[Nonsuch]

The following exchange between White House spokesman Scott McClellan and some reporters was transcribed on Joe Conason's journal today (read it at the White House site). Our political discourse has officially gone beyond satire.

Q: Scott, there are 17 former POWs from the first Gulf War who were tortured and filed suit against the regime of Saddam Hussein. And a judge has ordered that they are entitled to substantial financial damages. What is the administration's position on that? Is it the view of this White House that that money would be better spent rebuilding Iraq rather than going to these former POWs?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know that I view it in those terms, David. I think that the United States -- first of all, the United States condemns in the strongest terms the brutal torture to which these Americans were subjected. They bravely and heroically served our nation and made sacrifices during the Gulf War in 1991, and there is simply no amount of money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. That's what our view is.

Q But, so -- but isn't it true that this White House --

Q They think they're is an --

Q Excuse me, Helen -- that this White House is standing in the way of them getting those awards, those financial awards, because it views it that money better spent on rebuilding Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, there's simply no amount of money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering --

Q Why won't you spell out what your position is?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm coming to your question. Believe me, I am. Let me finish. Let me start over again, though. No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of a very brutal regime, at the hands of Saddam Hussein. It was determined earlier this year by Congress and the administration that those assets were no longer assets of Iraq, but they were resources required for the urgent national security needs of rebuilding Iraq. But again, there is simply no amount of compensation that could ever truly compensate these brave men and women.

Q Just one more. Why would you stand in the way of at least letting them get some of that money?

MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree with the way you characterize it.

Q But if the law that Congress passed entitles them to access frozen assets of the former regime, then why isn't that money, per a judge's order, available to these victims?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I pointed out that that was an issue that was addressed earlier this year. But make no mistake about it, we condemn in the strongest possible terms the torture that these brave individuals went through --

Q -- you don't think they should get money?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- at the hands of Saddam Hussein. There is simply no amount of money that can truly compensate those men and women who heroically served --

Q That's not the issue --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- who heroically served our nation.

Q Are you opposed to them getting some of the money?

MR. McCLELLAN: And, again, I just said that that had been addressed earlier this year.

Q No, but it hasn't been addressed. They're entitled to the money under the law. The question is, is this administration blocking their effort to access some of that money, and why?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't view it that way at all. I view it the way that I stated it, that this issue was --

Q But you are opposed to them getting the money.

MR. McCLELLAN: This issue was addressed earlier this year, and we believe that there's simply no amount of money that could truly compensate these brave men and women for what they went through and for the suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein --

Q So no money.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and that's my answer.

[petehammer]

If McClellan said "no amount of money to compensate the brave soldiers" one more time I swear people's heads would have exploded.

I can see this entire piece playing on "The Daily Show" without comment. It's hilarious and tragic at the same time.

The administration has entered... the Twilight Zone.

[AKcrab]

So a fireman burned in a fire deserves damages? A police officer who's shot by a criminal deserves damages? An animal control officer who is bit by an animal deserves damages?

I don't think the 17 soldiers should get anything extra for just doing their job, but that's probably been discussed in an old thread...

Where do people learn to speak in public without actually saying anything? Is there a class one takes in college?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
So a fireman burned in a fire deserves damages? A police officer who's shot by a criminal deserves damages? An animal control officer who is bit by an animal deserves damages?

I'm not a lawyer, but I think they already are, aren't they? In any event, I think that's an apples/oranges question, two different spheres of jurisdiction.

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Where do people learn to speak in public without actually saying anything? Is there a class one takes in college?

It's called politics.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
So a fireman burned in a fire deserves damages? A police officer who's shot by a criminal deserves damages? An animal control officer who is bit by an animal deserves damages?

I don't think the 17 soldiers should get anything extra for just doing their job, but that's probably been discussed in an old thread...

There's an old legal doctrine known as the Fireman's Rule which says that an injured firefighter can't sue the individual who caused the fire. Same goes for cops, medical personnel, etc. Basically, by taking such a hazardous job, they assume the risk of injury. I think most states still adhere to the rule, with variations.

I would expect the same rule to apply to the military but I don't know military law.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zigzag:
There's an old legal doctrine known as the Fireman's Rule which says that an injured firefighter can't sue the individual who caused the fire. Same goes for cops, medical personnel, etc. Basically, by taking such a hazardous job, they assume the risk of injury. I think most states still adhere to the rule, with variations.

I would expect the same rule to apply to the military but I don't know military law.

Occasionally I'll hear about such a thing regarding cops and firemen, but it never sticks due to the nature of their jobs (not sure which law this envolves). They sign on voluntarily after being told the risks so they have no recourse. In a state of war or police action a military personel is never referred to as a "victim". As per the Geneva Convention, only civilians can be classified as victims or human "collatteral damage", combatants are "weapons". They still have certain human rights to be taken into consideration by the enemy (moreso as POWs), but not nearly the rights of a civilian.

Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, the torturers are in violation of International law and may be brought up on charges of a criminal nature, but the abused POWs are not entitled to financial compensation (and neither are their families).

Everyone's a bloody victim. We're an entire race of pansies looking for hand-outs.

[BlackGriffen]

Whether you agree with the ruling or not, the question is this: do you agree with the executive branch of the government interfering with the judicial branch? If the ruling is wrong, then the action to take is to appeal, not to willfully violate the court's orders. In doing what he has done, Bush is undermining the third branch of government.

He also doesn't have the balls to admit his stance publicly. He won't because he knows that the only leg he stands on is, "support the troops, vote for me," and if he came out honestly against this, his opponents would skewer him.

So, although I can't say I blame him for opposing it, I do readily blame him for ignoring the courts. I will also ridicule him for having no balls.

BlackGriffen

[mr. natural]

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said:

But make no mistake about it, we condemn in the strongest possible terms the torture that these brave individuals went through -

Q -- you don't think they should get the money?

MR. McCLELLAN: --at the hands of Saddam Hussein. There is simply no amount of money that can truly compensate those men and women who heroically served --

Q That's not the issue --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- who heroically served our nation.

Reading this exchange, I envisioned Saddam's hands this way:




and then Bush's hands like this:



Oh, yeah, right, I get it now!

[zigzag]

I haven't followed the case but my guess is that the POWs filed suit, no one from Iraq responded to the suit, and the POWs obtained a default judgment. If Iraq never responded to the suit, there was no one around to challenge its validity, so now the U.S./Iraqi governments are forced to either honor the judgment, ignore it, or challenge it. There might be some basis for challenging it, I just don't know enough about military or international law to say.

Assuming arguendo that the judgment is valid, a successor corporation is often liable for judgments entered against its predecessors, but I have no idea what the law would be in the case of occupied sovereign nations in which the government has been deposed, or if the subject has even been addressed before.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by petehammer:
I can see this entire piece playing on "The Daily Show" without comment. It's hilarious and tragic at the same time.

Like when Schwarzenegger was voted in and the headline over at The Onion was "Arnold Schwarzenegger elected Governor of California."

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by mr. natural:

Amazing. Where will all that free 'puppet's' money go? To the people who supported him years ago. What thievery right before everyone's eyes.

There is no such thing as conspiracy anymore.