RSS Feeds
Contact Us |
|
|||||||||||||
News » Politics
Article rated a 0
by 0
users |
Monday, August 18, 2008 12:05 PM CDT
Braley seeks justice for tortured war veterans
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
Braley seeks justice for tortured war veterans
By JENS MANUEL KROGSTAD, Courier Staff Writer
CEDAR FALLS --- During a speech Sunday night, Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, blasted the Bush administration's efforts to deny compensation to U.S. veterans who were tortured during the first Gulf War.
A bill Braley introduced this year, the Justice for Victims of Torture and Terrorism Act, would force Iraq to pay reduced damages to the prisoners of war. It passed the House Judiciary Committee on July 30.
The issue has garnered national attention for years. It stems from a 2002 lawsuit award in which Clifford Acree and 16 other veterans won hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation for torture they suffered at Iraqi hands.
But shortly after the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, Bush administration lawyers moved to overturn the federal court judgment. The POWs had been awarded frozen Iraqi assets. The administration argued the money was needed for Iraqi reconstruction.
At the time, White House spokesman Scott McClellan issued a statement in which he said there was simply "no amount of money" that could properly compensate them for their suffering.
"That was the justification given to these families over why they were placing a greater priority on reconstructing Iraqi oil fields than giving them justice for their torture," Braley said.
But Braley said what he found most offensive was that the administration has assisted corporations like Mitsubishi and Hyundai pursue billions of dollars in damage claims against Iraq; claims which stem from the same war in which the POWs were tortured.
The congressman said the administration continues to oppose efforts to help the veterans receive their court-awarded compensation.
On Christmas Eve last year, President Bush unexpectedly vetoed the massive $3.5 billion defense authorization bill. He specifically cited a provision intended to help the POWs receive their award. Congressional Quarterly reported the Iraqi government threatened to withdraw $25 billion in assets from U.S. banks if the provision were to become law.
"I was so angry when that happened. It effectively gave immunity from torture in violation of the third Geneva Convention," Braley said. "What message does this send to the world?"
Though the bill Braley introduced would greatly reduce the original judgment, he said it fulfills the goal of sending a symbolic message on the issue of torture.
"It tells the world that the United States will not give immunity to state sponsors of terror," he said.
Contact Jens Manuel Krogstad
at (319) 291-1580
or jens.krogstad@wcfcourier.com.
A bill Braley introduced this year, the Justice for Victims of Torture and Terrorism Act, would force Iraq to pay reduced damages to the prisoners of war. It passed the House Judiciary Committee on July 30.
The issue has garnered national attention for years. It stems from a 2002 lawsuit award in which Clifford Acree and 16 other veterans won hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation for torture they suffered at Iraqi hands.
But shortly after the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, Bush administration lawyers moved to overturn the federal court judgment. The POWs had been awarded frozen Iraqi assets. The administration argued the money was needed for Iraqi reconstruction.
At the time, White House spokesman Scott McClellan issued a statement in which he said there was simply "no amount of money" that could properly compensate them for their suffering.
"That was the justification given to these families over why they were placing a greater priority on reconstructing Iraqi oil fields than giving them justice for their torture," Braley said.
But Braley said what he found most offensive was that the administration has assisted corporations like Mitsubishi and Hyundai pursue billions of dollars in damage claims against Iraq; claims which stem from the same war in which the POWs were tortured.
The congressman said the administration continues to oppose efforts to help the veterans receive their court-awarded compensation.
On Christmas Eve last year, President Bush unexpectedly vetoed the massive $3.5 billion defense authorization bill. He specifically cited a provision intended to help the POWs receive their award. Congressional Quarterly reported the Iraqi government threatened to withdraw $25 billion in assets from U.S. banks if the provision were to become law.
"I was so angry when that happened. It effectively gave immunity from torture in violation of the third Geneva Convention," Braley said. "What message does this send to the world?"
Though the bill Braley introduced would greatly reduce the original judgment, he said it fulfills the goal of sending a symbolic message on the issue of torture.
"It tells the world that the United States will not give immunity to state sponsors of terror," he said.
Contact Jens Manuel Krogstad
at (319) 291-1580
or jens.krogstad@wcfcourier.com.
More Stories from News » Politics
MAC wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:38 AM:
" I agree, chet. Bruce has done a great job representing our district. It's hard for them to admit this.
What I would love to hear is their defense of their man in the White House who has tried to block this from the git-go. No one seems to question HIS patriotism for denying these veterans their compensation.
No amount of money could compensate them for their suffering...so let's just make sure they get nothing. Now there is REAL patriotism. "
What I would love to hear is their defense of their man in the White House who has tried to block this from the git-go. No one seems to question HIS patriotism for denying these veterans their compensation.
No amount of money could compensate them for their suffering...so let's just make sure they get nothing. Now there is REAL patriotism. "
chief wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:44 AM:
" I retired from the Army with more years than most. I do not agree with these veterans receiving compensation for doing their duty. For those of you who have not been in the military learn what the military is before you make statements the military is a complete different world than what you live in . Being a POW is a fact of war and being in the military you train for it and when it happens you do your duty. Now if these were civilian contractor yes by all means sue but when you are a member of the military force you do not have that right. I respect Bruce Braley's decisions but on this one he is wrong and needs to back down or learn more about the military before he makes a fool of himself. It is part of "WE SERVE WITH PRIDE" not for cash. "
MrT wrote on Aug 19, 2008 2:05 PM:
" Actually chief, it's part of "taking care of those who've taken care of us." I appreciate your many years of service and think that America is a better place because of people such as yourself.
However, on this one I happen to disagree. Our country is partly built on the notion "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness." I believe that we should be more than wiling to go beyond the norm for those who help us maintain our values & our country. "
However, on this one I happen to disagree. Our country is partly built on the notion "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness." I believe that we should be more than wiling to go beyond the norm for those who help us maintain our values & our country. "
chief wrote on Aug 19, 2008 3:38 PM:
" MrT First of all "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness."is part of the Constitution and if you will check you will find that the Military is exempt from the Constitution this was done by our founding fathers. Check you will find it is a fact. The military has it's own justice system called the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for short. The covers all law in the military and I have never found where you can sue a country or individual in this document. This protects NCO's and Officers that are required to send soldiers into combat and they get injured or killed. By civilian law you can sue for wrongful death or in the case of the POWs I guess in civilian court they must have sued for Wrongful imprisonment. They were not wrongfully held they were POWS. Also I do not believe that Iraq signed the Geneva Convention (Treatment of Prisoners of War). As soldiers that is one of the risks we take is capture and Torture when we are war with countries that did not sign the convention. This would be a very dangerous road to go down maybe all the Vietnam POWS should go to court and sue. They would now have legal grounds to do it. "
mister t wrote on Aug 19, 2008 6:07 PM:
" Amen Chief. This would open up a huge can of worms.
I appreciate Braley's intent , but he is wrong. "
I appreciate Braley's intent , but he is wrong. "
shouldbemayor wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:32 PM:
" Chief,
So is getting your legs blown off in Iraq considered a "fact of war?"
If the government decided not to take care of those who have been blown up in Iraq, would those soldiers have an argument or should they just figure that "they knew going in" that they could get blown up?
I'm sure the servicemen who now have stumps where they used to have arms and legs "served with pride" but I also think they deserve cash and medical care.
Tortured POW's are no different. They gave more than was asked of them. McCain disclosed he recieves more than 58k for his injuries incurred while a POW and I don't think that is close to enough for what he gave.
I hate to say this, but this is a good thing Braley did. "
So is getting your legs blown off in Iraq considered a "fact of war?"
If the government decided not to take care of those who have been blown up in Iraq, would those soldiers have an argument or should they just figure that "they knew going in" that they could get blown up?
I'm sure the servicemen who now have stumps where they used to have arms and legs "served with pride" but I also think they deserve cash and medical care.
Tortured POW's are no different. They gave more than was asked of them. McCain disclosed he recieves more than 58k for his injuries incurred while a POW and I don't think that is close to enough for what he gave.
I hate to say this, but this is a good thing Braley did. "
chief wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:14 AM:
" if you are injured in combat there are programs in place to take care of your needs. The Department of Veterans Affairs if you are 10% disabled you draw$117 per month or$1404 per year nontaxable. If you are 100% disabled you draw $2527 per month or $30,324 per year nontaxable plus any over 50% disabled gets free medical care. You can also get retrained to a job that fits your disability. The VA has all kinds of programs to assist the wounded vet back into a productive life. shouldbemayor if you think that the government/military is not taking care of its soldiers you must not read the papers nor watch any news programs. You need to get your information correct before you open your mouth. You make the statement that "They gave more than was asked of them". When you are in the Armed Forces you are asked to give your life if needed in defense of our country. So if these soldiers are around to sue a for the time they spent as POWs
then they have not given more than was asked of them. By the way if McCain has received 58K he must 10 to 20% disabled which would give him $58K from the time he returned home until now. "
then they have not given more than was asked of them. By the way if McCain has received 58K he must 10 to 20% disabled which would give him $58K from the time he returned home until now. "
MrT wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:03 PM:
" fine chief. Providing for our returning veterans isn't in the constitution, but it is a (darn) good thing that we as Americans have the right, thanks to soldiers such as yourself, to elect a government that believes as we do. That if we should provide for anyone, we should provide for those who've protected us.
So fine, veteran's benefits aren't something that HAS to happen, but because we as Americans want it to happen, and our elected officials agree, then it will happen and those folks who only care about taxes can continue to vote for polticians who agree with you and they'll lose and we'll be saved from that rediculous mindset.
And that's what you protected and I am damned glad you did. Thank you for all your service again. "
So fine, veteran's benefits aren't something that HAS to happen, but because we as Americans want it to happen, and our elected officials agree, then it will happen and those folks who only care about taxes can continue to vote for polticians who agree with you and they'll lose and we'll be saved from that rediculous mindset.
And that's what you protected and I am damned glad you did. Thank you for all your service again. "
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
chester11 wrote on Aug 19, 2008 12:16 AM:
Guess it's more self serving to ignore things like this. "