to persuade the courts to disregard congressional intent compel congress to add section ten eighty three to the fiscal year two thousand and eight national defense authorization act that provision reaffirms the right of an american victim to sue a foreign state sponsor of terrorism a u s court for quote personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture extrajudicial killing or hostage taking unquote president bush however vetoed that bill based solely on that provision asserting that iraq must be shielded from law below the in order to protect iraqi reconstruction efforts shielded that is from liabilities the american soldiers who were brutally tortured as p o w s and shielded from liability to the  under well settled international law a successor regime regime remains liable for the bad acts of its predecessor furthermore under the geneva convention no nation may have solved another from liability for torturing p o w s the president has not satisfactorily explained why these fundamental principles should be disregarded here nor has he satisfactorily explained why all of iraq's assets must be shielded even while it is reaping billions upon billions of dollars from its oil fields and is readily paying off a war commercial debts with foreign corporations told in five point four billion dollars it would have been helpful to hear from someone in the administration today but the departments of state justice and treasury all declined the committee's invitation to testify on this matter and nonetheless look forward to having an insightful discussion which i hope aluminite the reasons we must help these innocent americans obtain justice coupled with the new waiver of the word we gave the president we also expressed the sense of the congress that he should work with iraq to get fair compensation to these victims that provision is nonbinding but we maintain hope that the president will take copper invitation and perhaps today we will discuss possible ways to further encourage him in that direction i should cabby at that my remarks are those also of chairman conyers now that we have to members but before we recognize them i wan six as you said congress amended the foreign sovereign immunity zakk to allow us victims of terrorism to sue designated state sponsors of terrorism for their terrorist acts the courts have handed down large judgments against the terrorist state defendants generally in default and successive administrations have intervened to block the judicial attachment of frozen assets to satisfy judgments in two thousand and one congress directed president bush to submit no later than the time he submitted the proposed budget for fiscal year two thousand and three a legislative proposal to establish a comprehensive program to ensure fair equitable and proper compensation for all united states victims of international terrorism or relatives of deceased united states victims of international terrorism that occurred or occurs on or after november first one nine hundred seventy nine as explained in the conference report for that legislation and i quote objections from all quarters have been repeatedly raised against the current ad hoc approach to compensation for victims of international terrorism it is imperative that the secretary of state in coordination with the departments of justice and treasury and the other relevant agencies develop a legislative proposal that will provide fair and proper compensation to all u s victims of international terrorism however as has been stated no such plan was put forward in this congress a rider to the national defense authorization act for fiscal year two thousand and eight provided a federal cause of action against terrorist states and to facilitate enforcement judgments after the president vetoed the bill based on the possible impact the measure would have on iraq congress passed this new version h r forty nine eighty six authorizing the president to waive its provisions with respect to iraq again the president signed the bill into law and promptly issued a waiver with respect to iraq the exercise of the waiver with respect to iraq will likely prevent p o w s from the first gulf war from reopening their claims on the day the president signed the waiver issued a statement justifying the exercise of the wa that without a waiver the provisions would have potentially devastating impact on iraq's ability to use iraqi funds to expand and equip the iraqi security forces which would have serious implications for u s troops in the field acting as part of the multinational force in iraq and would harm anti terrorism and counterinsurgency efforts present also stated that if applied to iraq the provision would redirect financial resources from the continued reconstruction of iraq and would harm iraq's stability contrary to the interest of the united states in light of the waivers likely effects on pending cases congress included the following sense of congress in the provisions creating a private cause of action quote the president acting through the secretary of state should work with the government of iraq on a state to state basis to insure compensation for any meritorious claims based on terrorist acts committed by the saddam hussein regime against individuals who were united  nationals or members of the united states armed forces at the time of those terrorist acts and those claims cannot be addressed in the united states due to the exercise of the waiver authority so i look forward to this hearing about the progress of those efforts i've supported efforts to help provide redress for victims of torture by foreign states in the past but i remain mindful of executive branch concerns regarding how similar proposals might on dually restrict the ability of the president to negotiate an exercise leverage over foreign states to achieve redress outside the courts these are difficult issues especially difficult are proposals that contemplate using u s taxpayer dollars to pay for damages caused by terrorists as a congressional research service has pointed out the u s the use of u s funds to pay portions of some judgments has drawn criticism calls for more effective unfair means to compensate victims of terrorism have not yielded an alternative mechanism is our hope that this hearing in the consideration of various bills before this committee might reach some conclusion to this problem so i hope this hearing today will come closer to finding such a fair and effective means of compensation and i thank the chairman for the time thank you as anyone else can want to make an opening statement if not without objection other members opening statements will be included in the record this hearing will consist of two panels first we'll hear from two of our house colleagues bruce braley of joe sestak of pennsylvania bruce braley was elected to congress in two thousand and six previously he worked as an attorney holding corporations accountable to their employees and consumers he serves on the committee on transportation and infrastructure and on oversight and government reform as the son of a war two veteran who fought evil jima has been a passionate advocate for the p o w s joe sestak was also allowed to the congress in two thousand and six rather splendid year he spent thirty one years serving our nation in the u s navy rising to the rank three star admiral congressman sestak served in the armed services education and labor and small business committees mr brayley please begin thank you mr chairman ranking member ranking member lundgren it's my honor to be here today with my good friend joe sestak who certainly brings a lot more professional expertise to this issue than i do i was at home with my family on christmas eve when i heard the surprising news is news that the president had vetoed the defense authorization bill of two thousand and eight i was then shocked to learn that the reason he vetoed that bill was because it did provide a mechanism to allow tortured p o w s from the first gulf war to receive compensation that had long been denied them i was outraged and i immediately contacted my staff because i wanted to do something about it and my my reason goes to a much deeper level than just my interest in this as a member of congress iowa has a long history of hostages and prisoners of war who have been held captive including catherine cooper who is a constituent of mine who teaches at warburg college in waverly iowa held four hundred forty four days as a hostage in iran terry anderson longest held captive in lebanon spent seven years there a graduate of the universe state university my alma mater thomas sutherland who was dean of the agricultural school at american university in beirut the second longest held hostage in that crisis taylor sube who is a resident of le claire iowa who was captured in kuwait and used as a human shield and that's why this is a very personal issue for me in addition to one that concerns me as a member of congress i'd like to put this in perspective by reading from a book the gulf between us love and terror in desert storm colonel cliff a create the united states marine corps and his wife cynthia who won fort unable to be with us today but i think this tells us what we're talking about this is from page eighty eight in a chapter titled the trip to hell and it's located at the iraqi interrogation center in baghdad in january one thousand nine hundred one and i'm quoting from colonel before i blacked out the interrogators had started hitting me with a club like a nightstick thick and rubberized with a solid top and a spring at the bottom a blow accelerated just before it hit after a couple hours i got to the point where i quit flinching my captors had broken my nose several times and hard lumps were accumulating on my head but i was not going to tell them any plans for the him to be a slanting in kuwait ninety four thousand marines deployed in the gulf area including eighteen thousand  aboard amphibious assault ships counted on me not to jeopardize their lives i had been knocked out many times when i saw flashing stars i recognized relief coming i'd lose consciousness until they rouse me again i drifted into the welcome darkness of an consciousness many times each time they rouse me i wished for that natural escape again the body somehow adapts to release you from pain and you fall quicker into that blessid piece after that last blow i must of been unconscious a long time before they'd wake me quickly with a slap in the face or a kick in the ribs stand up they d l shaking and gasping i would come back to life hearing the same voice and remembering the last blow but this time  prodded me as if wondering did we kill him i was alive but with a shattered nose and a fractured skull that is one of many examples from goal for p o w s who were tortured under the brutal regime of saddam hussein when they were released as prisoners of war they were welcomed home by their government including secretary of defense cheney who welcomed them with these words quote welcome home your cum country is opening its arms to greet you and that is exactly the spirit in which they were come back as people who had gone through a tremendous ordeal and needed to be taken care of and yet this country has consistently failed to live up to its obligations under the foreign sovereign immunity act to provide these tortured p o w s and human shields with the compensation that they deserve one of the rationales offered for the president's veto was that it would expose iraq to billions of dollars of liability and harm reconstruction efforts which is clearly a ridiculous claim when you look at what's happened as these p o w s and human shields and their attorneys have attempted to negotiate first with the government of iraq and then with the administration this is also evidence by the fact that the government of iraq has entered into compensation dispute resolution with the governments of korea and japan on behalf of companies like hundred i and mitsubishi settling billions of dollars of commercial claims while people who who suffered torture like i just described have gone without compensation the fact that iraq is it predicted to make one hundred billion dollars in oil revenues in one in two thousand and eight and the fact that the administration is currently working with iraq to resolve it commercial debt debt shows why it is important to stand up for these victims of torture that's why i introduced h r fifty one sixty seven the justice for victims of torture and terrorism act in january to eliminate the waiver that was granted and revised fiscal year two thousand and eight d o d bill at that same time i've also been working closely with the victim's attorney on an alternative proposal that would give the government of iraq ninety days to resolve the claims of american victims of torture and terrorism before that waiver that was put into the last d o d bill would be terminated the alternative that i'm proposing would eliminate any fears of a flood of expensive lawsuit because it specifies the plaintiffs against iraq and specifically offers relatively modest amounts in spite of a judgment that already is on the books for the w torture victims the total amount that iraq would have to pay under this compromise agreement would be approximately four hundred fifteen million dollars to put that into perspective we spend three hundred thirty eight million dollars a day in iraq right now and about two point four billion dollars every week since there would be no threat of future claims since iraq is no longer designated as a state sponsor terrorism it would have affected lee kept any liability claims against the government of iraq so it's the type of proposal that should have broad bipartisan support it will eliminate the claims as a concern of the iraqi government and it will finally finally provide compensation to these victims of torture and terrorism who have been putting up with this ordeal for fall too far too long under the proposal that we are speaking about p o w s and family members would be waiving approximately seventy seven percent of the entire judgment for going all punitive damages awarded by the court which is almost three hundred six million dollars and two thirds of all compensatory damages awarded over four hundred thirty five million dollars and it would be the type of result that i think would make everyone walk away from this terrible tragedy with a very positive feeling about their country and how it stood up for these victims of torture and terrorism and i would just like to close with a poem that colonel a curry wrote his own ballad to freedom he calls it what freedom means to me to walk without being blindfolded to raise my arms without handcuffs to see the sky and feel the warmth of the sun to speak my own thoughts to sleep without fear to know i'll eat today a day without terror and pain to stand in defense of freedom and win on behalf of colonel a creek captain larry slade who's here today and all the victims of torture and terrorism it's time that we put this matter to rest and give the compensation that they deserve thank you my life and so i think i want to speak initially on behalf of those who i served with that this congress and presidents have sent into harm's way but i want to speak about it in terms of the rule of law after world war two as was initiated among us particularly those who led our sons and daughters of this nation to harm's way in  nine the united states agreed to the third great geneva convention prisoners of war that we would never absolve any state of liability for what is illegal torture it did not make death illegal killed on the battlefields which we knew we go out there ready for the ultimate sacrifice it made torture illegal after the horrific evidences of it in world war t but i also come today speaking because i've been part of another institution before i came to congress having served at the white house and having seen a commander in chief that was a president but also had responsibility under the rule of law to the presidency and the legacy by how well he had here to national and international law the legacy he would be leave behind in the presidency now as a member of congress i'm very conscious that we are congress people but more we're an institution congress that actually does make the laws under the constitution the rules and regulations of our military we are the ones that send them to war we are the ones as an institution that declare war i bring this out because having been to eighty odd countries over those many years i saw how much we were respected for the power of our military and the power of our economy but how much we were admiring by the values of our ideals the power of our ideals which ultimately race not on a man or woman but on the rule of law in one nine hundred ninety one we had seventeen prisoners of war tortured illegal under the rule of law of this globe we live on that the united states said was illegal you train us because you provide for the rules regulations never distain our nation by doing torture to others and holding our nation liable to other countries we expected the same contract with this institution if we were to be tortured after they were tortured they waited to two thousand and two before they sued under the rule of law international law not just national whatever the real reason was that the commander in chief decided to veto that defense authorization bill in december but this past year if it did have to do with the threat allegedly of pulling twenty five million dollars out of our private markets as has been reported that the iraqi government said it would do i have little understanding how tortured that that country would be held liable for the cost of what they're asking for is about a fourth of the day of the cost of the war in iraq but i don't think that's the major issue here i come back that this is an institution that i believe on the day we voted to give this president a waiver that those who served us so well who when we asked that here in my send me that under a contract with them of the rule of law not to tortured and if you war we would hold that country liable that now we say or said in january but we can waiver it there is no higher power we have than the power of our ideals and so i ask this institution to remember that we are congresspeople more this is an institution that i am proud to serve just as i was in the institution of our armed services or at the white house and that under that rule of law that principle we need to remember to support our troops who we send out under the rule of law that's what our nation's bedrock is based upon thank you i want to thank each of you for your testimony in taking time out of your day to share with us your unique perspectives on this issue a very important subject and we will excuse you with our thanks and panel our next group if they would come forward our first witness on the panel as ambassador john northmore co counsel in a creek versus republic of iraq he's a professor of law at the university of virginia and directs the centers for national security law and oceans law and policy has previously served as a counselor on international law to the department of state and as ambassador in depth he's actual representative of the president the law of the sea his representation of the p o w s to sully and his personal capacity our next witness will be captain lawrence randolph slade a plaintiff in the a creek case captain slade's f fourteen aircraft was hit by a missile during the gulf war which prompted him to eject into iraq during his captivity as a p o w doored violent interrogations during which he was blindfolded and handcuffed beaten with wooden bats and subjected to four mock executions as a result captain slade suffered very serious injuries including broken vertebra abnormal liver functions an extreme pain caused by scar tissue resulting from repeated trauma to his abdomen thank you for your service next we have dan wolfe counsel and vine bursts of republic of iraq and hillary versus republican iraq he has for more than two condit experience litigating human rights and sovereign immunity issues both as an attorney in the office of legal advisor and in private practice has played a leading role in numerous cases involving the interpretation of the foreign sovereign nine he was recruited by two whites institute of scientific research to manage an ambitious plan to install parks gardens and freeway landscaping throughout the country a year later mr circulus was taken hostage by the iraqi regime and held in captivity for more than four months as a human shield we welcome each of you without objection your written statements we made a part of the record in their entirety we would ask each of you to summarize your testimony in five minutes or less  again there is a button there that gives you thank you ms amplification but it is an honor to appear before the judiciary committee today as co counsel representing seventeen american former prisoners of war tortured by iraq during the one nine one gulf war and thirty seven of their close family members in support of the brayley sestak proposal with your permission i will place in the record not only my written testimony but also the decision of the district court holding iraq accountable for their torture it is also an honor to appear on a panel with one of the lead p o w s in the case captain larry slade i have been privileged to work with captain slade for the past six years and his historic effort to hold his torturers accountable and i am very aware of his extraordinary courage under brutal torture captain slade is quite simply one of the finest americans it has been my privilege to know but i would like to share with the panel something else i just learned yesterday about captain slade which i think this committee want might want to know it is that captain larry randolph slade is a direct descendant of thomas jefferson and larry's mother is buried at monticello justice for american p o w and taking effective action to implement the word of the congress the president and the nation to ensure that future american p o w s held by the enemy will not be tortured is of course not a partisan matter there is no party only country when it comes most of the protection of american p o w s as the representative of these courageous american p o w s tortured by iraq let me share with you the compelling story for recognizing their rights and national security interest in protecting w s from torture that story simply reflects bedrock american values first america keeps its word this house as well as the senate of the united states repeatedly warned iraq it would be held accountable for the torture of our american p o w is in three unanimously adopted resolutions in addition to that we've already discussed the provision in the the o w convention that says that no state a torturing state of any liability a pledge of the nation itself the word of the congress and of the nation is clear those who torture americans will be held accountable there is no if and or but attached to those pledges second america supports its p o w s the p o w s tortured by iraq during the gulf war were welcomed home by a grateful american people but if the record of a courageous action of tortured american p o w s to enforce the rule of law is a race because of silence now future generations of american p o w s held by the enemy will receive even more enthusiastic torture third america is fair americans do not believe that p o w s tortured by iraq should personally pay for the reconstruction of the country which tortured them clearly any such expense of reconstruction is a public purpose to be borne by the nation as a whole and did you ask our p o w s and family members to pay with their legal rights for the reconstruction of the country which tortured them  rly repugnant similarly americans do not believe that it is right for iraq to resolve a minimum of twenty to thirty billion in commercial claims of foreign corporations while ignoring the valid claims of american p o w is an american civilian hostages surely the debt owed to american p o w s is a debt of honor which should come before commercial claims and certainly should not be ignored while commercial claims are paid for with america defends its honor after the p o w s had brought their action against iraq twenty distinguished former high level national security officials wrote to the president about the historic opportunity in this case in discussions concerning this letter i have never forgotten the whys summary of this matter volunteered by anthony lake a former assistant to the president for national security affairs he noted that supporting our w s was simply a matter of national honor surely he is correct and perhaps this profound statement captures it all mr chairman and ranking member lundgren these courageous w s and their family members whom the nation owes a debt of gratitude have struggled out for six years and their efforts to hold their torturers accountable surely six years in their efforts to support the rule of law again  volunteers for their country is enough from my heart i urge you to support these wonderful americans thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and testify on this matter of national honor good afternoon chairman ranking member member longer in the members of the committee it's an honor to appear before the judiciary committee today on behalf of myself and six another american former prisoners of war tortured by iraq during the one nine hundred ninety one gulf war i and thirty seven of our close family members from my colleagues for whom i appear the issue at stake in this hearing is clear will the congress the president and the nation that hear to their word to hold accountable those who torture american prisoners of war failure to do so will dramatically raise the risk that americans held as p o w s by the enemy will continue to be tortured the brayley suspect proposal now before this committee will honor that national commitment and reduce the risk that future american p o w s will be tortured as we were we strongly support its prompt passage on april fourth two thousand to i joined the sixteen of my fellow go for p o w s who had been brutally tortured by iraq during that war and thirty seven of our family members in filing a historic suit in federal court we brought this suit to add deterrence against the torture of american w s through enforcing the rule of law and holding accountable the torturing state on july seventh two thousand and three judge roger richard roberts of the federal district court for the district of columbia after a care careful review of the facts and the law word substantial judgments to each of the fifty four affected american p o w s and close family members he found that quote no one would subject himself for any price to the terror torment and pain experienced by these american p o w s unquote and quote there must be a premium on protecting p o w s because p o w s are uniquely disadvantaged and deterring torture a period of use should be of the highest priority despite these judgments for us however today to have been unable to obtain closure on this matter my fellow i who brought this historic case were tortured by iraq through brutal beatings starvation electric shock whipping burning mock executions threaten dismemberment threats to our families subjection to bombing and breaking of bones and ear drums for our spouses and other family members in the united states iraq's refusal to permit notification of capture its public state it's about using us as human shields and it's coerced propaganda tapes of beaten p o w s produced severe mental anguish the horrifying specifics for each of us in our family members are set out in detail in the opinion of the federal district court in a curry versus the republic of iraq and generally twenty third one thousand nine hundred one during our period of captivity the house adopted concurrent resolution forty eight by a vote of four hundred eighteen to zero condemning quote the abuse by the government of iraq of captured united states and allied service members including the apparent use of physical and mental coersion iraq's state's stated intention to disperse prisoners of war to potential military targets and iraq's flagrant and deliberate violations of the third geneva convention the senate followed with concurrent resolutions five and eight by unanimous vote declaring quote the united states condemned the government of iraq for brutal mistreatment of american and other prisoners of war for deliberately placing their lives in danger and for other violations of the third geneva convention he's a reporter full in important statements that iraq would be held accountable statements for which we are grateful to the congress but these statements will ring hollow for the future unless backed with action now my fellow p o w s also appreciate that on february seventh two thousand to president george w bush issued an executive order in which he stated quote the united states will hold states organizations and individuals who gain control of united states personnel responsible for treating such personnel humanely and consistent with the portable law unquote our nation has also pledged its word in this matter as has iraq for for article one thirty one of the third geneva convention creates a binding treaty obligation never to absolve the torturing state of any liability for the torture of p o w s this treaty is in force for every nation in the world including iraq and the united states it embodies one of the core deterrent mechanisms built into the treaty against the torture of p o w s that of non absolve the liability in turn president george w bush has pledged to the nation that america will abide fully by the geneva the record is clear congress the president and by solemn treaty obligation america and iraq have pledged that those who are tortured who torture american p o w s will be held accountable this treaty obligation as it binds both iraq and america is not absolve the bill mr chairman we are also mindful th historic effort to deter torture of american p o w s is rooted in the rule of law with the support of this committee which is dedicated to the rule of law we are hopeful that future generations of american p o w s will not have to endure our ordeal the rule of law is a key bulwark against tyranny and evil at a not inconsiderable risk to ourselves we have sought to ensure that the rule of law can make a difference in the struggle against torture of american p o w s held by the enemy with the help of this committee it can and it will i would like to thank this committee on behalf of all the p o w s and family members for your steadfast support and for the opportunity to appear before you and testify on this matter of national honor thank you thank you captain slade and now the chair recognizes m united states and its coalition allies from taking military action to liberate kuwait like miss were childless many of these americans were rounded up relocated to strategic sites where they were detained for up to one hundred thirty days as human shields in deplorable conditions and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment the others remained in hiding or were trapped inside diplomatic properties all of the hostages lived each day in fear for their lives many witnessed unimaginable atrocities some were beaten raped tortured and subjected to mock executions after congress made it possible to do so one hundred eighty of those former hostages filed the hill case against iraq and a couple years later to one hundred forty more file divine case by mid two thousand and two all one hundred eighty of the plaintiffs in the whole case had obtained judgments in their favor totaling ninety four million dollars in the aggregate in march two thousand and three literally on the eve of iraq of iraq operation iraqi freedom president bush issued an order directing that all of the hill judgments be paid in full from blocked iraqi assets at the same time however the administration confiscated all of  remaining blocked assets transferred them to the coalition authority in iraq where they were mostly squandered acknowledging that these actions left a two hundred forty bind plaintiffs out in the cold the bush administration gave public assurances their rights would be protected promising quote to make sure that people who secured judgments find some satisfaction assurances that came from as high up as secretary of state powell for the next four years however the bush administration and state did nothing to honor that promise finally in december two thousand and seven congress amended the law in a manner that would have given the american victims of some through taliban the right to obtain compensation from monies that iraq had deposited in u s banks but that was not to be acting at the behest of the state department president bush vetoed that bill the state department tried to justify that because it would put billions of dollars of iraqi money at risk imperiling the reconstruction effort that was a gross exaggeration but using it the bush administration managed to convince congress to enact a compromise bill a bill under which a compromise under which the president was given the authority to exempt iraq from the reach of the new law in exchange for an initiation promise to use its best efforts to resolve the claims of american victims of iraqi terrorism last month the state department showed just how much that promise was worth they informed us that the administration fully agreed that the former hostages had valid claims but they said that now was not the right time to raise it with iraq the issue with iraq because united states did not have sufficient leverage that the department has no intention of ever doing anything to vindicate the rights of iraq's american victims has recently become apparent from news reports according to those reports the u s has told iraq that will continue to protect iraqi assets from these and other claims only if iraq agrees to a strategic alliance with the united states giving the u s long term basing rights in iraq and affording u s servicemen immunity from iraqi judicial process the irony could not be greater having once had their physical selves held hostage by the iraqi government to extort concessions from the united states iraq's former american victims are now having their claims held hostage by their own government so that it can extract concessions from iraq at this point i would estimate eighty to consider the moral implications of what the state department's doing one of the primary duties of the department is to defend and protect the rights of american citizens to be free from abuse by foreign governments instead of lifting so much as a finger to protect those rights at the department or for him to trade them away in exchange for bases and other concessions in iraq why does the state department need to use the rights of these american victims as leverage aren't we buying enough leverage with the blood of american soldiers who are dying every day in iraq isn't the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars enough to purchase leverage with the iraqi or is it just that the department is tired of being bothered by these claims and is looking for a convenient opportunity to  them forever the only way the bush administration's promise of the former hostages will be ever be filled is it congress fills the void the brady says that proposal would do just that thank you for the opportunity to testify in this matter citizen a lifelong resident of nevada and a veteran of the korean war where i served in combat and with the third infantry division i would like to say that i believe that this hearing to be a signal event in the effort to resolve the question of compensation for prisoners of war and human shields  institute for scientific research they hired me to manage an ambitious plan to install parks gardens fountains and freeway landscaping throughout the country it was to be a long term effort  after selling my business i moved to kuwait with my wife and commence what turned out to be the most rewarding work of my life that work however came to an abrupt end when the iraqi army invaded kuwait summary executions the iraqi army soon set up a command post directly across from our apartment building very quickly the fighting came very close to our building several of the will the windows in our flat were shot out by machine gun fire scared to death my wife and i huddled in the basement finding mattresses around us for protection and so in august saddam hussein issued an edict that allowed the security forces to round up american citizens so they could be used as human shields to deter him bombing we moved into the basement on a permanent basis and then to a safe house we lived in a state of constant anxiety and fear knowing that the iraqi soldiers could storm the door in a minute they struggled to keep up our spirits the stress and tedium raised havoc with us worst of all was a feeling utter hopelessness that i could do nothing to protect my wife and comfort my daughters at home fortunately in september so tom was shamed into alarming the release of women and children saying goodbye to my wife knowing i might never see her again it was a heartbreaking experience for me two days later what i had feared came to pass the iraqi soldiers kicked down a door and struck me in the face with a rifle butt knocking me down to the ground and kicking me in the stomach one of those kicks broke an abdominal hernia that had been repaired to my departure for equate i sustained a just located denture bleeding gash on my eye and left a nasty star going to be shot there was an argument about my passport iraqi officer looked at it since something in arabic and they put me back in the car i was taken to a police station and put in jail with my hands tied behind my back i could hear horrifying screams all night long next morning i was taken to a hotel and then handed on a bus with a number of hostages and then taken to baghdad we were given oath to a chemical complex near samir a little for you in your mind it's where the golden dome mosque which was blown up several years ago is located  where we were held was a rat infested roach desert flies apart from an hour each day when we were allowed to walk we were confined to these awful thoughts almost around the clock the kitchen was disgusting and unsanitary we developed all kinds of skin sore suffered from chronic diarrhea became so detailing debilitating i had to be taken to a hospital the stress was almost unbearable we were surrounded by armed guards had a creepy sense of being watched every minute made me feel like a caged animal lived in constant knowledge that any movement could be could be executed or that we could kill be killed by a bombing raid if necessary were there to die for our country and tried to pressure a stand to go on television to announce my present country i told him to go to hell  unable to recover my appetite suffered from recurring bouts of depression plague me my difficulty concentrating forced me to retire what would have been the height of my career i have an exaggerated lydon exaggerated stage of response to loud noise i have been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder and i'm still haunted by poor personal memory i would like to  thank you mr chairman in working with the congress on the bill sought to do nothing but restore the original intent of the congress and provisions of law that had been badly distorted for example one provision dealing with the cause of action in a case of technical legal issue bill i believe as you know mr chairman and  this is one in which the committee itself had stated in its report that the provision was intended to create a federal statutory cause of action that was later held by a court something that didn't create a cause of action and created a problem for the p o w s in the case so it would have simply returned to restore the original intent of the congress that's all the p o w saw that they did not by the way see back in the federal to court pursuant to the provisions of the defense authorization bill that simply would have quickly restored our judgment instead of leaving it there as it is currently under a motion in the federal district court a technical legal motion under sixty big so actually what it would have done it would not have taken a penny at that point from a rack it simply would have restored the dor more can you explain how our obligation under the geneva convention never to absolve the torturing state of any liability with regard to p o w s makes this a particularly unique case yes mr chairman this is one of the few if not the only settings in the world and which there is a treaty obligation binding on every nation in the world the o w convention is one of a very few conventions accepted by every nation in the world not simply customary international law and lot of the core deterrent mechanisms and that to prevent torture of p o w is is the provision that not only the torturing state but no state to reflect either a victory in a war or a loser in a war no one can absolve a torturing state of any law but only for torture so we  fundamental principle here indicating that the judgment that had been won by the p o w as determined by the way after a full hearing on the facts in the law by a judge who is a former assistant attorney general abi united states of america and by the way in a procedure and which even when the other side doesn't show up you have to have a full full hearing and go through it in any event so and in a setting as well in which they have had to turn down international arbitration which they did about the case for us initially so this is an absolutely unique setting for the p o w s in which there is a clear obligation that their liability cannot be absolve i might add it's also very very clear in the sense that you already have had a federal judge meant indicating in every single case what the damage you should be after reviewing the careful damages in all of the other cases we also have a presidential statement in two thousand and two that has pledged that the united states of america will hold torturing states accountable they will be held accountable for mistreating americans  so you have a whole series of provisions including three unanimous resolutions of the senate in the house all basically indicating that there should be liability in this case i might  a very important one i'd like to just hold that one for a moment and we'll come back to it that's all right but i would like to talk to some of the points that i think mr lundgren has appropriately raised in relation also to the interest of this in serving the war war effort because we believe very strongly that this bill this proposal does serve the war effort as well you'd like to proceed in that matter yes actually i would thank you very much showing to chairman i appreciate it still are going in harm's way they would not support anything that they believe would harm the war effort in any way shape or form and i would not be here testifying on their behalf if i believe that  when the present the united states vetoed the defense authorization bill it was because at that time i do not believe the administration had a sincere arac had a sense of what the liabilities might be in relation to the provisions in that bill which had not been sought were not put in by the p o w s but i think realistically they didn't know at that time what those liabilities were thanks to the action of the congress in putting in a provision indicating that this should be something that the administration tries to resolve the justice department held a meeting on april twenty second for all of the claima that are now reflected in the brayley's sestak matter did not include everyone with all kinds of other claims because we believe these were the claims that were looked at and thought to be valid  at setting all of the claimants made a very substantial presentation putting on the table in the case of the p o w is an illustrative settlement offer that is largely reflected in the that would waive all unity of damages three hundred six million and few hundred of that would waive two thirds of all of the compensatory damages over four hundred million waived of compensatory damages and these are not things awarded by an out of control jury for example in some case that doesn't like iraq these are awarded by federal district judge in the same setting for trials against the united states of america looking at the law and the facts very carefully that was rather extraordinary effort to basically wave in the interest of trying to resolve this matter over seven hundred million dollars in the judgment now why do i believe that this this and i believe this from the bottom of my heart is something that should be strongly supported on a bipartisan basis and serves the war effort as well as serving justice for these p o w s the first of those principles is that this would dramatically get rid of and reduce the most important and politically supported claims against the government of iraq today and it would do so on terms that are very close  the commercial debt arrangements that iraq is basically working out it is largely settling those commercial debts which it's been doing for about twenty cents on the dollar though some have have held out for more  doing the same thing roughly in sovereign debt what are called paris club terms for approximately twenty cents on the dollar that's roughly what's been put on the on the table here for debts  of on or something that we think are far more important to this country and to these p o w s and what they are entitled to than our commercial debts mitsubishi of japan and one daya korea that have already been settled with over thirty billion being settle so this would remove one fell swoop the the remaining core principle claims that have a strong constituency in the congress of the united states and i think that that will have to be resolved appropriately some point the second reason why this is in the war effort mr chairman is that this will simplify the work of the administration in trying to conduct two important negotiations at this point with iraq the first of those is the status of forces negotiation i served as a former counselor on international law the state department and i know about the sofa negotiations they're also engaged in doing a  sort of a strategic overview agreement as well in which they're negotiating with the wreck these are difficult negotiations it will absolutely unequivocally serve those negotiations to remove these issues in a believe that this is potentially an enormously important issue with the american people i think some anonymous advisers are giving a rock very bad judgment the issue of fair treatment of american w s resonates with the american people this issue needs to be result in the interest of support for the new government of iraq and i think they are terribly mistaken if i were there i would immediately resolve this and not even wait for the congress to pass this bill this is a very good deal for iraq in terms of what's what's in here and finally mr chairman the last point as to why this serves the war effort is that one of the objective of the united states of america in this war is to promote a democratic rule of law government in iraq it does not serve that objective for the united states is simply  primly while iraq seeks to basically violate a fundamental treaty obligation nor do i think it is fair to american honor to have a setting in which iraq is being told by these anonymous advisors to go out and settle the debts twenty to thirty billion in debts with foreign corporations of other countries while they're basically ignoring the debt of honor owed to these american p or when you just look at it it appears to be an easy decision i mean when you hear the testimony of captain slate and the test and the testimony that we received from alice how can you dispute the experiences the two of you went through and how can you dispute that it violates every idea of international law and civil conduct and so you wonder why did that ministry not just immediately allow these lawsuits to go forward in these assets that have been  these assets that basically have been frozen to be exposed to these kinds of judgments and so i mean i have to think you've made compelling testimony here ambassador and mr wolf so let me just ask you if you would respond because this is not just a position that this administration is taking in this circumstance and maybe mr what you're talking about is the state department we could really argue about that but let me just articulate a quote from a statement that a previous administration had used with respect to another country involved in the same situation and they said first blocking the assets of terrorist states is one of the most significant economic sanction tools available to the president the proposed legislation this again was a previous administration but the proposed legislation would undermine the president's ability to combat international terrorism and other threats to national security by permitting this case they talked about the host sale attachment to block property thereby depleting the pool of blocked assets and depriving the us of a source of leverage in ongoing official sanctions they're concerned about not only in terms of current conditions but future conditions and i could argue with that but i wish the two of you would it would address that has been like what the most immediate response to that is that this country doesn't negotiate with terrorists and what we're talking about here are country but engaged in brutal acts of terrorism their assets are then attached and the question is are we going to use those assets in some  future negotiation twenty years ten years five years down the line as some type of negotiation while those countries have absolutely no respect for our assets or the rights of our citizens or are we going to use those assets at least in part to to provide s redress for the victims who suffer so terribly now the state department and successive administrations have had every opportunity to resolve these claims on a state state level providing reasonable amounts of compensation they have the power to do that under international law to espouse claims but the problem is that in general and i do direct most of my criticism of this to the state department because i know that it is essential to a bureaucratic problem essentially what the state department is doing is they look at sort of international relations or their mandate as one essential to keeping things call between united states and other countries and they have that sort of make review which sometimes is of course appropriate but they also have a mandate to protect the rights of american citizens and when you're talking about reasonable amounts of compensation from someone like saddam hussein or  from the iranian regime there's just no reason there's no basis to keep assets tied up for ten fifteen twenty years on the basis of some some future speculation that you might be able to use those negotiations and those assets and suffer some sort of leverage i think that the true fact is that the department thinks of those assets as kind of theirs at their sort of daily wick to do what they want with and and for that reason they do this sort of more as a turf issue than anything else i think that's why they're so opposed to it and i would note that in the case of the hill plant this for example you know you have a situation here where you had reasonable judgments we didn't go in there looking for the stars on the moon we were looking for reasonable amounts of compensation five hundred thousand dollars per claim on average some of them were higher some of them were lower and ultimately the bush administration did make the decision to license blocked iraqi assets to pay for those claims of those one hundred twenty victims and yet here we are sitting here today with mr  george and two hundred other americans detained under the same conditions at the same time in the same circumstances and the department somehow feels that it's appropriate that these individuals should not get a single dime in their making no effort i mean lungren about the kind of proposal that the state department could have put forward was asked to put forward years ago we have gone to the department time and time again asking them to put forward the proposal proposal we've proposed alternatives to them we propose various means of addressing these claims and other claims and every time we are met with one response and that response is deafening silence and so the time is now here that congress has to act if they do not nothing will happen and no one's going to get compensated  certainly something that we always look in the department of state i think in this particular case however it does not apply for some very good reasons indeed i think it's actually for the converse in this case the first itself to pay these judgments and so the congress itself had taken action in this where those funds went and when the funds were seized by the president one hundred million of that word is used to play the first tranche of the of the hostages plaintiffs so the hostages plaintiffs the first group at least received one hundred million with the approval of the administration from the blocked assets w s have received absolutely nothing the second point and this is the one why i think mr chairman it's really the converse in this particular case and mr longer and also on it and that is that  in a very difficult set of negotiations with iraq i really think this is an extremely important set of negotiations and very important for the war effort there the so negotiations and the strategic relationship negotiation i believe that these are settings in which iraq actually is in a position to use this because it knows that the president cannot come home without having something probably trying to deal with this arac can use this government against the president of the united states and against the executive branch in relation to leverage the other way i think it is very significant that the administration chose not to testify at this hearing if the administration were clearly an opposition or the president thought that this was a bill that he was worried about or needed to veto would clearly have opposed again going back to my experience in the state department we would never permit a hearing with something of this sort that we felt would compromise our interests and not come up and testify on behalf of the executive branch i think what this sick is signaling very clearly and this is exactly what all of us as the council after the april twenty second justice department meeting felt is that the executive branch of the united states now that it knows that there is a very limited amount of settlement that's been put on the table that's very favorable to her act as well as honorable to the hostages and our people that's a good deal it's easier to have congress to deal with it and  my judgment there standing aside for the congress of the united states to deal with this so you you view the april meeting or consultation as a positive step absolutely indeed let me say i appreciate very much the fact that we had this interagency meeting mr landor and i think the administration was very good in putting on that meeting was responsive to the question that congress had asked them to look at this i'm sorry they then didn't choose to actually resolve the whole thing but i think frankly the reason they didn't is because they felt that they would have better leverage in the other issue of congress resolve this issue and they stepped aside would use what would you say that the consultation helped to narrow the issue or the parameters or the size of the potential recovery or this size of the challenge to the congress and the administration yes sir i think it did think i think the administration saw very clearly me what we were faced with now was a very discreet amount in fact let me put it in context at the time of the presidential veto they were concerned about the possibility of going against  twenty to fifty billion in iraqi assets in united states banks the entire amount in the brayley sest act of approach which is basically all of the valid claims again and how we know that this is the group vetted selected by the justice department itself for these meetings and in that setting what does it amount to that four hundred fifteen million for the towed i'm out it's in the mid two hundred for the  for the p o w s in the group but the total amount is considerably less than one percent interest on one year's interest on iraq's funds and united states banks today which are about fifty billion ignoring all together the additional oil windfall of the tripling doubling and tripling of the oil we're all seeing the prices at the pump today that are going into iraqi coffers iraq itself is saying over and over again today we have the money to do what we want to do they can't possibly spend the money they have now on reconstruction so we're talking about for an issue of national honor and fairness of these people something that is considerably less than one percent  i have a series of questions that accumulated as i listen to the testimony and i think i might try to work backwards through this and in this fashion i don't understand the reluctance on the part of is i listen to your numbers in a way to scribe it it does appear to be a prudent business decision on their part to resolve this and so the question after you amass there would be is there a chance that the iraqis are looking at this could potentially set a precedent that might open up more liabilities in their country to perhaps nationals from other countries that have been tortured in iraq under different circumstances congressman that's an excellent question before i start let me just  extend my condolences for the terrible flood for the people of iowa i'm terribly saddened and i know this whole whole country is thank you very much we all appreciate that the precedent actually works in favor of  settlement because to be able to settle what is the debt of honor that's something that's far more important than any commercial debt and they have to know that for terms that are basically the settlement terms for commercial debts would give them enormous leverage in relation to removing the rest of the sovereign debt that they have i believe that there are some anonymous advisors i don't know who they are i don't know where it's coming from and i don't know the  reason congressman i think they are receiving terribly bad advice in their own interests and in the interest of the war effort and i think it that's it and so then another component of this and i would think that probably everybody on the panel knows about stick with you master and then is there a precedent for american p o w is who were tortured receiving compensation from the nation i'm thinking particularly of course of john mccain who might be an expert on this and probably  opinion there is precedent congressman but unfortunately it has been for what i say are kind of the equivalent of a used car and i think that's absolutely the wrong president and if that's what the united states does and how it responds every country in the world is simply going to continue to torture americans and war after war of the been doing so didn't mind to take that is how might understand whether there have been americans compensated who were tortured in previous wars is that it has that ever happened yes some of them have been a small amounts in world war two i do not believe anyone from vietnam was by the way i might add that  one of the reasons this case was brought to get serious about deterring torture repeal drug use and one of the most effective ways to do it was to implement that provision in the p o w convention i i brought this case with a former legal advisor of the department of state we gave a heads up to the government of the united states before we filed this case the principle witness for the p o w s was the top army  advocate on protection of p o w s and understanding of the laws of war who testified for them in the court we were courier copies of the complaint the day it was filed to the vice president of the united states and the deput secretary of defense this case was fully known by the administration at the time we filed with them and they supported limit me ask this question this is this is the one that that actually troubles me and that is what i'm looking at  amendment that's actually number sixty five and the language here as or an unqualified and unconditional guarantee made by the united states by a united states depository institution to pay within thirty days and then it the claims individually i expect you're familiar with this language is there any precedent for a nation who was at war to take on a liability and in place of a nation who was who was committing the  torture this language binds the united states taxpayer and i think that's an entirely different question and could you tell me if there is a precedent in that regard congressman with with due respect i know the intent of the  any way shape or form have any liability or obligation for the united states taxpayer so i believe that option in the bill is actually a provision that lets iraq either pay immediately from it hold iraq accountable we want the torturers to be held accountable and we have to start somewhere frankly if we could have started with our vietnam as we probably would have done so well i appreciate your position of acid are and i and i share that position and i think it would be a an unfortunate precedent to hold the u s taxpayers accountable for a liability that's likely created by a foreign government an enemy government a terrorist nation and that's that's an important point and and i can't support it if it's going to bind american taxpayers in what is called into railing amendment says an unqualified and unconditional guarantee made by the united states depository institution unless of course that refers to a bond that might be posted with us currency that's a us taxpayer funds would wouldn't would pay that money under under that description understand and i appreciate that and then could you then i just a final question mr sheriff indulge me here under the protocol we've been using and again ambassador could you list some of the precedents historically that have and i'm thinking of war reparations that have been levied against perhaps germany percival post world war one i'm just going from memory when a liability that was incurred by let me say an evil empire a terrorist nation that was transferred then to the peaceful and good people of the legitimate government that was the successor and the result of a successful liberation of the  people are there precedents historically aside from that one i just mentioned congressman i can give you some examples but i'll talk about one in a second but let me just say that that's not what we're about that's not to my knowledge what this bill is back and i couldn't agree more with you what we're about here is holding iraq accountable we want to rock the torturing state to be held accountable we want and if there's any question about the language at all my my point wasn't clearly stated but when you have we have a nation that was a terrorist nation that committed acts of atrocity against the individual sitting here on this panel included then that nation is liberated as they were with  with the help of individuals on this panel in el timidly the successors in that government are representative of the people of iraq who were not culpable and the actions that were ordered by saddam hussein and so the transfer then of the liability that goes from the evil empire over to the peaceful moderate islamic nation that i hope and believe today is an ally of ours sits on a liability on to them what are the historical precedents for something like that thanks for clarifying and i mis standard international law that debts go with states not with governments and if we change that rule it would basically harm financial markets enormously the second reason that is right in this particular case is this is a you setting in which there is an obligation that you can never absolve the torturing state of liability that treaty obligation would trump anything else and the third if you simply looked at this in fairness terms mr  n and you said you know the people of iraq had nothing to do with this we now have a very fine new government in iraq then what you're dealing with is the innocent people of iraq versus the innocent american p o w s who are innocent and endured standard setting in tort law frankly in which you go with the innocent and injured let me say embassador i do not disagree with your response at all and i appreciated it was a saint and i believe it was correct and i will follow up with a written question ideal back and thank chairman i just want to give you a couple  nazi government in germany paid a lot of foreign nationals for years to come after the holocaust and there are fact a series of other examples i think that the problem that we have here and i do totally agree with professor moore statement as you do as well i understand that the successor government is liable for the pay for the responsible for the acts of the prior government but the problem that we really have here is that with our current institutions our state department making these decisions on an ad hoc basis concerned as they are with the foreign policy exegesis of the moment as they perceive them the justice that is delivered is hardly uniform and the problem here is that  the decision of our government is just simply been to ignore these claims for eighteen years now and i would submit also it's very difficult to sort out their reality of the history post world war two there were orders that the court issued that were not follow aurukun public believes one thing reality is another and so it's hard to track that but i think your points well made and well taken i appreciate all the witnesses testimony and i thank mr chairman i yield back thank you mr king mr scott thank you thank you mr chairman iraq yes yes mr congressman they were against the state of iraq they were against the iraqi intelligence service and they were against saddam hussein initially they were also joined in several so actually the survivor of all that of course today is the state of iraq so they're all running against the state of the money that's being held is money owned by the republic of iraq yes sir and it just fallen through some of the comments made were over in iraq presumably right now trying to help iraq and they're re giving for failing to settle sadly congressman they're getting none they have not talked to us and we've not heard any discussion the only official statement we have heard from our own government and we do it was one read at a white house presidential press conference and which the press secretary said on behalf of the president the united states quote there is no amount of money that can adequately compensate these brave americans lawsuits but it seem to me that we're talking about those that are lost in a war are these kinds of judgments recognized internationally congressman yes we believe that this is setting in which it is virtually impossible to find a clearer provision of international law than we have in this case that is you don't torture p o w s by the way this is a very clear question a p o w is very very narrowly limited torture of every single nation in the world is a member of that convention and therefore every nation in the world follows that obligation and they not only have the obligation but an obligation in article one thirty one never to quote absolve torturing state of quote any liability for the torture well if you have a president that could work both ways  in this case the judgments were obtained in the united states if another country were to fire and say that the united states had tortured someone would we would the same principle  applies congressman it applies only in a setting of course in our case as a precedent when you're actually dealing with a prisoner of war recognized prisoner of war under the convention i'm aware that there is a  tribunals that's correct and if in another country they so found would what would our reaction be to their lawsuit electic the question here again is one of a particular finding of a particular court and what the court is and how it worked if what we're talking about is a sham trial in some country that's a terrorist country i think we would properly say this is not the rule of law if what we're talking about is a serious review of the issues for example there has been another setting in which the government of the united kingdom in relation to a finding that certain of its individuals had gotten involved in certain of these things said it volunteered that it owed compensation in that setting and i might add that  the when the secretary of defense of the united states testified before the congress in relation to the abu grab setting he said the united states owed appropriate compensation to those so what we find is rather strange to have in that in that case if they were to actually have a lawsuit in iraq and come up with  judgment amount would we recognize that congressman the united states to my knowledge has not had a setting in which we are engaged in command directed torture against prisoners of war so that finding that would be a matter of finding fact yes but it's but the findings of fact are essential and critical in terms of the rule of law as to what it is and a finding of fact would be a determination of the tribunals where it is yes but it would have to be a fair fair setting and a fair tribunals in terms of what setting and if both sides had the opportunity to present evidence and the tribunals decided against us would  we recognize or not recognize it depending on whether we agreed with their determination i think that would be an issue for as it always is for looking at individual settings and individual cases congressman but let me just say that  i realize we can talk of riot hypotheticals and but this is this is a very real case we have here in which we have an absolutely clear absolutely fair determination with a federal judge former assistant attorney general for human rights in the united states department of justice finding absolutely clearly with a fair hearing on the law on the facts in a court i think all of us would agree is completely fair and perhaps the clearest of all obligations that we see that are agreed among nations around the world a setting of torture commander directed torture of clear prisoners of war do you think we would have similar just say that that in this case we have a very clear setting and at least our obligation here is to fundamentally adhere to the rule of law in this particular case who i agree with you ok thank you these arguments that allowing american victims of terrorism to hold foreign states accountable in american courts would lead to american made years ago and congress has passed a series of pieces of legislation having heard those arguments and rejected them so that bridge in a way has already been crossed and the issue that we're dealing here today which is whether we're going to make a single exception for one terrorist state that terrorized american victims and we're going to treat that state differently then we are treating other state sponsors of terrorism and there's simply no justification for that the policy decision has been made by congress they would have to congress have to under the entire decision in order before they could possibly their possible justification for exempting one terrorist state where the other examples where terrorists have been sued by people in another country using their courts getting judgments in the local courts and those judgments have men judgments against the sudanese government all terrorist states one by the way a former terrorist libya and the question here today is are we going to and those and those judgments were enforced they were forced absolutely absolutely the pan am one of three judgments on behalf of terry anderson and various others and just to be complete on the answer it is true that there have been some cases brought in the islamic republic terms of the questions the rule of law we have a number of different ways to engage with countries around the world we have to protect ourselves with military force we have to we have economic sanctions to some extent one of the most powerful tools we have that we must use that is enormously effective in the fight against terror we are the two thousand pound gorilla when it comes to the rule of law and when it comes to financial institutions around the world it is in our entrance we will have the fair trials the others will not it is in our interest working with our allies to promote the rule of law in this area by the way we're talking here also about about national  all of these actions were brought under laws that were authorized by the congress of the united states in the one nine hundred ninety six and i tear amendments none of the actions that we brought while they're fully consistent with international law none of these actions were brought under international law they were file under national law as authorized by the congress of the united states and this is another one of the issues for us in the rule of law because we think it's very important when we file these actions that congress has made available for a series of wonderful americans it is very important that congress stand by its word in relation to moving forward on these not just simply the word also of the uni resolution saying we're going to hold accountable those who torture american p o w s so this is really american law that we are talking about in american courts and it is most broadly you're absolutely right in asking this question of how does it work in terms of  what comes around goes around etc the answer is that's in our interest unequivocal in our interest and i would like to join my colleague of mr wilson saying one of the sad things here is the department of state has been caught in old thinking for too many years in relation to that road issue this is not just important for us in this case this is important for example in actions against iran in relation to the war on terror is one of the most effective tools that we have actually one kenya case of which i'm aware it involves a continuation of what was known as the dallas area case involving two american citizens or three american citizens who had  are there analysis and analogies cases with the libyan government were american servicemen might have been injured i'm glad that you asked the question concerning the libyan government there are cases involving the libyan government i don't know whether that any of those cases american servicemen but they certainly are cases against the libyan government involving american citizens and it is interesting especially in light of congressman king's comments about former governments and whether wave form terrorist government and whether we are united states has ever held those accountable apparently the united states government today is involved in state to state negotiations with libya in an effort to try and obtain compensation for some of the american victims that  were killed their families that were killed and otherwise abused tortured by the libyan government so we're doing that with respect to libya but with respect to iraq it seems like our government wants let them off the hook let me ask you one last question recognize gohmert as i understand it we've got a goodly number of the mound of assets of iraq on hold here in america right that's correct more than fifty billion dollars and these were assets of the previous government the saddam hussein government right now i believe that some of them may be residue of the saddam hussein government but i'm not one hundred percent sure of that fact i think some of the money is has to do with the proceeds from oil sales that have been made since then but yes i believe some of that money is from the former government in the other two accounts in new york and to some extent the issue is whether or not those assets that were of the previous terrorist government should be used to satisfy the claims against the government or held for the six or successor government in a sense although we would argue a i believe correctly that the successor government level would you argue that the assets that are existent that were there because of the previous government the terrorist government really aren't the is really the money of the plight of and never was should have been considered the money of the previous government since they had a lot below the that they incurred and that that liability that they incurred even prior to judgment was a lot of delay towards these plane of that the monies really were not the monies of the previous government and should go to the successor government but should go to the people they harmed in their tortious conduct and accordingly it would be a windfall to the to the new government to get the assets and not to have the law buildings also accrue to them is that would that be an accurate statement i like that argument and i think it would be correct i thought you might from texas is recognized thank you it's interesting to hear discussion about the rule of law when we gaining followed proper procedure here in our committee where in the second round and now i'm getting my first round so i appreciate finally being recognized i have a number of questions and really agree with you ambassador that you know it is important to hold people accountable  is also important to hold the right people accountable i agree that using a tort system can be an effective means of holding people accountable i don't agree that it would be more and effective then  criminal law enforcement and punishment of war crimes where you actually get into an individual couple ability i think that's the greatest tool we have is to hold individuals accountable because if we go in and we take money from people who had no complicity in a war crime and in fact they were victims as well being in a country and being made to suffer under ruthless leadership and then we take their money somehow they don't get the idea of how this prayer system we're trying to introduce them to really works but i was intrigued as statement was made basically as i understood it that we have always recognized the subsequent country as being responsible for debts and i was under the impression that washington didn't that otherwise the united states would have been broke and i was not aware that germany actually paid i was under the impression that that's and are still paying the the compensation on behalf of those who were victims of the nazi holocaust and who is paying the german government the german government is paying that to whom to direct victims  of the holocaust and that happened for years and years after how do you get to be a part of that class of known by one of us that there wasn't a loss it was just a system of compensation that was  suspect and acted by the german legislature do you know how you would get to be a part of those who were appropriated certainly if you were former or interned internee at a nazi concentration camp well that would qualify you but it wouldn't things that troubles me as a former judge is people come in and make these statements so broadly which really you know is supposed to be truth basically with culpability for false statements saying where i get trouble  position would as specially an attorney would advise clients don't ever say always but i think congressman we're talking about a number of different things one issue a sort of reparations and whether there were reparations et well i called you on the fact that you said that we have always recognized the subsequent countries obligation to pay the prior countries debt and i'm not sure that i stand  by the point that as a matter of international law it is to my knowledge consistently and always has been the view of the united states government that a change of government does not change live build it and let me just note on that point that all of commercial claims that are being paid the twenty to thirty billion or whatever this figure is we don't know the precise figure that is being paid to these commercial foreign corporations instead of anything to the p o w s are pre war commercial debts of operad so they are agreeing with you that victims should be compensated even before  corporations are i would agree with that i've handled cases as a plaintiff's attorney as a defense attorney and and adam come before me what's a going right for a contingency on a case of this  type i think as a judge you would have pretty good idea of contingency fees and we'd have your the end of forty five to raise from i suppose twenty to forty five whatever let me just say that while we are under a agreement in relation to the clients in this case that it is in the middle or the lower part of that range and let me also say sir that there is nothing nothing that i have ever it with regard to out to grab if those individuals who were imprisoned there who were unfairly abused being required to disrobe some of them had undergarments put on their heads do you know of any system that's ever been set up to set off what kind of damages would be available to someone in that circumstance as compared to the parsons they may have blown their inner guts out how those kind of claims not offset each other if they do congressman i have not studied the legal questions that you've raised so i don't know the answer but i would like to just add a point in relation to i think the the the issue you're you're you're asking that's a very significant one of what are some of the better remedies here to try to deal with this problem the criminal side for example or or civil liability i think you get both i'm not saying you need to one should being literally get those who appreciate that very much and one of the problems here is we have never pursue allowed hussein was never charged with any of the actions concerning the torture of american p o w s so he was charged with a variety of things and of course we know that saddam hussein does but if i at the question of the criminal system being applied to my knowledge it was not applied in this case and by the way i think it's rather interesting why among all the various charges against saddam hussein was there no charge for the torture of american p o w is and one of the reasons that you have the double provisions in the field of the convention is because they know it is very rare to actually apply any of the criminal justice provisions and to get the individuals and apply it so the state liability is a critically important issue well i would submit to when you have the death penalty is being applied because the one charge is not really necessary to try thousands of other charges that's what abs are my time's expired thank you are there further questions of the panel let me ask one does anybody know if there's a c b s score on the brayley proposal yes sir i know the answer to that is recognized i'm delighted to say i know the answer to that mr chairman this issue has been put to the cvo and to the budget committee and i am informed that they have ruled that there are no united states mon at stake whatsoever in the briley system thank you sir mr sharp shallots let me ask you one question where you or any of the other people in queue white to the best of your knowledge given any notice by the state department of the impending jeopardy in which you were placed when the iraqis invaded kuwait no sir and that's an interesting question we had kuwaiti television and to some extent we got iraqi news and we knew that there were troops massing on the border the figure that was given was about one hundred twenty five and i called the embassy and you know i was concerned about it and i said there isn't any problem don't worry about it i went to the director general of the institute and told him i like to take my wife to bahrain and he said no the crown prince is a meeting in thai af and there's no problem and we find out that there was a problem that iraqis invaded on august the second we tried to contact the embassy and the phone nobody answered the phone it was busy we finally got through eight and they said don't bother us we're too busy to talk to you so there was really nothing that we got from the embassy and or the kuwaiti government that gave us any kind of indication that we're in jeopardy i will tell you this we found out later on that the road from coate to saudi arabia was open for three days because we were told it was closed we could have gotten my wife could have got in our car and driven there and been out of harm's way we would had to leave everything but that's a lot better than jeopardizing your life thank you sir captain slight is do you know from your own personal recollection or from any hearsay any effect that the failure of the united states to honor and help with these claims any effect it's had on the morale of soldiers our military mr chairman i don't have i don't have data on that although anecdotally i have obviously many many peers over the years who have looked to us and wondered why this hasn't moved and where it's gone and and why it appears to have dissolved at the at the the best of the government so there's a lot of confusion and those those are people who sir if there are no other questions i'd like to thank each of the panelists for their service to this committee to their service to our country and to the scholarly works and to the bar which they have exhibited here and for your testimony without objection members le five legislative days to submit any additional written questions for you which you have followed and i ask that you answer is probably should and they'll be made a part of the record without objection the record will remain open for five legislative days for the submission of any other additional materials this hearing is helped eliminate the many twists and turns of the p o w s and human shields quest for justice the chairman and i look forward to working with my colleagues in the committee and in the congress to find a way to get a fair measure of justice to these victims for all that they have endured i believe that we should be able to do so in a way that is not duly burdened they present government of iraq the committee will consider the next appropriate steps accordingly and with that the hearing is