You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Roberts opposed legal settlements for American POWs, against IRAQ! [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:31 PM
Original message
Roberts opposed legal settlements for American POWs, against IRAQ!
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 01:33 PM by jefferson_dem
This shit stinks. The more you learn about Roberts...

In Acree v. Republic of Iraq, "Judge Roberts went even further than his colleagues in supporting the Bush administration in a case that pitted the government against veterans of the first Gulf War," according to Tony Mauro of the Legal Times. John Norton Moore, co-counsel in the Acree case, writes,

The story of Acree began during the Gulf War, when American POWs were brutally tortured by the Iraqis. Saddam Hussein's secret services broke bones, shattered skulls, whipped, burned, shocked, beat, and urinated on American prisoners. One was so battered, it was later reported that his body looked like it had been dipped in indigo ink. Another had his teeth broken through electric shock. Many suffered through their own faked executions. They were starved so severely that one was forced to eat the scabs off his body. And because Iraq had publicly said it would use these POWs as "human shields," their spouses did not know whether they were wives or widows.

At the conclusion of the first Gulf War, 17 POWs and 37 of their family members brought a lawsuit against Saddam Hussien and Iraq in United States District Court--after repeated offers to have the case settled in international arbitration were ignored by the Iraqi government. The result was a verdict of almost $1 billion to the POWs and their families.

Mauro explains, "But once Saddam was toppled in 2003, the Bush administration wanted to protect the new Iraqi government from liability and intervened to block the award. Roberts, alone among the circuit judges who ruled with the government, said the federal courts did not even have jurisdiction to consider the victims' claim." Paul Kamenar of the conservative Washington Legal Foundation criticized this opinion arguing, "It sends the wrong message, that state sponsors of terrorism will not be held accountable, and it sends also a message to out troops, that our government is able to pull the rug out from under them when they have a victory against Iraq." On April 25th, 2005, the Supreme Court denied cert.

http://www.acsblog.org/cat-judicial-nominations.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC