only recover from a tortfeasor. If these guys should prevail, why should any government go along with the odious debt concept and cancel Iraq's debts incurred for the aggrandizement of SH?

Think about what you're saying. The only reason governments are negotiating to "cancel" Iraq's debts is because the debts are owed by the nation, not just by Hussein, and the nation is still on the hook. Indeed, the article I linked to makes this clear, and suggests that our own government is supporting the claims of (e.g.) Kuwait against the Iraqi government. Why Kuwait and not U.S. soldiers who were tortured?

To answer your last question, other governments are cancelling Iraq's debt out of beneficence (i.e., it's a form of aid), and realism (some of those debts are huge).

We are against torture. We deposed SH partly on that basis. In other words, we got the "social justice" that the plaintiffs claimed to be seeking already. Now, you want the co-victims to pay for our guys' verdicts? I can't reconcile a discussion of rights with that approach. If Joe runs me down with his car, yeah, I should have a "right" to compensation, but not from Sally, who Joe ran over last week. The "right" doesn't trump the "just".

I understand your rationale, but it doesn't have anything to do with what the court decided or what our own government is saying in this case. Those soldiers were not tortured by a private conspiracy. They were tortured by agents of the Iraqi government. And subordinating those debts in the way that our own government has advocated sends a pretty clear message that opposing torture is not its highest concern.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
How about recovering from Bob, the owner of the car that Joe drove? Even though Bob's a nice guy, and he doesn't have the car anymore (your kids and the skink trashed it after they chased Joe into one of the 10,000 lakes)?

What if Joe stole Bob's car, through no fault of Bob's, and then ran me over? I think that analogy is closer than yours. I doubt that SH was driving Iraq with the knowledge and permission of its owners.

The fact that any payment made by the Iraqi government means that there will be less money for the Iraqi people doesn't change, regardless (hi, TM!) of whether SH is still in charge or not. Do you think that he would have cut a check from his personal account to pay any judgment? When the US as a tort defendant pays damages, does the president pay from his personal account at Riggs Bank?

The whole point is that SH essentially held the country hostage through force. There are certain debts (?) incurred by SH that benefitted the people not at all. He's gone, the "Iraqi government" that did the wrong is gone, and there's a common recognition that this was a freeing of a people. And, yes, SH would have written his own personal check - since everything was his, by forceful expropriation.

If these guys are owed anything, (and I think they are - let's not turn this into another "Bilmore hates the injured" theme), they are owed it by us. Our country, in whose service they were hurt. Their torture in no way benefitted the Iraqi common guy.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
But, recover from whom? SH? I hear he's broke. The Iraqi people? They've got their own butcher's bill to submit. A central concept of tort law (well, in the olden days) was that you can only recover from a tortfeasor. If these guys should prevail, why should any government go along with the odious debt concept and cancel Iraq's debts incurred for the aggrandizement of SH?

We are against torture. We deposed SH partly on that basis. In other words, we got the "social justice" that the plaintiffs claimed to be seeking already. Now, you want the co-victims to pay for our guys' verdicts? I can't reconcile a discussion of rights with that approach. If Joe runs me down with his car, yeah, I should have a "right" to compensation, but not from Sally, who Joe ran over last week. The "right" doesn't trump the "just".

It depends on whether you view a nation as more akin to a car or to a corporation -- or, more accurately, more like property or entities. If Joe hits you with his car and then sells his car to Sally, you don't sue Sally. If Joe's corporation steals from you, and he sells his shares to Sally (or she gets them in a hostile takeover), you sue the corporation even though Joe will not suffer.

Generally, nations are treated as entities. Hence the continuation of debts. The "odious debt" exception is interesting, but hasn't prevented creditors from asking any number of African countries to pay debts incurred by tyrants, for example. If we are to introduce an odious debt concept, it needs to be one that can apply to situations even where the change in regime is not brought about by the US.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
What if Joe stole Bob's car, through no fault of Bob's, and then ran me over? I think that analogy is closer than yours. I doubt that SH was driving Iraq with the knowledge and permission of its owners.

The whole point is that SH essentially held the country hostage through force. There are certain debts (?) incurred by SH that benefitted the people not at all. He's gone, the "Iraqi government" that did the wrong is gone, and there's a common recognition that this was a freeing of a people. And, yes, SH would have written his own personal check - since everything was his, by forceful expropriation.

If these guys are owed anything, (and I think they are - let's not turn this into another "Bilmore hates the injured" theme), they are owed it by us. Our country, in whose service they were hurt. Their torture in no way benefitted the Iraqi common guy.

I've already explained that you are wrong as a matter of law, and that our own government rejects your position. So, without arguing that at further length, I take it that you agree that if we are supporting Kuwait's claims against Iraq relating to the invasion of the former by the latter, it's pretty shitty of our government to tell the torture victims to go pound sand?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Think about what you're saying. The only reason governments are negotiating to "cancel" Iraq's debts is because the debts are owed by the nation, not just by Hussein, and the nation is still on the hook.

You switch from justice to legalism way fast, kemo sabe. They are legal debts that are being cancelled on the basis of the moral-based theory of "odious debt".

I understand your rationale, but it doesn't have anything to do with what the court decided or what our own government is saying in this case. Those soldiers were not tortured by a private conspiracy. They were tortured by agents of the Iraqi government.

And that government is dead and gone - replaced by force in a war that rescued the people of Iraq. To make Saddam's other victims pay for this, or for France's architects for their torture-chamber designs, or for Russia's arms used to kill the Kurds, is to value legalism over morality. I can see making Iraqis pay for the debts incurred through the purchase of food while SH was in charge. I can't see making them pay for the bullets that killed them (and which were sold to SH knowingly), and I also can't see making them pay court-ordered millions to some select few other victims of SH while they, also victims, still need basics. Ask your Senator to sponser a bill rewarding them somewhow.

And subordinating those debts in the way that our own government has advocated sends a pretty clear message that opposing torture is not its highest concern.

You're really reaching for this connection, aren't you?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I've already explained that you are wrong as a matter of law, and that our own government rejects your position.

Through your "it's a debt" soliloquy? Four steps behind, son.

So, without arguing that at further length, I take it that you agree that if we are supporting Kuwait's claims against Iraq relating to the invasion of the former by the latter, it's pretty shitty of our government to tell the torture victims to go pound sand?

To the extent that there were specific benefits taken into Iraqi society that remain to this day, no, those benefits need to be returned. However, yes, I do object to the measure of damages being supported in that instance. Just as I would support the affirmation of debt based on food purchases for the country, I would support the return of the looted value - but, I do not support holding the new Iraq financially responsible for the simple damage that Saddam did to Kuwait. Again, without a showing of benefit to the co-victims, I wouldn't make them pay. Hell, we let people and corps bankrupt out of debt for far lesser reasons.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It depends on whether you view a nation as more akin to a car or to a corporation -- or, more accurately, more like property or entities. If Joe hits you with his car and then sells his car to Sally, you don't sue Sally. If Joe's corporation steals from you, and he sells his shares to Sally (or she gets them in a hostile takeover), you sue the corporation even though Joe will not suffer.

I agree. I guess the basic explanation is that I don't view the common Iraqi guy as ever having been a shareholder in Saddam's Iraq.

Generally, nations are treated as entities. Hence the continuation of debts. The "odious debt" exception is interesting, but hasn't prevented creditors from asking any number of African countries to pay debts incurred by tyrants, for example. If we are to introduce an odious debt concept, it needs to be one that can apply to situations even where the change in regime is not brought about by the US.

Actually, (and this is based on memory, which is a dangerous statement all by itself), odious debt was first applied in the situations of some small african countries. It's not a new concept.

(ETA - And now, I'm disappearing again - NOT ducking replies.)

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
I agree. I guess the basic explanation is that I don't view the common Iraqi guy as ever having been a shareholder in Saddam's Iraq.

I understand the logic of your position, but know that combining this with the administration's rather public disaffection with the Geneva conventions, and I'd think that our armed forces will have less confidence about their potential treatment in captivity next time we kick over some third-world popsicle stand.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I agree. I guess the basic explanation is that I don't view the common Iraqi guy as ever having been a shareholder in Saddam's Iraq.

Of course they weren't. But that hasn't made much difference in any number of countries. The average Zairois didn't get much benefit out of the $5 billion that Mobuto siphoned off.

Actually, (and this is based on memory, which is a dangerous statement all by itself), odious debt was first applied in the situations of some small african countries. It's not a new concept.

It's not a new concept, but I'm not sure that it's actually been applied. At least not in many instances.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Dave]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"At this booth we have some armadillos and some reasons why it's good to be a Young Republican. Moving right along, here's the stuffed Michael Moore statue..."