Life behind the zion curtain, politics, music, IT, things that go fast, tasteless humor, and everything anti-bush.
WTF?
Published on February 16, 2005 By thatoneguyinslc In Politics
I couldn't believe this one
Link

I remember when this ruling came down.


Thanks for reading,
thatoneguyinslc


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Feb 16, 2005

You need to get YOUR facts straight.

Unless you are posting lies, I am just going by what you posted. 

on Feb 16, 2005
Now if this can of worms gets opened are ww2 pows entitled to sue? how about korean war pows, vietnam pows?


the law was enacted in 1996 and isnt retroactive...so no. but as daiwa suggested on my blog, it would be appropriate for the taxpayers to compensate american pows. i agreed and suggested vietnam pows should be eligible
on Feb 16, 2005
In your opinion they are harrassing them. IN reality, they are arguing a point of law



the government is clearly NOT acting in accordance with the 1996 anti-terrorism law's mandate that it support claimants in their efforts to recover damages from rogue states. it's not my opinion. look the law up and read it.
on Feb 16, 2005
yall amaze me. talk about parroting the party line.
on Feb 16, 2005
Mod,

I think unless they filed suit within a few years of the end of the war (statute of limitations..Anybody have any insight here?) and had a judgement in hand, that ship has sailed.

But it does bring up a good point.

Guy,

The point i was making was that arming and supporting Israel is guilt payment for allowing the holocaust to happen. Say what you will, but an apple is an apple when it comes to that. It's the truth. So by doing that for all these years and then telling POW's who have a VALID judgement form an american court they cannot collect on said judgement perverts the system of justice. So by your logic, it's ok to vacate judgements at will? Where does it end? recinding all judgements. Or just the ones the current administration sees fit to vacate.

This is a matter for the courts. NOT the White House.

on Feb 16, 2005

yall amaze me. talk about parroting the party line

If you read all my responses, you would see where I clearly was stating they should be compensated.  However, you would also know that I do not advocate judicial activism, or that the sins of the father are visited upon the sins of the sons.  If that is anyone else's line, then we came to the same conclusion via different roads as I am not arguing anyones line.

on Feb 16, 2005

So by your logic, it's ok to vacate judgements at will?

I dont recall where I said anyone could vacate a valid judgement at will.  If you can find it, please post it.

And while it may be argued that we ignored the holocaust, that is not why we support Israel.  And it never has been.  Supporting a democracy in an area of tin plated dictatorships might give you a hint of why we are supporting them.  That and the clout that the largest Jewish population in the world has on government decision here in this country.

on Feb 16, 2005
I gotta back Guy up here. I think this whole agreeing with the other team stuff is still new to us all
on Feb 16, 2005
You're right Guy, but it's not the only reason. I think we both get half credit on that point.

Maybe vacate was the wrong choice. I think disregard is more accurate.
on Feb 16, 2005

Maybe vacate was the wrong choice. I think disregard is more accurate.

I think they are fighting it, as the law allows.  This is clearly a black eye issue, where the 'good' thing to do would be to allow them to get their money, but the 'right' thing todo is not penalize the innocent.

on Feb 16, 2005
I believe the POW's should be compensated in some fashion, but by us, not Iraq - we put them in harm's way.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Feb 16, 2005
Daiwa has a very valid point here folks! and an insightful to boot!
on Feb 17, 2005




you would also know that I do not advocate judicial activism


this has nothing to do with judicial activism. (you truly seem to believe that everything that happens in a courtroom involving anyone but scalia, thomas and rehnquist hints at judicial activism.) this law was enacted by congress. its the executive branch that's actively trying to interpret the law to mean something other than what was clearly intended by the congress (see the quote from sens allen and collins in my blog). apparently you do approve of that.
on Feb 18, 2005
The papers are hitting this again today, and continuing to slant it as an ungrateful administration thwarting justice for the POW's. It's really too bad that it gets superficial treatment rather than thoughtful investigation.

Cheers,
Daiwa
2 Pages1 2