use of Iraqi Frozen Funds

bonkey

I noticed an article on google news just now :

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86242,00.html

(Note - yes I know this is a Fox link, but google had plenty of others, so I'm inclined to believe the main facts are mostly accurate).

The two things I noticed in there are :

1) The US is using frozen Iraqi funds to award damages to families for the 9/11 attacks...on the grounds that the judge has ruled that there was a proven link. The details offered of how this link was "proven" are embarrassing - they rely basically on things like "Colin Powell said so".

2) The US is using frozen Iraqi funds to help pay for the rebuilding of Iraq.

I'm curious as to what ppl's opinions of both of these facts are.

The former strikes me as a farce. The latter, I'm not so sure about. On one hand, its good to see that the money is going back into Iraq. On the other hand, it reads more to me that the US is shirking even more of the costs it is supposed to shoulder, and more and more getting the Iraqis to pay for the privilege having the crap bombed out of them.

There was a lot of talk coming to the end of hte major hostilities about the US having a responsibility to assume certain costs in terms of rebuilding and humanitarian aid - as these are the responsibilty of the victor/conqueror (Geneva Convention, I believe, but I'm working from memory on that). Instead, we see the US urging international assistance on the humanitarian front (offsetting the US costs), their want to get control of Iraqi oil through dropped sanctions to pay for same (offsetting US costs), and now they're using Iraqi funds that they have themselves frozen previously to pay for more of this stuff (again, offsetting US costs).

The cynic in me says that this is the best business move the US has pulled in generations - invading a nation and getting them to pay as much as possible to repair the damage caused by their "liberators".

The US put the price tag on this war at something like 70 billion dollars. I wonder has anyone calculated the revenue this war will generate for the US should it get its way, and whether or not that will dwarf whatever amount of that 70billion the US can't dodge paying out of its own pocket.

Afghanistan was billed as the "most successful war in history". I'm curious as to whether this latest one will go down as "the most profitable war in modern history".

jc
jc

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Well, I suppose it's the law. They sued the Iraqi government and the Iraqi government didn't defend the action, while the claimants showed some cause. In any other situation such a claim could / would succeed (assuming the judge is happy the formalities of the case).

However, the Iraqi money is still embargoed (if it all Iraqi government money) and releasing it would be in breach of the UN resolutions. In purely legal terms, the award should go to the “bottom” of the list of claims (something like US$300bn).

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
Well, I suppose it's the law. They sued the Iraqi government and the Iraqi government didn't defend the action, while the claimants showed some cause.

True...but I love that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" is being applied so rigorously here - especially when the result is such good PR for the government, especially when they have no formal influence on the legal system.

They couldnt have asked for a more fortuitous jurtification of their claims than the findings of such an impartial court as the US would have.

jc

p.s. I agree that the claims should be put somewhere near the bottom of the list in terms of who gets what. Somehow, though, I got the impression from the article that not only was this not the case, but that there were a plethora of other similar cases in the wings waiting to see how this one turned out before they too decided that their tragic loss was more worthy of cash than the people who were oppressed for that money to be obtained in the first place. Such truly considerate people...I can see why they supported the liberation of the poor oppressed...its because they cared so much.

jc

Samson

Originally posted by Victor
However, the Iraqi money is still embargoed (if it all Iraqi government money) and releasing it would be in breach of the UN resolutions.

You think that is going to make any difference to the cabal pulling Bush's strings?

Typedef

The US is using frozen Iraqi funds to award damages to families for the 9/11 attacks...on the grounds that the judge has ruled that there was a proven link.

What a patsy. Proven link, yeah, the sort of link that exists between two countries that get invaded 'consecutively' by a foreign power. Namely Afghanistan & Iraq getting invaded by the US.

Oh wait that was obvious. So what, trying to find logic in propaganda is a waste of time. The US firmly believes that might is right, or more to the point, nobody in the world can stop the US acting as it pleases, so, being the world's top dog, the US acutally does do, as it pleases.

This is a developed policy exponenciated by the USA right now, called unilateralism.

Sure, the war indemnity that Iraq has to pay the US can get some lip service propaganda to be thrown at random liberals/doves on American TV, but, all this really is, is the US taking the spoils of war.

Simple really and totally predictable. At least the US hasn't tried to annex Iraqi & Iraqi oil fields, it has no need to do so, the next Iraqi puppet government will do that in lieu of actual propaganda defended dictat from Washington running Iraq. The US after all has no interest in running Iraq, it merely has interest in exploiting Iraqi oil.

Why I am stating the obvious, I don't know.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by bonkey
True...but I love that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" is being applied so rigorously here - especially when the result is such good PR for the government, especially when they have no formal influence on the legal system.
jc

As an aside, I'd note that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", is a standard defined for criminal trials. You'll find that the standards for fault in a civil litagation are far different.

Carpo

BBC's Article

Judge Baer said in his ruling: "I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, by evidence satisfactory to the court, that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaeda."

"Although these experts provided few actual facts of any material support that Iraq actually provided, their opinions... provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al-Qaeda," the judge said.

It can be argued about wether the frozen Iraqi funds are be used to 'offset' US costs or not, but I find it worrying that the families of 2 victems could be awarded $104m from those funds. When I think how much use that money could be for rebuilding Iraq and humanitarian aid, I just cant see the logic of this descision.

I was under the impression that the frozen funds would be used to benefit the Iraqi people but now it seems that they are being held responsible for something that Sadam's regieme may have done.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
True...but I love that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" is being applied so rigorously here -

It doesn't apply in this case, it is a civil suit, the plaintiff only needs to show hte balance of evidence is on thier side. It is not the plaintiff's "fault" that the Iraqi government didn't defend the case.

Sparks

What do I think? It's criminal theft.

Just out of interest, I remember when the $1.6 billion in Iraqi funds was seized by the US that they were rather vague (read "they never said") as to who the funds belonged to - the Iraqi government or to individual Iraqis with business dealings in the States.

Now I'm guessing we'll never know...

ps. Victor, when were the Iraqi government served with notice of the lawsuit?

shotamoose

I may be wrong, but I didn't take it from the story that the funds will actually be used as the judge says, just that he lodged this charge against Saddam, Osama and pals, and it has been suggested that the money come out of those frozen funds.

Secondly, does anyone know who exactly owned that $1.7 billion of 'Iraqi funds' that was frozen in 1991? Is it all government stuff, or is there any civilian or business money there too?

Victor

Originally posted by Sparks
ps. Victor, when were the Iraqi government served with notice of the lawsuit?

No idea. But from reading the article, they were.

Clintons Cat

Judge Baer said in his ruling: "I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, by evidence satisfactory to the court, that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaeda."

By the same standards there is a stronger case against the US government for having provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

All those Stinger missiles didnt fall off the back of a airoplane.

Victor

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
All those Stinger missiles didnt fall off the back of a airoplane.

Of course not, they were delivered by third party ship :rolleyes: