Roberts opposed legal settlements for American POWs, against IRAQ!

[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

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. That alone would be a great talking point...he doesn't support the troops!

[Ganja Ninja]

8. Ah yes! But does he have a magnetic yellow ribbon on his car?

:sarcasm:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. That alone would be a great talking point...he doesn't support the troops!

[Oreo]

3. Thanks

show him to be the puppet, do anything stooge for Bush (just like Normie)

[FreedomAngel82]

4. This is so disgusting

:puke: This guy is horrible. Of course I wasn't expecting much more from Bush. He's a pure Bush loyalist.

[The Magistrate]

5. A Beautiful Propaganda Point, Sir!

This is priceless, simply priceless....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Mist]

6. I've been reading about Roberts on various threads -

the stink coming off this guy would knock the proverbial buzzard off the proverbial shitwagon. This "fuck you" to the Gulf War POWs confirms that this guy is FAR, FAR worse than we knew.

[BeFree]

7. Sounds like a radical freak!

And some people are saying he's a shoe-in. Makes me want to puke.

We have to fight this guy to the bitter end, we've nothing to lose.

Let's be free of these * bastards.

[Igel]

9. It's a difficult case.

It makes for bad law.

So, tell me--after a change in government--rulers, legislature, and the like--what is the obligation of the new government to victims of the old one? Someone was obviously wronged, but it's unclear if the people that would be punished would be properly punishable?

In other words, if Mugabe were deposed tomorrow by the opposition, would the members of the opposition be entitled to sue themselves for damages? Should the victims of Somoza have sued the Sandinista government? Granted, in this case it's US citizens in the US suing for money frozen and held by the US, but the issue of responsibility (apart from the letter of the law) holds: if Mugabe or Somoza had injured Americans, would they be entitled to sue either the Zimbabwe opposition, or the Sandinista government?

It's clear that this is in parallel to claims against the Iranian government filed in the '90s. Funds were frozen, there were victims that could sue for having some of the funds disbursed. There was some weirdness with the Iranian case, but I forget which prez it was that thought *that* one was against the national interest, Bush I, Clinton, or *, and did everything possible to thwart it.

[The Magistrate]

11. The Rights And Wrongs Of It, Sir

Make no difference at all: it is a brutal and brutally effective propaganda line: "He ruled against tortured U.S. soldiers! What kind of a fuck would do that?"

As a matter of precedent, new governments are liable for claims against the oold government: otherwise, revolutions would simply be staged whenever it was convenient to avoid a debt or similar difficulty.

[Igel]

15. A propaganda line, it is.

Not all propaganda is wrong, nor untruthful.

Sometimes I argue legalities: Roberts was wrong, and the Iraqi government is legally liable.

Sometimes I argue morality: After a revolution or thorough-going change of government, the moral claims against the new ruler (corporate or sole proprietorship, so to speak) are scant, since the former ruler is dead, and the current occupier of the territory is not truly an heir.

It's what has me undecided on the matter of the reparations being paid to Kuwait, or the IMF loans owed by some impoverished countries. Legally, the money should clearly be paid; but morally, demanding repayment of a loan that a despot squandered on graft, corruption, and personal aggrandizement reeks.

[The Magistrate]

16. My Only Interest Here, Sir

Is doing damage to the current regime of usurpers in the United States. This line seems well suited to that.

On the other matters you mentioned, we are in complete agreement, particularly in regard to African loans. If investors do not lose money on poorly conceived loans such as these, the system cannot really function properly. All those loans should be written off as uncollectable, and the institutions that made them made to suffer the consequences of their greedy folly.

[BeFree]

12. Not too difficult, really

After all, his opinion was not shared by many others.

The sad fact is he stood against American Prisoners Of War, in their effort to obtain justice denied them by the * administration. You can bet Clinton wanted the POWs to win their case.

[Igel]

14. The cases I had in mind (after a quick googling)

turn out to result from a '96 law that Clinton signed, under which some cases were filed, and the awards from which Clinton's State Department blocked (at least for a while ... my quick googling turned up too much dross to wade through to see if the settlements were ever paid out, or if they were overturned on appeal).

The argument was that tapping the Cuban and Iranian assets held by the US government would set a precedent for US assets being used to settle claims against the US in other countries. But like I said, how those turned out, I don't know. (And I'm just assuming that the Iraqi case is based on that law.)

[WCGreen]

22. That is the whole problem with keeping third world debt on

the books....

Same reasoning.....

If the government is no longer in power that entered into the debt, why should the new government be held accountable.....

So if you are saying that Iraq has to pay up on the lawsuit even though Sadam has been deposed, does that mean all the third world Countries can not seek debt relief.....

[BeFree]

10. Another headline might read

Roberts voted against US in : American POWs vs. Iraq

In a court case pitting American POWs seeking civil fines against the country of Iraq, Roberts voted against the American POWs, letting torturers off the hook for their crime of terrorism.

[bvar22]

13. Roberts loves Saddam's money....

...and hates the troops!

The truth is that Saddam's money has already been counted and is earmarked for the NeoCon's pockets. Fuck the Troops!

[Sam_Lowry]

17. Agreed good propaganda....but will we see it?

I agree it's a good line, and a good example of the contempt this admin feels toward the military, and the "proles" whose ignorance is vital to their success. But can anyone here picture this on the evening news? *sigh*

[Individualist]

18. He was also involved in the 2000 election theft

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4149836&mesg_id=4149836

[autorank]

20. And this is the reason to make it real ugly...Let's "Bolton" the dude.

:nuke:

[autorank]

19. jefferson_dem, You live up to your name! Kick-Recommend

This is the very large needle in the haystack. This is simply outrageous. He was doing * bidding while on the court. Hmmm...love to see Acree show up and testify. That decision is a betrayal of just about every standard of decency I can imagine. You don't stop a suit against a corporation just because they get a new CEO or even when they're acquired (ask Halliburton about asbestos suits).

This guy is a nasty little shit who deserves to be turned down for this reason alone.

Thankyou from a Virginian (we think Jefferson is Lard here!)

[B Calm]

21. He also opposed legal settlements for injuries at work..