Since precedent generally carries a lot of weight in the courts, it is likely that why the US is opposing this is that if their soldiers get compensation then all of the Iraqi prisoners abused by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib would likely also get compensation and there are a lot more Iraqis who were abused by the Americans than vice versa. This doesn't even count those tortured at Guantanamo.
Or (gasp) perhaps there is no logical connection to the current Iraqi government and the Saddam regime that did the torturing? Oh my, common sense! How unwelcome!
This would be like getting bit by a dog at a stangers house, and suing the current homeowner after the original homeowner who owned the dog was put in jail. Shouldn't you be suing the nut whose dog bit you in the first place? Or is logic completely vacant here?
Sad because I don't agree that people should have the ability to sue someone who is not at fault? Sad because I used humour to express disbelief that the new homeowners of Iraq were not the people who tortured these pilots and therefore not responsible?
The original article drips with irony that the US government is opposing their own war heros. But in my use of humour to point out that this position is flawed, and in you assuming that I have never experienced torture, you have twisted the arguement away from that of the author (which is indefensible) to change the topic to be a judge of my moral aptitude.
Let's stay away from that for a second, and let's see if you can defend the article.
Good word though... sardonic. I'll use that about 10 times tomorrow. Thanks Kevin.
As for defending the article. Nothing much I can say. Those soldiers have every right to sue the government.
""" Or (gasp) perhaps there is no logical connection to the current Iraqi government and the Saddam regime that did the torturing? Oh my, common sense! How unwelcome! """
Change of government. Doesn't matter. Iraq is still Iraq. That's like saying any lawsuits against the Canadian, or U.S government just before an election, is no longer valid if there's a government change after the election. The country is still there, and whatever new government there is, takes responsibilty of consequences from past events.
""" But in my use of humour to point out that this position is flawed, and in you assuming that I have never experienced torture, you have twisted the arguement away from that of the author (which is indefensible) to change the topic to be a judge of my moral aptitude. """
Your right. I hope you can accept my apology. It wasn't my intention to judge you. I just found it rude that you would use humour towards this issue.
OK. I appologize as well. Humour wasn't necessarily the best way to convey my point.
That said, the difference between an evolutionary change in a democratic government in Canada or the US after an election is very different than the upheaval of a society after an invasion and the installation of an entirely new regime. Using your arguement, the democratically elected government of South Africa today would be responsible for the injustices made by the Apartheid government of the past.
If your not interested in commenting on the previous comment, then please start a new thread. You sure haven't made any relevant reply to my comment above. To put it in plain language, my comment only meant that the US is opposing its soldiers' lawsuit to cover its own legal ass. It was not a comment in support of anyone suing anyone.
To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)
Stumble It!
Kevin
This would be like getting bit by a dog at a stangers house, and suing the current homeowner after the original homeowner who owned the dog was put in jail. Shouldn't you be suing the nut whose dog bit you in the first place? Or is logic completely vacant here?
Kevin
The original article drips with irony that the US government is opposing their own war heros. But in my use of humour to point out that this position is flawed, and in you assuming that I have never experienced torture, you have twisted the arguement away from that of the author (which is indefensible) to change the topic to be a judge of my moral aptitude.
Let's stay away from that for a second, and let's see if you can defend the article.
Good word though... sardonic. I'll use that about 10 times tomorrow. Thanks Kevin.
Kevin
""" Or (gasp) perhaps there is no logical connection to the current Iraqi government and the Saddam regime that did the torturing? Oh my, common sense! How unwelcome! """
Change of government. Doesn't matter. Iraq is still Iraq. That's like saying any lawsuits against the Canadian, or U.S government just before an election, is no longer valid if there's a government change after the election. The country is still there, and whatever new government there is, takes responsibilty of consequences from past events.
Kevin
""" But in my use of humour to point out that this position is flawed, and in you assuming that I have never experienced torture, you have twisted the arguement away from that of the author (which is indefensible) to change the topic to be a judge of my moral aptitude. """
Your right. I hope you can accept my apology. It wasn't my intention to judge you. I just found it rude that you would use humour towards this issue.
Kevin
That said, the difference between an evolutionary change in a democratic government in Canada or the US after an election is very different than the upheaval of a society after an invasion and the installation of an entirely new regime. Using your arguement, the democratically elected government of South Africa today would be responsible for the injustices made by the Apartheid government of the past.