Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Bush nixes defense bill, cites Iraq-suit provisions

In a setback for the conduct of foreign policy by way of entrepreneurial private lawsuits, President Bush, exercising his pocket veto, has rejected the defense spending bill passed by Congress earlier this month. The president has concerns over a provision that would let victims of Saddam Hussein’s regime with legal claims in U.S. courts seek […]

In a setback for the conduct of foreign policy by way of entrepreneurial private lawsuits, President Bush, exercising his pocket veto, has

rejected the defense spending bill passed by Congress earlier this month.

The president has concerns over a provision that would let victims of Saddam Hussein’s regime with legal claims in U.S. courts seek compensation from the Iraqi government….

If enacted, the White House said, the act would have permitted “plaintiff’s lawyers immediately to freeze Iraqi funds and would expose Iraq to massive liability in lawsuits concerning the misdeeds of the Saddam Hussein regime.

The provision in question would have reactivated litigation, disapproved by a federal appeals court, by which 17 former American POWs from the Gulf War had demanded $959 million from the post-Saddam Iraq regime over their treatment. “They were opposed by the Bush administration, which argued Iraq has reformed and needs the money to rebuild.” (” Defense spending bill to die without becoming law”, CNN, Dec. 28).

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who inserted the provision, says its language is not specifically tailored to Iraq but would instead sweep more widely in empowering lawyers to go after foreign sovereign governments’ commercial assets in suits charging past support for terrorism. The proposal has had support from a few Republicans as well as Democrats. (Politico “Crypt”, Dec. 28).

3 Comments

  • But wait a second, we’ve been told for years that Saddam Hussein had absolutely, nothing to do with terrorism…

  • Had a conversation with the law prof prosecuting the captured US soldiers case. He won the case. After the verdict, the US government filed an intervention claim. They said the verdict could injure US government policy interests. The judge reversed the verdict, without further argument. Prof is still trying.

    I strongly disagreed with the prof. If allowed to collect from Iraq, Iraq tort lawyers could send us the bill for all those houses we bombed, all those innocent civilians killed, the interference with business lost from hostilities.

    His reply surprised me. He said, the US seized only $25 million in North Korean assets and brought them back to negotiations on nuclear weapons development.

    Torts has the potential to replace military attacks. To deter.

    I agree with the Bush veto. I oppose foreign policy for fun and lawyer profit.

    However, the debate is not settled.

  • I thought the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 was 68% the fault of the NY Port Authority. How can it be fair to make terrorist states pay for damage which was actually the fault of the Port Authority?