Paging Carl Rove
Somebody over at the White House has his political nose a little stuffed up:
The Bush administration is opposing efforts by hundreds of Americans held by Saddam Hussein before the first Gulf War to collect damages that would be paid from frozen Iraqi assets.
The administration did not oppose a different group of 179 former hostages and their spouses who sued and were awarded $94 million in damages from the $1.7 billion in frozen assets, but that was before a U.S.-led coalition ousted Saddam earlier this year.
With Saddam now gone, the Justice Department on Monday has asked a federal judge in Washington to dismiss a second suit from 210 former hostages. A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 4.
This is yet another one of those bits of tiny idiocy — like the Pentagon trial-balloon to cut hazardous-duty pay in Iraq — that, cumulatively, can sink a reelection effort.
I think it’s about the notion of ordinary people suing a country. The US has opposed that sort of thing pretty consistantly. I guess the reasoning is that the US would get sued far more often if it became a popular and lucrative sport. The old, old idea that nations should deal with nations, not people.
Remember that suing the United States itself is a task and a half. Then, to collect, Congress has to pass an appropriation. Few people who sue the US win, and fewer still ever collect.
They’re all lawyers as far as I can tell.
I guess the big question mark for me is, are these the same people?
Not having all the details, it’s hard to make a judgement. And if everyone ever harmed by Hussein’s regime were to suddenly file suit, there wouldn’t be enough of Iraq to go around.
Chuck’s right.
There are major problems with allowing US courts to adjuciate private claims against foreign countries; it throws a major wrench into the government’s ability to deal with foreign countries.
See, for example, here for a discussion about how the Alien Tort Claims Act is being abused.
(Note that I in no way imply that the lawsuits are similar; I only want to point out that you open a huge can of worms when you let individuals, through the courts, interfere with US foreign policy.
It’s Karl with a K.
Sorry about that– it just occurred to me how annoyed some people get by public spelling corrections…