U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

42–971 PDF 2008

ENSURING LEGAL REDRESS FOR AMERICAN 

VICTIMS OF STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 17, 2008 

Serial No. 110–144 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 17, 2008 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENT 

The Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 1 

The Honorable Daniel E. Lungren, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ....................... 2 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Bruce L. Braley, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6 

The Honorable Joe Sestak, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 9 

Ambassador John Norton Moore, Co-Counsel, Acree v. Republic of Iraq 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16 

Captain Larry Slade, USN (Ret.), Plaintiff in Acree v. Republic of Iraq 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 27 

Mr. Daniel Wolf, Counsel, Vine v. Republic of Iraq 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 32 

Mr. George Charchalis, Plaintiff in Vine v. Republic of Iraq 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 34 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 36 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Darrell Issa, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 12

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 57 

(1) 

ENSURING LEGAL REDRESS FOR AMERICAN 

VICTIMS OF STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM 

TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:06 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steve Cohen 

presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Cohen, Lungren, Issa, King and 

Gohmert. 

Staff Present: Diana Oo, Majority Counsel; and Paul B. Taylor, 

Minority Counsel. 

Mr. COHEN. I call the Committee to order. Good morning. As 

Chairman Conyers is unable to be here, he has asked me to Chair 

this hearing in his stead. 

We are here today to consider how to ensure fair redress to the 

American POWs and civilians who were brutalized at the hands of 

the Iraqi Government during the Gulf War. The soldiers were 

starved, denied sleep, exposed to extreme temperatures, then severely beaten, threatened with castration and dismemberment and 

subjected to mock executions. As a result, they have sustained lasting physical and emotional injuries. 

The civilians, Americans who had the misfortune to be in Iraq 

at the time it invaded Kuwait, were taken captive and held as 

human shields, put directly in harm’s way in an attempt to make 

it harder for the United States and its allies to use military force 

against Iraq. The long-standing efforts of these Americans to hold 

Iraq responsible in U.S. courts for this ordeal has unfortunately, 

thus far, not been appropriately supported by our own government. 

Some of us are hoping that that is now about to change. 

When Congress passed the 1996 amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, it intended to create a Federal statutory 

cause of action that would allow American victims of terrorism to 

hold foreign states to that commitment or provide material support 

for terrorist acts accountable in U.S. courts. Repeated efforts by 

this Administration to persuade the courts to disregard congressional intent compelled Congress to add section 1083 to the fiscal 

year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. That provision reaffirms the right of an American victim to sue a foreign state sponsoring terrorism in a U.S. court for, quote, ‘‘personal injury or 

death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing or 

hostage taking,’’ unquote. 

2 

President Bush, however, vetoed that bill, based solely on that 

provision, asserting that Iraq must be shielded from liability in 

order to protect Iraqi reconstruction efforts; shielded, that is, from 

liability to the American soldiers who were brutally tortured as 

POWs and shielded from liability to the innocent civilians who 

were used as defensive pawns. 

Congress was forced to repass the defense reauthorization bill 

with a provision permitting the President to waive the new provision as to Iraq. The President exercised that waiver within months 

of signing the bill into law. 

Under well settled international law, a successor regime remains 

liable to the bad acts of its predecessor. Furthermore, under the 

Geneva Convention, no nation may absolve another from liability 

for torturing POWs. 

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 it is readily paying off prewar commercial debts to foreign corporations totaling $5.4 billion. 

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. 

Nonetheless, I look forward to having an insightful discussion, 

which I hope will illuminate the reasons we must help these innocent Americans obtain justice. 

Coupled with the new waiver authority 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 

up our invitation, and perhaps today we will discuss possible ways 

to further encourage him in that direction. 

I should caveat that my remarks are those also of Chairman 

Conyers. 

Now we have two Members. But before we recognize them, I 

want to recognize the Ranking minority Member, the Honorable 

Dan Lungren of California, for an opening statement. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank the Chairman, and I appreciate being the 

Ranking Member today. So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

In 1996, as you said, Congress amended the Foreign Sovereign 

Immunities Act to allow U.S. 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 2001, Congress directed President Bush to submit no later 

than the time he submitted the proposed budget for fiscal year 

2003 a legislative proposal to establish a comprehensive program 

to ensure fair, equitable and prompt 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 1, 1979. As explained in the conference report for that legislation, and I quote, ‘‘Objections from all 

3 

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 prompt 

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 2008 provided a Federal cause of action against 

terrorist states and to facilitate enforcement of 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. 4986, 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 

POWs from the first Gulf War from reopening their claims. On the 

day the President signed the waiver, he issued a statement justifying the exercise of the waiver authority, stating that without a 

waiver, the provisions would have a 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-Iraq 

and would harm antiterrorism and counterinsurgency efforts. 

The President 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 waiver’s 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 ensure compensation for any meritorious 

claims based on terrorist acts committed by the Saddam Hussein 

regime against individuals who were United States 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 and support 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 unduly 

restrict the ability of the President to negotiate and 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 the Congressional Research Services pointed out, 

the use of U.S. funds to pay portions of some judgments has drawn 

criticism. Calls for more effective and fair means to compensate victims of terrorism have not yielded an alternative mechanism. 

It is our hope that this hearing and consideration of the various 

bills before this Committee might reach some conclusion to this 

problem. So I hope this hearing today will come closer to finding 

4 

such, a fair and effective means of compensation, and I thank the 

Chairman for the time. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. 

Does anyone else 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 will hear from 

two of our house colleagues, Bruce Braley of Iowa and Joe Sestak 

of Pennsylvania. 

Bruce Braley was elected to Congress in 2006. 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 World War II veteran who fought at Iwo 

Jima, he has been a passionate advocate of the POWs. 

Joe Sestak was also elected to Congress in 2006, a rather splendid year. He spent 31 years serving our Nation in the U.S. Navy, 

rising to the rank of three-star admiral. Congressman Sestak 

serves on the Armed Services, Education and Labor and Small 

Business Committees. 

Mr. Braley, please begin. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BRUCE L. BRALEY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lungren. It is 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 that the President had vetoed the Defense Authorization bill of 2008. I was then shocked to learn that the reason 

he vetoed that bill was because it did provide a mechanism to allow 

tortured POWs 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 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 Kathryn Koob, who is a constituent of mine, who teaches at Wartburg College in Waverly, 

Iowa, held 444 days as a hostage in Iran; Terry Anderson, the longest-held captive in Lebanon, spent 7 years there, a graduate of 

Iowa State University, my alma mater; Thomas Sutherland, who 

was Dean of the Agricultural School at American University in 

Beruit, the second-longest-held hostage in that crisis; Talib Sube, 

who was a resident of LeClaire, Iowa, who was captured in Kuwait 

and used as a human shield. And that is why this is a very personal issue for me, in addition to one that concerns me as a Member of Congress. 

I would like to put this in perspective by reading from a book, 

The Gulf Between Us, Love and Terror in Desert Storm, by Colonel 

Cliff Acree, United States Marine Corps, and his wife, Cynthia, 

who unfortunately were unable to be with us today. But I think 

this tells us what we are talking about. 

5 

This is from page 88 in a chapter titled The Trip to Hell; it is 

located at the Iraqi interrogation center in Baghdad in January 

1991, and I am quoting from Colonel Acree. 

‘‘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. The blow accelerated just before it hit. 

‘‘After a couple of 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 amphibious landing in Kuwait. Ninety-four thousand 

Marines deployed in the Gulf area, including 18,000 aboard amphibious assault ships, counted on me not to jeopardize their lives. 

‘‘I had been knocked out many times. When I saw flashes of 

stars, I recognized relief coming. I would lose consciousness until 

they’d rouse me again. I drifted into the welcomed darkness of unconsciousness many times. Each time they roused me, I wished for 

that natural escape again. The body somehow adapts to release you 

from pain and you fall quicker into that blessed peace. 

‘‘After that last blow, I must have been unconscious a long time. 

Before they would wake me quickly with a slap in the face or a 

kick in the ribs. ‘Stand up,’ they would yell. Shaking and gasping 

I would come back to life hearing the same voice and remembering 

the last blow, but this time my tormentors poked and 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 Gulf War POWs 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 country 

is opening its arms to greet you.’’ 

And that is exactly the spirit in which they were welcomed 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 Immunities 

Act to provide these tortured POWs 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 has happened as these POWs and human shields and their 

attorneys have attempted to negotiate, first with the Government 

of Iraq and then with the Administration. 

This is also evidenced 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 Hyundai 

and Mitsubishi, settling billions of dollars of commercial claims 

while people who suffered torture like I just described have gone 

without compensation. 

The fact that Iraq is predicted to make $100 billion in oil revenues in 2008 and the fact that the Administration is currently 

working with Iraq to resolve its commercial debt shows why it is 

important to stand up for these victims of torture. That is why I 

introduced H.R. 5167, the Justice for Victims of Torture and TerVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:04 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\061708\42971.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42971
6 

rorism Act, in January to eliminate the waiver that was granted 

and then revised in the fiscal year 2008 DOD bill. 

At that same time, I have also been working closely with the victims’ attorney on an alternative proposal that would give the Government of Iraq 90 days to resolve the claims of American victims 

of torture and terrorism before that waiver that was put into the 

last DOD bill would be terminated. The alternative that I am proposing would eliminate any fears of a flood of expensive lawsuits 

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 POW torture victims. 

The total amount that Iraq would have to pay under this compromise agreement would be approximately $415 million. To put 

that into perspective, we spend $338 million a day in Iraq right 

now and about $2.4 billion every week. Since there would be no 

threat of future claims, since Iraq is no longer designated as a 

state sponsor of terrorism, it would effectively cap any liability 

claims against the Government of Iraq. So it is 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 far too long. 

Under the proposal that we are speaking about, POWs and family members would be waiving approximately 77 percent of the entire judgment forgoing all punitive damages awarded by the court, 

which is almost $306 million, and two-thirds of all compensatory 

damages awarded over $435 million. 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 Acree 

wrote, his own ballad to freedom. He called 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 will eat today, a day without terror and pain, 

To stand in defense of freedom and win. 

On behalf of Colonel Acree, Captain Slade, who is here today, 

and all the victims of torture and terrorism, it is time that we put 

this matter to rest and give them the compensation that they deserve. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Braley follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BRUCE L. BRALEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

Thank you, Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the 

Committee for holding this important hearing on ensuring legal redress for American victims of state-sponsored terrorism. And thank you for inviting me to testify 

on this issue which is very important to me and, I believe, to our country. 

7 

I know that many members of Congress shared my shock and disappointment 

when they learned in December of last year that President Bush was vetoing H.R. 

1585, the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act—with no prior warning, and while Congress was not in session—in order to deny Americans tortured 

under Saddam Hussein’s regime from pursing justice in U.S. courts. In fact, several 

members of this Committee, including Chairman Conyers, are co-sponsors of the 

Justice for Victims of Torture and Terrorism Act, which I introduced this January 

in response to President Bush’s veto and the waiver that was subsequently granted 

to Iraq. 

I believe that the Bush Administration’s willingness to allow torture of American 

citizens—including 17 prisoners of war who were beaten and starved by Hussein’s 

regime, and hundreds of victims who were used by Iraq as ‘‘human shields’’—is outrageous. Preventing these victims from seeking justice is also a direct violation of 

our obligations under Article 131 of the Third Geneva Convention relative to the 

Treatment of Prisoners of War, which prohibits the United States, as a party to that 

treaty, from absolving the Government of Iraq of any liability incurred due to the 

torture of prisoners of war. 

The President’s rationale for the veto—that the bill would expose Iraq to billions 

of dollars of liability and harm reconstruction efforts—is clearly a ridiculous claim, 

as there are a very limited number of plaintiffs with claims against Iraq. The argument that Iraq cannot afford to pay its debts to torture victims is also ridiculous 

when you consider that Iraq is expected to make around $100 billion in oil revenues 

for 2007–2008. 

I believe that Iraq’s threat to withdraw billions of dollars out of U.S. financial institutions if H.R. 1585 was signed into law is offensive, considering the incalculable 

sacrifices that American troops have made for Iraq and the staggering amount of 

money that the United States has poured into Iraq. It is also hypocritical of Iraq 

to refuse to compensate American victims of Iraqi torture and terrorism while simultaneously working to resolve its debt to foreign corporations like Mitsubishi of 

Japan and Hyundai of Korea. This clearly sends the message that it is more important to Iraq and to the Administration to settle Iraq’s debt with corporations than 

with tortured American prisoners of war and hostage victims. 

Despite working with Iraq to resolve its commercial debt, and despite language 

that was put into the revised Department of Defense bill urging the President to 

ensure compensation for claims which cannot be resolved in U.S. courts because of 

the waiver, the Bush Administration has still not worked to resolve the claims of 

the American victims of Saddam Hussein’s regime. That is why I believe it is essential that Congress acts soon to ensure that these victims are compensated for the 

torture and terrorism that they were subjected to by Iraq. 

H.R. 5167, the Justice for Victims of Torture and Terrorism Act, the bill which 

I introduced in January, would eliminate the waiver for Iraq that was put into the 

revised 2008 Defense Bill. Since introducing that bill, I have also been working 

closely with the victims’ attorneys on an alternative proposal which would give the 

Government of Iraq 90 days to resolve the claims of American victims before the 

waiver would be terminated. 

This alternative proposal should quell any alleged fears of a flood of expensive 

lawsuits against Iraq because it specifies plaintiffs against Iraq and specifies relatively modest amounts which would constitute adequate settlements for these 

claimants. There is also no threat of future claims, since Iraq is no longer designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. 

In fact, Iraq would be getting a good deal with this proposal. For example, the 

overall judgment against Iraq in the POWs’ case, Acree v. Republic of Iraq, was 

$959 million. However, as a concession to Iraq, under the formula in my proposal, 

the POWs are waiving approximately 77 percent of their entire judgment. The 

POWs and their family members are forgoing all punitive damages awarded to 

them, and two-thirds of all compensatory damages awarded to them by the court. 

Additionally, as a concession to Iraq, the American victims who were held as human 

shields have also been willing to establish a cap on their settlements. Previous judgments paid in a similar case before the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom had 

no such cap. 

I believe that passing legislation allowing these American victims to be compensated for torture and terrorism is essential to upholding the rule of international 

law and to upholding our international treaty obligations. I also believe that it is 

critical to upholding the intent of Congress, which passed unanimous resolutions 

during the Gulf War stating an intention to hold Iraq accountable for the torture 

of American POWs. Giving victims of torture and terrorism access to U.S. courts 

also provides another important tool for deterring terrorism and holding perpetrators of torture and terrorism accountable. 

8 

Ensuring redress for these victims is also crucial to protecting our current and 

future troops from torture by holding all state sponsors of terrorism accountable and 

by allowing all American victims of terrorism and torture recourse in the U.S. court 

system. We can already see that allowing one country to torture and terrorize Americans with immunity is a slippery slope: Libya is currently seeking a similar waiver 

based on the waiver that was put into the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization 

Act, and the State Department is actively negotiating with Libya to grant this waiver. 

I am strongly committed to securing justice for these American victims, and I believe that all of you will share my commitment after hearing the compelling testimony of the witnesses today. I hope that the Judiciary Committee will act quickly 

to move my legislation to the House floor for a vote. Enacting legislation allowing 

these victims to be compensated will send a strong signal to the world that the 

United States will not allow perpetrators of terrorism and torture to operate with 

immunity, and that we will never put the interests of any foreign state over the interests of American victims of torture. 

Thank you again for holding this important hearing. I am happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Sestak from Pennsylvania. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOE SESTAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. SESTAK. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lungren. 

I am very honored to speak today to the Committee. 

I did, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, spent 30-odd years in 

the U.S. military, the best years of my life. And so I think I want 

to speak initially on behalf of those whom I served with at 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 II, as was initiated among us, particularly those 

who led our sons and daughters of this Nation into harm’s way, in 

1949, the United States agreed to the third great Geneva Convention, that on prisoners of war, that we would never absolve any 

state of its liability for what is illegal torture. 

It did not make death illegal, killed on the battlefields—we knew 

we would go out there, ready for the ultimate sacrifice—it made 

torture illegal after the horrific evidences of it in World War II. 

But I also come today speaking because I have 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 the 

President, but also had responsibility under the rule of law to the 

presidency and a legacy by how well he adhered to national and 

international law, the legacy he would leave behind in the presidency. 

Now, as a Member of Congress, I am very conscious that we are 

Congress people, but more, we are an institution. Congress. It 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 80-odd countries over 

these 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 admired by the values of our ideals, the power of our 

ideals, which ultimately rest not on a man or a woman, but on the 

rule of law. 

In 1991, we had 17 prisoners of war tortured, illegal under the 

rule of law of this globe we live on, that the United States said was 

9 

illegal. You train us because you provide for the rules and regulations never to stain 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 until 2002 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 of this past year, 

if it did have to do with the threat allegedly of pulling $25 million 

out of our private markets, as has been reported, that the Iraqi 

Government said it would do, I have little understanding of how 

that could even compare with what we asked these men to do. 

Under law, we asked them to go and under law we promised 

them, if tortured, that that country would be held liable. The cost 

of what they are asking for is about a fourth of a day of the cost 

in Iraq. 

But I don’t think that is 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, those who served us so well, when we asked— 

‘‘here am I, send me’’—that under a contract with them, of the rule 

of law, not to torture, and if you were, we would hold that country 

liable, that now we say—or said in January, but we can waiver it— 

there is no higher power that we have than the power of our ideals. 

So I ask this institution to remember that we are Congress people, but more, this is an institution that I am proud to serve in, 

just as I was in the institution of our armed services or at the 

White House. Under that rule of law, that principle, we need to remember, yes, to support our troops whom we send out under the 

rule of law. That’s what our Nation’s bedrock is based upon. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sestak follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOE SESTAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for taking the time 

today to address an issue that is very personal to me, having served for 31 years 

in the United States Navy. 

As a Veteran, I believe I can speak for many who served abroad in harms way, 

who believe there is no place for torture in Iraq or anywhere else in the world. 

America is respected in the world for the might of its economy and strength of 

its military, but we are admired for the power of our ideals. And that is why we 

must respect human rights, and why we must oppose the use of torture in the face 

of terror and tyranny. 

In 1991, American prisoners of war (POWs) serving during the first Persian Gulf 

War were tortured in Iraq under the regime of the former President Saddam Hussein. 

In April 2002, 17 American POWs and 37 of their family members filed a law suit 

against the Republic of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqi Intelligence Service 

seeking compensatory damages for the torture they sustained. And, on July 7, 2003, 

Judge Richard Roberts ruled that Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqi Intelligence 

Service are liable for $653 million in compensatory damages and $306 million in punitive damages for the torture of the POWs and for the lingering injuries suffered 

by them and certain close family members. 

The judge found that: No one would subject himself for any price to the terror, 

torment, and pain experienced by these American POWs,’’ and that ‘‘there must be 

a premium on protecting POWs [because] POWs are uniquely disadvantaged and deterring torture of POWs should be of the highest priority.’’ 

10 

While July 7, 2003, marked a great triumph toward bringing justice for American 

POWs, it was only the beginning of a long journey for them to receive their awarded 

claims. 

I am here testifying today in front of the House Judiciary Committee today to 

help my brothers and sisters who have worn the cloth of our nation as well as others who were used as human shields during the Persian Gulf War. 

I became involved in this issue after President Bush vetoed the National Defense 

Authorization Bill (H.R. 1585), in late December 2007. The widely supported legislation would have provided a scheduled 3.5% military pay raise and bonuses, critical 

veterans’ health care initiatives, and necessary funding for our troops abroad. I was 

deeply concerned with President Bush’s action to veto the legislation, not only because it overwhelmingly passed both the House and Senate, but it also jeopardized 

the safety of our troops abroad. 

As I am sure you know, the President vetoed the Defense Authorization bill over 

a provision that would remove some immunity from the Iraqi government regarding 

the payment of Court awards to service members that had been tortured during the 

First Gulf War. 

The President apparently objected to this provision, because it was claimed that 

it could allow plaintiffs to freeze Iraqi government assets in the United States as 

part of litigation over actions committed during the rule of former dictator Saddam 

Hussein, and that the provision would disrupt the Iraqi reconstruction efforts. 

During that time, the Iraqi Government reportedly placed intense pressure on 

President Bush, through its lawyers, by saying it would withdraw $25 billion worth 

of assets from the U.S. capital markets unless the President vetoed the bill. 

I strongly disagreed with the President’s position to veto the Defense Authorization Bill and to demand a waiver that would allow for a Court’s judgment to be 

overruled, thereby shutting out service members from attaining their already won 

monetary judgment for torture they sustained during the first Persian Gulf War. 

Under international law, even when a government changes, the new government 

is responsible for the actions of the government it superceded. 

Each month we spend almost $12 billion for the War in Iraq, and because Iraq 

has now threatened to pull its $25 billion invested in the U.S. market—the cost of 

two months of the war—the President refused to support the men and women who 

wore the cloth of this nation, who were tortured during a war, and who had already 

won a judgment against the Iraqi government. 

I also believe the Congressional action taken on January 16, 2008 was wrong. We 

should have voted to override the President’s veto, supporting not just the men and 

women who are serving today by such items in the bill as the 3.5 percent pay raise, 

but also for those who served previously and have legitimately brought a claim 

against the Iraqi government because of torture. 

In May 2008, my efforts to introduce an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to repeal the President’s waiver to allow Iraq to maintain immunity 

unless the Government of Iraq settles these outstanding claims with American 

POWs tortured in Iraq within 90 days were ruled not germane to that bill. 

I am here today in conjunction with my colleague Congressman Bruce Braley, a 

champion of this issue, to bring a much needed resolution to claims filed by both 

American POWs and those who suffered as Human Shields. 

I believe that any effort to absolve Iraq of liability for this torture would violate 

the POW Convention obligations of both the United States and Iraq and would put 

at enhanced risk of torture American service men and women held as POWs in the 

future. 

Nor is it appropriate to ask American POWs tortured in Iraq or Human Shield 

claimants to personally pay for the reconstruction of the country which tortured 

them. 

Settlement of this debt of honor would also serve as a model encouraging settlement of other claims against Iraq. Moreover, Iraq’s recognition of its legal obligations would be a concrete sign of Iraq’s commitment to the rule of law and would 

be greeted warmly by the American people. 

This provision also serves the interests of the reconstruction of Iraq by forgiving 

as much as 77% of the judgments awarded against Iraq, including forgiving all punitive damages and two-thirds of compensatory damages awarded against Iraq in 

federal court. 

The bottom-line—and what America stands for—is doing what is right—particularly with regard to those who defend our nation. Without any question, what is 

right is to ensure that these individuals receive their settlements which were adjudicated by impartial courts under the rule of law in the U.S. 

11 

Thank you again for providing me this opportunity to testify before you regarding 

this issue of utmost importance to American service members, Veterans, and POW/ 

MIA community. 

Mr. COHEN. I want to thank each of you for your testimony and 

for 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 impanel our next 

group to come forward and be seated. Thank you, Mr. Sestak, Mr. 

Braley. 

Mr. ISSA. I would ask unanimous consent to have my opening 

statement placed in the record. 

Mr. COHEN. If done so, it will be granted. Thank you. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COHEN. Is it tunc pro, whatever—without objection. You 

know, always trust, but verify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Issa follows:] 

12 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DARRELL ISSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


Issa.eps
13 

Mr. COHEN. Our first witness on the panel is Ambassador John 

Norton Moore, co-counsel in Acree v. Republic of Iraq. He is a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia and directs the Center 

for National Security Law and Oceans Law on policy. He has previously served as the Counselor on International Law to the Department of State and as Ambassador and Deputy Special Representative of the President for the Law of the Sea. 

His representation of the POWs is solely in his personal capacity. 

Our next witness will be Captain Lawrence Randolph Slade, a 

plaintiff in the Acree case. Captain Slade’s F-14 aircraft was hit by 

missile during the Gulf War, which prompted him to eject into 

Iraq. 

During his captivity as a POW, he endured violent interrogations 

during which he was blindfolded, 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 and extreme pain caused by scar tissue resulting from repeated trauma to his abdomen. 

Thank you for your service. 

Next we have Dan Wolf, counsel in Vine v. Republic of Iraq and 

Hill v. Republic of Iraq. He has, for more than two decades, garnered experience litigating human rights in sovereign immunity 

issues both as an attorney in the office of legal advisor and in private practice. He has played a leading role in numerous cases involving the interpretation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. 

Our final witness today will be George Charchalis, a plaintiff in 

the Vine case. As a young man, Mr. Charchalis served in the Third 

Infantry Division and saw combat in the Korean War. 

In 1989, he was recruited by Kuwait’s Institute of Scientific Research to manage an ambitious plan to install parks, gardens and 

freeway landscaping throughout the country. A year later, Mr. 

Charchalis was taken hostage by the Iraqi regime and held in captivity for more than 4 months as a human shield. 

We welcome each of you. Without objection, your written statements will be made a part of the record in their entirety. 

We would ask each of you to summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less. There will be a red light that goes on and becomes yellow and gives you a warning. When 1 minute remains, the light 

will switch to yellow and then to red when the 5 minutes are up. 

We thank you all for being with us. 

Ambassador Moore, please begin. 

TESTIMONY OF AMBASSADOR JOHN NORTON MOORE, 

CO-COUNSEL, ACREE V. REPUBLIC OF IRAQ 

Mr. MOORE. Chairman Cohen, Ranking Member Lungren and 

Members of the Committee, it is an honor to appear—— 

Mr. COHEN. There is a button there that gives you amplification. 

Mr. MOORE. It is an honor to appear before the Judiciary Committee today as co-counsel representing 17 American former prisoners of war tortured by Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, and 37 

of their close family members, in support of the Braley-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. 

14 

It is also an honor to appear on a panel with one of the lead 

POWs in the Acree case, Captain Larry Slade. I have been privileged to work with Captain Slade for the past 6 years in his historical 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 might want to know. It is that Captain Larry Randolph Slade is a direct descendent of Thomas Jefferson and Larry’s mother is buried at Monticello. 

Justice for American POWs and taking effective action to implement the word of the Congress, the President and the Nation to ensure that future American POWs held by the enemy will not be tortured is, of course, not a partisan matter. There is no party, only 

country when it comes to the protection of American POWs. 

As the representative of these courageous American POWs, tortured by Iraq, let me share with you the compelling story for recognizing their rights and national security interests in protecting 

POWs 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 that it would be held 

accountable for the torture of our American POWs in three unanimously adopted resolutions. In addition to that, we have already 

discussed the provision in the POW Convention that says that no 

state may absolve a torturing state of any liability, a pledge of the 

nation itself. 

The word of the Congress and 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 POWs. The POWs 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 POWs to enforce the rule of law is erased because of silence 

now, future generations of American POWs, held by the enemy, 

will receive even more enthusiastic torture. 

Third, America is fair. Americans do not believe that POWs 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. 

Indeed, to ask our POWs and family members to pay with their 

legal rights for the reconstruction of the country which tortured 

them is morally repugnant. 

Similarly, Americans do not believe that it is right for Iraq to resolve a minimum of 20 to 30 billion in commercial claims of foreign 

corporations while ignoring the valid claims of American POWs 

and American civilian hostages. Surely, the debt owed to American 

POWs is a debt of honor which should come before commercial 

claims and certainly should not be ignored while commercial claims 

are paid. 

Fourth, America defends its honor. After the POWs had brought 

their action against Iraq, 20 distinguished former high-level national security officials wrote to the President about the historic opVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:04 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\061708\42971.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42971
15 

portunity in this case. In discussions concerning this letter, I have 

never forgotten the wise summary of this matter volunteered by 

Anthony Lake, a former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. He noted that supporting our POWs was simply a 

matter of national honor. Surely he is correct and perhaps this profound statement captures it all. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Lungren, these courageous 

POWs and their family members and the Nation owe a debt of 

gratitude have struggled now for 6 years in their efforts to hold 

their torturers accountable. Surely, 6 years in their efforts to support the rule of law again as 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. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Ambassador Moore. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:] 

16 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN NORTON MOORE


Moore-1.eps
17 


Moore-2.eps
18 


Moore-3.eps
19 


Moore-4.eps
20 


Moore-5.eps
21 


Moore-6.eps
22 


Moore-7.eps
23 


Moore-8.eps
24 


Moore-9.eps
25 

Mr. COHEN. Captain Slade. 

TESTIMONY OF CAPTAIN LARRY SLADE, USN (RET.), 

PLAINTIFF IN ACREE V. REPUBLIC OF IRAQ 

Captain SLADE. Good afternoon, Chairman, Ranking Member 

Lungren and Members of the Committee. It is an honor to appear 

before the Judiciary Committee today on behalf of myself and 16 

other American former prisoners of war, tortured by Iraq during 

the 1991 Gulf War and 37 of our close family members. 

For my colleagues for whom I appear, the issue at stake in this 

hearing is clear: Will the Congress, the President and the Nation 

adhere 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 POWs by the enemy will continue to 

be tortured. 

The Braley-Sestak proposal now before this Committee will 

honor that national commitment and reduce the risk that future 

American POWs will be tortured as we were. We strongly support 

its prompt passage. 

On April 4, 2002, I joined with 16 of my fellow Gulf War POWs 

who had been brutally tortured by Iraq during that war and 37 of 

our family members in filing a historic suit in Federal court. We 

brought this suit to add deterrents against the torture of American 

POWs through enforcing the rule of law and holding accountable 

the torturing state. 

On July 7, 2003, Judge Richard Roberts of the Federal District 

Court for the District of Columbia, after a careful review of the 

facts and the law, awarded substantial judgments to each of the 54 

affected American POWs and close family members. He found that, 

quote, ‘‘No one would subject themselves for any price to the terror, 

torment and pain experienced by these American POWs,’’ unquote; 

and that, quote, ‘‘There must be a premium on protecting POWs 

because POWs are uniquely disadvantaged, and deterring torture 

of POWs should be of the highest priority.’’ Despite these judgments for us, however, to date, we have been unable to obtain closure on this matter. 

My fellow POWs and I, who brought this historic case, were tortured by Iraq through brutal beatings, starvation, electric shock, 

whipping, burning, mock executions, threatened dismemberment, 

threats to our families, subjection to bombing and breaking of 

bones and eardrums. For our spouses and other family members in 

the United States, Iraq’s refusal to permit notification of capture, 

its public statements about using us as human shields and its coerced propaganda tapes of beaten POWs produced severe mental 

anguish. The horrifying specifics for each of us and our family 

members are set out in detail in the opinion of the Federal district 

court in Acree v. The Republic of Iraq. 

On January 23, 1991, during our period of captivity, the House 

adopted Concurrent Resolution 48 by a vote of 418 to 0 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 coercion, Iraq’s stated intention to disperse prisoners of war to potential military targets, and Iraq’s flagrant and deliberate violations of the Third Geneva Convention.’’ 

26 

The Senate followed with Concurrent Resolutions 5 and 8 by 

unanimous vote declaring, quote, ‘‘The United States condemns 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.’’ 

These were powerful and 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 POWs also appreciate that on February 7, 2002, 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 applicable 

law,’’ unquote. 

Our Nation has also pledged its word in this matter, as has Iraq, 

for Article 131 of the Third Geneva Convention creates a binding 

treaty obligation never to absolve a torturing state of any liability 

for the torture of POWs. This treaty is enforced 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 POWs, that of nonabsolvable liability. 

In turn, President George W. Bush has pledged to the Nation 

that America will abide fully by the Geneva Conventions. The 

record is clear, Congress, the President and, by solemn treaty obligation, America and Iraq have pledged that those who were tortured—who torture American POWs will be held accountable. This 

treaty obligation, as it binds both Iraq and America, is 

nonabsolvable. 

Mr. Chairman, we are also mindful that our historic effort to 

deter torture of American POWs 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 POWs 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, have sought to ensure that the 

rule of law can make a difference in the struggle against torture 

of American POWs 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 POWs 

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. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Captain Slade. 

[The prepared statement of Captain Slade follows:] 

27 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE RANDOLPH SLADE


Slade-1.eps
28 


Slade-2.eps
29 


Slade-3.eps
30 


Slade-4.eps
31 

Mr. COHEN. And now the Chair recognizes Mr. Wolf. 

TESTIMONY OF DANIEL WOLF, COUNSEL, 

VINE V. REPUBLIC OF IRAQ 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you 

for affording me the opportunity to present my views regarding this 

important matter of justice for American victims of terrorism. 

I represent George Charchalis, who is sitting here with me today, 

and as lead counsel in two lawsuits brought by 400 other American 

victims of Iraqi terrorism known as Hill and Vine v. Iraq. These 

suits arose out of the decision in 1990 by Saddam Hussein to detain all American citizens in Iraqi occupied territory—— 

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, would you ask the witness to turn on 

the mic, please? 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. To detain all American citizens in Iraqioccupied territory for the avowed purpose of deterring U.S., the 

United States, and its coalition allies, from taking military action 

to liberate Kuwait. 

Like Mr. Charchalis, many of these Americans were rounded up, 

relocated to strategic sites where they were detained for up to 130 

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, 180 of those former hostages filed the Hill case 

against Iraq. And a couple of years later, 240 more filed the Vine 

case. By mid-2002, all 180 of the plaintiffs in the Hill case had obtained judgments in their favor, totaling $94 million in the aggregate. 

In March 2003, literally on the eve of 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 Iraq’s remaining 

blocked assets, transferred them to the Coalition Authority in Iraq 

where they were mostly squandered. Acknowledging that these actions left the 240 Vine 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 satisfactions,’’ assurances that came from as high up as 

Secretary State Powell. For the next 4 years, however, the Bush 

administration and State Department did nothing to honor that 

promise. 

Finally, in December of 2007, Congress amended the law in a 

matter that would have given the American victims of Saddam’s 

brutality the right to obtain compensation for 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 has tried to justify that veto on the specious argument that the new FSIA amendments would put billions of dollars of Iraqi money at risk, imperiling the reconstruction efforts. 

On the basis of that gross exaggeration, the Bush administration 

managed to convince Congress to enact a compromise bill under 

32 

which the President was given the authority to exempt Iraq from 

the reach of the new law in exchange for the Administration’s 

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 is not the 

right time to raise it with Iraq as the United States did not have 

sufficient leverage. The Department has no intention of ever doing 

anything to vindicate the rights of Iraq’s American victims as has 

recently become apparent from news reports. According to those reports, the U.S. has told Iraq that it 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 United States long-term 

basing rights in Iraq and affording U.S. Servicemen and contractors immunity from Iraqi judicial process. 

The irony could not be greater. Having once had their physical 

selves held hostage by the Iraqi Government to extract 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 the concessions from Iraq. 

At this point, I would ask the Committee to consider the moral 

implications of what the State Department is doing. One of the primary duties of the Department is to defend and protect the rights 

of America’s citizens to be free from abuse by foreign governments. 

Yet, instead of lifting so much as a finger to protect those rights, 

the Department is offering 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 dying every day in Iraq? Isn’t 

the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars enough to purchase leverage with the Iraqi Government? Or is it just that the 

Department is tired of being bothered by these claims and is looking for a convenient opportunity to end them forever? 

The only way that the Bush administration’s promise to the 

former hostages will ever be fulfilled is if Congress fills the void. 

The Braley-Sestak proposal will do just that. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in this matter. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wolf follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL WOLF

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: 

Thank you for affording me the opportunity to present my views regarding this 

important matter of justice for American victims of Iraqi terrorism. Those views 

have been shaped by more than two decades of experience litigating cases against 

foreign states under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the ‘‘FSIA’’), both as an 

attorney in the Office of the Legal Adviser of the Department of State and in private 

practice. 

Since 1999, I have been serving as lead counsel on behalf of George Charchalis 

and more than 400 other American victims in two lawsuits that have become known 

as Hill v. Republic of Iraq and Vine v. Republic of Iraq. As you have heard from 

Mr. Charchalis, these suits arose out of a decision Saddam Hussein made in August 

1990 to detain all American citizens in Iraqi occupied territory for the avowed purpose of deterring the US and its coalition allies from taking military action to liberate Kuwait. 

33 

Like Mr. Charchalis, many of those Americans were rounded up and forcibly relocated to strategic sites, where they were detained for up to 130 days as ‘‘human 

shields’’ in inhumane 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/or subjected to mock executions. 

For the first five years after their release, the former hostages had no means of 

obtaining justice because American law afforded terrorist countries like Iraq immunity from suit even when they tortured, kidnapped and otherwise terrorized American citizens. This, however, all changed in 1996 when Congress amended the FSIA 

to allow American victims of terrorism to seek redress against rogue nations. 

Following the enactment of this amendment, more than 400 American victims of 

Saddam’s ‘‘human shield’’ policy filed suit against Iraq. The claims of the 180 victims who filed earliest were all consolidated in the Hill case and the claims of the 

240 victims who filed later were consolidated in the Vine case. By mid-2002, all 180 of the plaintiffs in the Hill case had obtained judgments in their favor. The amount of these judgments totaled just over $94 million or about 

$500,000 per plaintiff on average, ranging from a high of $1.75 million to a low of 

$50,000. 

In March 2003—literally on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom—President Bush 

issued an order directing that all of these judgments be paid in full from blocked 

Iraqi funds. At the same time it was authorizing payments to the Hill plaintiffs, 

however, the Bush Administration confiscated all of Iraq’s remaining blocked assetsconverting them to US assets and, thereby, placing them out of reach of any collection efforts. And, despite the Vine plaintiffs’ request that the President reserve sufficient funds to satisfy any judgments they might obtain, the assets were subsequently transferred to the Coalition Authority in Iraq, where they were mostly 

squandered. 

Acknowledging that its actions unfairly left the 240 Vine plaintiffs out in the cold, 

the Bush Administration gave numerous public assurances that their rights would 

be protected, promising, for example, to ‘‘make sure that people who secure judgments find some satisfaction.’’ These assurance came from as high up as Secretary 

of State Colin Powell, who came to Capitol Hill to testify about the State Department’s commitment to setting up a ‘‘victims of terrorism fund’’ to accomplish that 

goal. 

For the next four years, however, the Bush Administration and its State Department did nothing to honor its promise to the victims—refusing even to meet with 

them or their representatives. Finally, in December 2007, Congress amended the 

FSIA to strip current and former terrorist states, including Libya and Iraq, of the 

immunities that protect their assets from attachment and execution. These amendments, which were passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, would 

have enabled the American victims of Saddam’s brutality to obtain compensation 

from monies Iraq has deposited in US banks. 

But that was not to be. Acting at the State Department’s behest, President Bush 

vetoed the defense bill just before the New Year. The State Department tried to justify that veto on the specious argument that the new FSIA amendments would put 

‘‘billions’’ of Iraqi dollars at risk—imperiling its reconstruction effort. 

On the basis of that gross exaggeration, the Bush administration managed to convince Congress to enact a compromise bill. Under that compromise, the President 

was given the authority to exempt Iraq from the newly enacted amendments to the 

FSIA in exchange for an Administration promise to use its best efforts to resolve 

the claims of American victims of Iraqi terrorism. Congress codified this compromise 

in a ‘‘sense of Congress’’ resolution in which it expressed its expectation that the 

Administration would act swiftly to fulfill its promise to the victims through stateto-state negotiations. 

In reality, it took four more months before the Administration agreed to meet 

with the victims or their representatives. At that meeting, Administration officials 

made clear that they had come only to listen—not to make any proposals of their 

own. Ten days later, the State Department delivered us the Administration’s response. They said that the Administration fully agreed that the former hostages all 

had valid claims for which Iraq was duty-bound to compensate them. As much as 

they would like to be helpful, however, they said that they would not raise the matter with Iraq because the present state of the bilateral relationship between the two 

countries made it pointless to do so. 

In other words, they claimed that, despite the expenditure of hundreds of billions 

of dollars and the deaths of more than 3,000 American servicemen, the US does not 

have leverage with the Iraqi government at this time. Asked why this was not the 

right time and what would have to change before they felt they would be in a posiVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:04 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\FULL\061708\42971.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42971
34 

tion to exert such leverage, the State Department simply said that there may never 

be a right time to raise this matter. 

That the State Department has no intention of ever doing anything to vindicate 

the rights of Iraq’s American victims has recently become apparent from news reports, which reveal a cynical effort by the Department to use their claims as a bargaining chip to extract unrelated concessions the Administration is seeking from 

Iraq. According to those reports, the US has told Iraq that it will continue to protect 

Iraqi assets from these and other claims only if Iraq agrees to enter into an ‘‘alliance’’ agreement, giving the U.S. long term basing rights in Iraq and affording U.S. 

servicemen and contractors immunity from Iraqi judicial process. The irony could 

not be greater. Having once had their physical selves held hostage by the Iraqi government to extract 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 extort concessions from the Iraqis. 

The State Department’s callous refusal to raise the victims’ claims on the ground 

that, 18 years after their ordeal, the time is ‘‘not right’’ is unconscionable. It is the 

latest, and perhaps final, chapter in the story of the Department’s abdication of its 

responsibility to American citizens who were abused, terrorized and tortured by 

Saddam Hussein during the First Iraq War. 

As you have just heard from Mr. Charchalis, this story began when the Department advised those Americans that the Iraqi troop buildup along the Kuwait border 

was of no concern—thus sealing his fate and that of hundreds of others who ended 

up stranded in the middle of a war zone. Following their release, the Department 

had the opportunity to hold the Iraqi regime accountable by compensating the 

former hostages from frozen Iraqi funds on deposit in US banks. But it refused to 

do so. Then, when the victims tried to obtain justice by pursuing their claims in U.S. 

courts, the Department took every opportunity to obstruct them. Indeed, showing 

no shame, the Department and their allies within the Administration have gone so 

far as to impugn the patriotism of these American heroes by publicly stating that 

they were ‘‘jeopardizing our troops in the field’’ and handing ‘‘a propaganda victory’’ 

to our enemies in Iraq. 

The only way the Bush administration’s promise to the former hostages will ever 

be fulfilled is if Congress steps into the void. The Braley-Sestak proposal would do 

that by ensuring that they are afforded the same rights to pursue their claims in 

American courts as are all other victims of state-sponsored terrorism and without 

further interference by the State Department. At the same time, it gives Iraq the 

ability to limit its liability by settling the claims of the Vine plaintiffs for reasonable 

amounts based on a simplified version of the formula used to compensate the Hill 

plaintiffs, but under which the award for any single individual would be capped at 

no more than $900,000. As the claims of the Vine plaintiffs are identical to those 

of their fellow hostages who participated in the Hill case, there is no justification 

for the failure to treat them in similar fashion. Enactment of the Braley-Sestak will 

bring them the justice that they seek and that is so long overdue. 

We who have been representing these American heroes in their quest for justice 

thank you and the Committee for its interest in this matter and look forward to 

working with you to enactment a statute that assures that these claims are paid, 

at reasonable amounts, by the party that is responsible and liable under international law. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Charchalis—and I hope I pronounced it correctly; if not, correct me—you’re recognized. 

Mr. CHARCHALIS. It’s Charchalis. 

Mr. COHEN. I was close. Thank you. 

Mr. CHARCHALIS. Can you hear me clearly? 

Mr. COHEN. I can hear you. 

Mr. King, can you hear him? You’re my hear test. 

Mr. KING. Yes, I can. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE CHARCHALIS, 

PLAINTIFF IN VINE V. REPUBLIC OF IRAQ 

Mr. CHARCHALIS. First of all, let me—Mr. Chairman, Members of 

the Committee—let me thank you for the opportunity to come in 

and offer testimony today. I am an American citizen, a lifelong resiVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:04 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\061708\42971.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42971
35 

dent of Nevada and a veteran of the Korean War where I served 

in combat with the Third Infantry Division. 

I would like to say that I believe this hearing to be a single event 

in the effort to resolve the question of compensation for prisoners 

of war and human shields. Following my discharge from the Army, 

I completed my studies at Utah State and then embarked on a career in city planning and management, ultimately established my 

own consulting business. 

In 1989, I was recruited by the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research. They hired me to manage an ambitious plan to install 

parks, gardens, fountains and freeway landscapes throughout the 

country. It was to be a long-term effort. 

After selling my business, I moved to Kuwait with my wife and 

commenced what turned out to be the most rewarding work of my 

life. That work, however, came to abrupt end when the Iraqi Army 

invaded Kuwait on the morning of August 2, 1990. Within hours, 

troops were forming all over the neighborhood; and in the next few 

days, we began to hear horrifying reports of atrocity, including 

rape, torture and 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 windows in our flat were shot out 

by machine gun fire. Scared to death, my wife and I huddled in the 

basement, piling mattresses around us for protection. 

In August, Saddam Hussein issued an edict that allowed security 

forces to round up American citizens so they could be used as 

human shields to deter a 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 any minute. 

We struggled to keep up our spirits. The stress and tedium 

wreaked havoc with us. Worst of all was a feeling of utter hopelessness that I could do nothing to protect my wife and comfort my 

daughters at home. Fortunately, in September, Saddam was 

shamed into allowing the release of women and children. Saying 

goodbye to my wife, knowing I might never see her again, was a 

heartbreaking experience for me. 

Two days later, what I had feared most came to pass. The Iraqi 

soldiers kicked down the 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 prior to my departure for Kuwait. I sustained a dislocated 

denture, a bleeding gash over my eye that left a nasty scar; I had 

a bruised tailbone, and I had a disintegrated disc that has given 

me pain ever since. 

I was taken to an underground car park, convinced I was going 

to be shot. There was an argument about my passport. An Iraqi officer looked at it and said something in Arabic and they put me 

back in the car. I was taken to a Kuwaiti police station and put 

in jail with my hands tied behind my back. I could hear horrifying 

screams all night long. 

The next morning I was taken to a hotel and then handed onto 

a bus with a number of hostages and then taken to Baghdad. We 

were driven north to a chemical complex near Samarra. To locate 

36 

that for you in your mind, it is where the Golden Dome Mosque 

that was blown up several years ago is located. 

Where we were held was a rat infested—roach, desert flies. And 

apart from an hour each day, when we were allowed to walk, we 

were confined in these awful huts almost around the clock. The 

kitchen was disgusting and unsanitary. We developed all kinds of 

skin sores, suffered from chronic diarrhea that became so debilitating I had to be taken to a hospital. The stress was almost unbearable. 

We were surrounded by armed guards and had the creepy sense 

of being watched every minute, which made me feel like a caged 

animal. We lived in constant knowledge that any moment we could 

be executed or we could be killed by a bombing raid. 

If necessary, we were prepared to die for our country; and the 

Iraqis tried to pressure us to go on television and denounce my 

President and country. I told them to go to hell. I began to succumb 

to anxiety, developed chronic hand tremors, lost my ability to concentrate. I could barely read a page. Suffering from insomnia, I felt 

a state of perpetual fatigue. 

As the war went on, I was totally distraught, feeling that my 

captivity would last forever and I would never be able to maintain 

my grip on reality. 

Finally, on December 2nd, the nightmare came to an end when 

a list of hostages to be evacuated with Mohammed Ali’s peace mission when he came to Iraq. 

Upon returning to the States, I was hospitalized for several days, 

received treatment for my hernia and internal bleeding. 

In the following months, I was plagued by intense anxiety attacks, flashbacks, was unable to recover my appetite, suffered from 

recurring bouts of depression that plagued me. My difficulty concentrating forced me to retire at what would have been the height 

of my career. 

I have an ex—I live with an exaggerated state of response to 

loud noise, I have been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder and am still haunted by personal memories. 

I would like to recommend and urge the Committee to help us 

to do that by adopting the Braley-Sestak proposal. And on behalf 

of my wife and myself and all of our fellow hostages, I would like 

to thank you for taking the time to listen to us and consider our 

plea. Thank you. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Charchalis. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Charchalis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE CHARCHALIS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: 

My name is George Charchalis. I am an American citizen, a lifelong resident of 

Nevada, and a veteran of the Korean War, where I saw combat with the Third Infantry Division. 

Following my discharge in 1953, I completed my studies at the Utah State University, then embarked on a career in city planning and management, and ultimately established my own consulting business. In 1989, I was recruited by Kuwait’s Institute of Scientific Research, which hired me to manage an ambitious plan 

to install parks, gardens, fountains and freeway landscaping throughout that country. After selling my consulting business, I moved to Kuwait with my wife and commenced what turned out to be the most rewarding work I had ever done. 

37 

That work, however, came to an abrupt end when the Iraqi army invaded Kuwait 

on the morning of August 2, 1990. Within hours, Iraqi troops were swarming all 

over our neighborhood and, over the next few days, we began hearing horrifying reports of Iraqi atrocities, including rape, torture and summary executions. 

The Iraqi army soon set up an operational headquarters on the beach just across 

from our apartment complex and, with each passing day, the fighting got closer to 

us. Explosions and bombing became a terrifying concern. Several of the windows in 

our flat were shot out by machinegun fire. Scared to death, my wife and I huddled 

together in the basement, piling mattresses around us for protection as we struggled 

to sleep at night. 

In mid-August, we learned that Saddam Hussein had issued an edict to his security forces to round up all American citizens in Kuwait, so that he could use them 

as ‘‘human shields’’ to deter the United States from bombing Iraqi strategic sites. 

Worried that they would come to get us, we moved to the basement of a Kuwaiti 

friend and then to a safe-house where another American citizen was already hiding 

out. 

We lived in a state of constant anxiety and fear, knowing that the Iraqi soldiers 

could storm through the door at any moment. We struggled to keep our spirits up, 

but the stress, tedium, confinement and uncertainty played havoc with our emotions. Worst of all was my feeling of utter helplessness that I could do nothing to 

protect my wife or comfort our daughters at home who I knew would be worrying 

themselves sick. 

Fortunately, in early September, Saddam was shamed into allowing the release 

of women and children. Saying good-bye to my wife, knowing that I might never see 

her again, was the most heartbreaking thing I have ever done. 

Two days later, the moment I had feared most finally came. Iraqi soldiers kicked 

down the door of the flat where I was hiding. They struck me in the face with a 

rifle butt, knocked me down on to the ground, and kicked me mercilessly in the 

stomach. One of those kicks broke an abdominal hernia that had been repaired prior 

to my departure for Kuwait. In addition, I sustained a dislocated denture, a bleeding 

gash over my eye that left me with a nasty scar, a bruised tailbone that has led 

to a disintegrated disc and given me pain ever since, and the loss of hearing in my 

ear. I was in terrible pain and feared for my life. 

I was taken to an underground car park, where I was made to stand against a 

wall. I was convinced that I was about to be shot, but after arguing about my passport, my Iraqi captors loaded me back into their car and took me to a Kuwaiti police 

station. 

I was held overnight in a hot, fetid cell with my hands tied behind my back. 

Throughout the night, I could hear the terrifying screams of my fellow prisoners and 

wondered when my turn would come. The next morning, I was taken to a hotel and 

then herded onto a bus with a number of other hostages. After being taken to Baghdad, we were put on another bus and driven northward for most of the night until 

we arrived at a huge chemical complex near Samarra. 

The next three months were almost like a living hell. We were housed in dilapidated huts that had long ago served as the living quarters for the workers who had 

constructed the facility. They were infested with rats, roaches and desert biting 

flies. Apart from an hour or so each day when we would be allowed to walk outside 

for exercise, we were confined to these awful huts almost around the clock. 

The kitchen was disgustingly unsanitary, the water was foul, and what meager 

food we were given was totally unappetizing. We all developed skin sores and I suffered from chronic diarrhea, which became so debilitating that I had to be hospitalized. I was afflicted by numerous other physical ailments as well, including a very 

bad skin rash, and continued to struggle with pain from my ruptured hernia. By 

the time of my release, I had lost more than 20 pounds and was just a shell of my 

former self. 

The stress was almost unbearable. We were surrounded by armed guards and the 

creepy sense of being watched every minute made me feel like a caged animal. We 

lived with the constant knowledge that at any moment we could be executed or 

killed in a bombing raid. If necessary, however, we were prepared to die for our 

country and, when the Iraqis tried to pressure me to go on television to denounce 

my president and my country, I told them to ‘‘go to hell.’’ 

I soon began succumbing to anxiety attacks, developed chronic hand tremors and 

lost my ability to concentrate to the point that I could barely read a page. I suffered 

from insomnia that left me in a state of perpetual fatigue. When I did manage to 

sleep, I would often awake to terrible nightmares of being hunted down and tortured. As the weeks wore on, I became totally distraught, feeling as if my captivity 

would last forever and wondering how much longer I would be able to maintain my 

grip on reality. 

38 

Finally, on December 2, my nightmare came to an end when I was placed on a 

list of hostages to be evacuated with Muhammad Ali, who had come to Iraq on a 

humanitarian mission. Upon returning to the States, I was hospitalized for several 

days, while I received treatment for my hernia and internal bleeding. 

In the months following my release, I was plagued by intense anxiety attacks and 

had flashbacks of being captured and beaten. I was unable to recover my appetite 

and suffered from recurring bouts of depression, which plague me to this day. I had 

great difficulty concentrating and was forced to retire at what should have been the 

height of my career. I have an exaggerated startle response to loud noises and grind 

my teeth so hard when I sleep that I am forced to wear a mouthpiece. I have been 

diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and am still haunted by painful 

memories of my ordeal in captivity. 

Today, 18 years after that ordeal, I am deeply saddened and bitterly disappointed 

at the treatment I have received from my own government and, in particular, the 

Department of State. I believe that the Department bears at least some of the responsibility for my plight, having assured me and many other Americans who had 

contacted the U.S. Embassy that the Iraqi buildup along the Kuwaiti border was 

just ‘‘saber rattling’’ and that there was nothing for us to be concerned about. Subsequently, after the invasion, Embassy officials refused my pleas to allow my wife and 

I to seek refuge within the Embassy compound at the same time they were granting 

safe haven to American diplomatic and military personnel. And, finally, ever since 

my release, the Department has done everything in its power to derail the lawsuit 

that my wife and I, along with more than 200 other former hostages, have brought 

against Iraq in an effort to obtain some measure of justice for the injuries we have 

suffered. 

In March 2003, about 180 of our fellow hostages who had filed an identical lawsuit managed to obtain such justice when President Bush ordered that their judgments be paid from blocked Iraqi bank accounts. I am very pleased that these victims were able to get the justice they so greatly deserved. At the same time, however, I find it grossly unfair that a second group of victims who were held captive 

at the same time and under the same conditions have received not one dime. I cannot understand how the State Department can believe this situation is acceptable. 

I know that I never will and, unless and until something is done to right this wrong, 

I know that my wife and I will never be able to close the door on this horrific chapter in our lives. 

I urge this Committee and this Congress to help us do that by the Braley-Sestak 

proposal. On behalf of my wife, myself and all of our fellow hostages, I thank you 

for taking the time to listen and to consider our plea. 

Mr. COHEN. We will now have a round of questions for our witnesses, and the Chair will proceed first. 

First, I would like to ask Ambassador Moore and Mr. Wolf, had 

section 1083 of the 2008 defense bill passed in its original form, 

how would it have helped your cases? 

Ambassador? 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The POWs in working with the Congress on that 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 cause of action in a case, 

a technical legal issue, 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 as something that—cause of action 

that created a problem for the POWs in the case. 

So it would have simply returned—restored the original intent of 

the Congress. So that is all the POWs sought. They did not, by the 

way, seek anything to go against the funds of Iraq in United States 

banks. They sought no such provisions whatsoever. 

What they would have done—indeed, we had it prepared already—was to file a motion back in the Federal district court pursuant to the provisions of the defense authorization bill that simply 

39 

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 section 60(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

So, actually, what it would have done, it would not have taken 

a penny at that point from Iraq. It simply would have restored the 

original judgment which is still pending before the Federal district 

court at present. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Wolf, do you have anything to add? 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah, I guess. 

Quite simply, I believe if the bill had been enacted, we would 

have moved to judgment in the case. We would have proceeded no 

doubt against Iraqi money in U.S. banks, and we would have obtained—enforced those judgments, I believe, in modest amounts 

and in amounts that were far less than the billions of dollars that 

the Administration said that were at risk here. It would have been 

probably about $120 million or so. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. 

Ambassador Moore, can you explain how our obligation under the 

Geneva Convention never to absolve the torturing state of any liability with regard to POWs makes this a particularly unique case? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the few, if not the 

only, settings in the world in which there is a treaty obligation 

binding on every nation in the world. The POW Convention is one 

of very few conventions accepted by every nation in the word, not 

simply customary international law. And one of the core deterrent 

mechanisms in that to prevent torture of POWs is the provision 

that not only the torturing state, but no other state to reflect either 

a victor in a war or a loser in a war, no one, can absolve a torturing state for any liability for torture. 

So we have a fundamental principle here indicating that the 

judgment that had been won by the POWs—determined, by the 

way, after a full hearing on the facts in the law by a judge who 

was a former assistant attorney general of the United States of 

America, and, by the way, in a procedure in which—even when the 

other side doesn’t show up, you have to have a 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 POWs in which 

there is a clear obligation that their liability cannot be absolved. 

I might add, it is also very, very clear in the sense that you already have had a Federal judgment indicating in every single case 

what the damages should be after reviewing careful damages in all 

of the other cases. We also have a Presidential statement in 2002 

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 and the House, all basically indicating that there should be liability in this case. 

40 

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that we understand that there is a 

new government in Iraq and a war still going on. Since you have 

asked a narrow question on this other one, a very important one, 

I would like to just hold that one for a moment; and we will come 

back to it, if that is all right. 

But I would like to talk to some of the points that I think Mr. 

Lungren has appropriately raised. 

In relation also the interest of this and serving the war effort, 

because we believe very strongly that this bill, this proposal does 

serve the war effort as well. 

Mr. COHEN. Would you like to proceed in that matter. 

Mr. MOORE. Yes, actually I would. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Mr. COHEN. Permission granted. 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, sir. The POWs and family members that 

I served were all volunteers. They went in harms way, and many 

of their colleagues and friends still are going in harms 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 believed that. When the President of the United 

States vetoed the defense authorization bill, it was because at that 

time I do not believe the Administration had a sense or Iraq had 

a sense of what the liabilities might be in relation to provisions in 

that bill which had not been sought were not put in by the POWs. 

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 this should be something that the Administration tries 

to resolve, the Justice Department held a meeting on April 22nd 

for all of the claimant groups that are now reflected in the BraleySestak matter, because we believe these were the claims that were 

looked at and thought to be valid claims of victims of terror, all 

under the provisions that were then in court. These were the critical ones that had been addressed in the 2008 defense bill at that 

point. 

In that setting, all of the claimants made a very substantial presentation, putting on the table in the case of the POWs an illustrative settlement offer that is largely reflected in the BraleySestak bill that would waive all punitive damages, $306 million in 

punitives, that would waive two-thirds of all of the compensatory 

damages. Over $400 million waived of compensatory damages. 

These damages are not awarded by an out-of-control jury, for example, in some case a jury that doesn’t like Iraq. These damages 

are awarded by a 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 a rather extraordinary effort to 

basically waive, in the interest of trying to resolve this matter, over 

$700 million in the judgments. 

Now, why do I believe that this bill, Braley-Sestak, 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 POWs. The first point is that 

this would dramatically get rid of and reduce the most important 

and politically supported claims against the Government of Iraq 

41 

today. And it would do so on terms that are very close to the commercial debt arrangements that Iraq is basically working out. 

Iraq is largely settling those commercial debts which it has been doing for about $0.20 on the dollar, though some have held out for 

more, and Iraq is doing the same thing roughly for sovereign debts 

under what are called Paris Club terms for approximately $0.20 on 

the dollar. That is roughly what has been put on the table here for 

debts of honor, something that we think are far more important to 

this country and to these POWs and what their entitled to, than 

are commercial debts; such as those of Mitsubishi of Japan and 

Hyundai of Korea that have already been settled with approximately 20-30 billion being settled. 

So this would remove at one fell swoop the remaining core principal claims that have a strong constituency in the Congress of the 

United States; claims that will have to be resolved appropriately at 

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 in the State Department, and I 

know about the SOFA negotiations and they are also engaged in 

doing sort of a strategic overview agreement as well in which they 

are negotiating with Iraq. These are difficult negotiations. It will 

absolutely unequivocally serve those negotiations to remove these 

issues in a way that are very favorable to Iraq and provide fair justice and are honorable to POWs. That is exactly what the BraleySestak proposal would do. 

Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, in relation to this serving the war effort, 

I believe that this is potentially an enormously important issue 

with the American people. I think some anonymous advisors are 

giving Iraq very bad advice. The issue of fair treatment of American POWs resonates with the American people. This issue needs 

to be resolved in the interest of support for the new government 

of Iraq. And I think that government is now getting terribly mistaken advice. 

If I were they, 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 is in here. 

And finally Mr. Chairman, the last point as to why this serves 

the war effort is that one of the objectives 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 

to simply avert our eyes 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, $20 billion to 

$30 billion in debts with foreign corporations of other countries, 

while they are basically ignoring the debt of honor owed to these 

American POWs. Thank you for that opportunity, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COHEN. You are welcome, Ambassador and thank you. I 

would now like to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

all four of you for your presentations. You know when you first look 

42 

at this or when you just look at it it appears to be an easy decision. 

I mean, when you hear the testimony of Captain Slade and the testimony that we received from Mr. Charchalis, 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 do Administrations not just immediately allow these lawsuits to go forward and these assets that basically have been frozen to be exposed to these kinds of judgments. 

And so I mean, I think, you have 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 has taken in this circumstance. And maybe Mr. Wolf, 

what you are talking about is the State Department. We could really argue about that. But let me just articulate or 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, in this case, they talked about the 

wholesale attachment of blocked property, thereby depleting the 

pool of blocked assets and depriving the U.S. of a source of leverage 

in ongoing and official sanctions programs such as was used to gain 

release of our citizens held hostage in Iran in 1981 or gaining information about POWs and MIAs as part of the normalization process 

with Vietnam. In other words it seems that they are establishing 

a principle that they are 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 address that. 

Mr. WOLF. Congressman Lungren, the most immediate response 

to that is that this country doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. And 

what we are talking about here are countries that are 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 20 years, 10 years, 5 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 provide some redress for the victims who 

suffered so terribly. 

Now, the State Department and the successive Administrations 

have had every opportunity to resolve these claims on a state-bystate 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 essentially a bureaucratic problem. 

Essentially what the State Department is doing is they look at 

sort of international relations or their mandate is one essentially 

of keeping things calm between the United States and other countries. And they have that sort of mind set, which sometimes is, of 

course, appropriate. But they also have a mandate to protect the 

rights of American citizens. 

43 

And when you are talking about reasonable amounts of compensation from someone like Saddam Hussein or from the Iranian 

regime, there is just no reason, there is no basis to keep assets tied 

up for 10, 15, 20 years on the basis of some future speculation that 

you might be able to use those negotiations and stuff, those assets 

and stuff for some sort of leverage. I think that the true fact is that 

the Department thinks of those assets as kind of theirs, as their 

sort of bailiwick to do what they want with. And for that reason, 

they view this sort of more as a turf issue than anything else, and 

I think that is why they are so opposed to it. 

And I would note that in the case of the Hill plaintiffs, for example, you have a situation here where you had reasonable judgments. We didn’t go in there looking for the stars and the moon. 

We were looking for reasonable amounts of compensation, $500,000 

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 120 victims. And yet here we are sitting here today with Mr. 

George Charchalis and 200 other Americans detained under the 

same conditions at the same time in the same circumstances, and 

the Department somehow feels that it is appropriate that these individuals should not get a single dime. They are making no effort. 

We have talked about, Congressman Lungren, about the kind of 

proposal that the State Department could have put forward or was 

asked to put forward years ago. We have gone to the Department 

time and time again asking them to put forward a proposal. We 

have proposed alternatives to them. We have proposed 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 is going to get compensated, and that is the truth of the matter. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you. Ambassador. 

Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir. Thank you, Congressman. I think the 

points you have raised, I would say as a former counselor on international law, has, in a variety of settings, some very important credence, and it is certainly something that we have always looked at 

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 is actually for the converse in this case. 

The first thing I would note on that is in this case the $1.7 billion in blocked Iraqi assets which were there when we began this 

case on behalf of the POWs before the war were earmarked by the 

Congress of the United States itself to pay these judgments. And 

so the Congress itself had taken action in this case to say where 

those funds went. Indeed, when the funds were seized by the President, $100 million of that was used to play the first tranche of the 

hostage plaintiffs. 

So the hostage plaintiffs, the first group, at least, received $100 

million with the approval of the Administration from the blocked 

assets. POWs have received absolutely nothing. The second point, 

and this is the one why I think, Mr. Chairman, it is really the converse in this particular case. And that is that right now the Administration is in a very difficult set of negotiations with Iraq. I really 

44 

think this is an extremely important set of negotiations and very 

important for the war effort. 

They are the SOFA 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. Iraq can use this, the 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 in opposition or the President thought that this 

was a bill that he was worried about or needed to veto, they would 

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 interest and not come up and testify on 

behalf of the executive branch. I think what this is signaling, and 

this is exactly what all of us as the counsel after the April 22 Justice Department meeting felt, is that the executive branch of the 

United States, now that it knows there is a very limited amount, 

a settlement that has been put on the table that is very favorable 

to Iraq as well as honorable to the hostages and our people, that 

is a good deal, it is easier to have Congress deal with it and, in 

my judgment, they are standing aside for the Congress of the 

United States to deal with this. 

Mr. LUNGREN. So you view the April meeting or consultation as 

a positive step? 

Mr. MOORE. Absolutely. Indeed, let me say I appreciate very 

much the fact that we had this interagency meeting, Mr. Lungren. 

I think the Administration was very good in putting on that meeting, was responsive to the question that the Congress had asked 

them to look at this. I am 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 they would have better leverage in the other 

issue if Congress resolved this issue and they stepped aside. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Would you say that the consultation helped to 

narrow the issue or the parameters or the size of the potential recovery or the size of the challenge to the Congress and the Administration? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir, I think it did. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you. 

Mr. MOORE. I think the Administration saw very clearly that 

what we were faced with now was a very discrete amount. In fact, 

let me put it in context. At the time of the presidential veto, they 

were concerned about the possibility of risk to $20 to $50 billion 

in Iraqi assets in American banks. The entire amount in the 

Braley-Sestak 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? It is $415 million for the total 

amount, including something in the mid two hundreds for the 

POWs, but that total amount is considerably less than 1 percent 

interest for 1 year on Iraq’s funds in United States banks today, 

45 

which are about $50 billion, ignoring altogether the additional oil 

windfall of the doubling and tripling of the price of oil. 

We are all seeing the prices at the pump today, that are going 

into Iraqi coffers. Iraq itself is saying over and over 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 are talking about 

for an issue of national honor in fairness to these people something 

that is considerably less than 1 percent of 1 year’s interest on 

Iraq’s bank accounts only in the United States. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Lungren. Mr. Scott from Virginia 

has joined us. Do you have any questions. 

Mr. SCOTT. Could I defer at this time and be called on later? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. Are there questions from Mr. King of Iowa. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank the 

witnesses. And this has been a hearing that has been informative 

to me. I have a series of questions that accumulated as I listened 

to the testimony. And I think I might try to work backwards 

through this in this fashion. I don’t understand the reluctance on 

the part of Iraq. As I listen to your numbers in the way you describe it, it does appear to be a prudent business decision on their 

part to resolve this. 

And so the question I would have for you, Ambassador, 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? 

Mr. MOORE. Congressman, that is an excellent question. Before 

I start, let me just extend my condolences for the terrible flood for 

the people of Iowa. I am terribly saddened, and I know this whole 

country is. 

Mr. KING. Thank you very much. We all appreciate that. 

Mr. MOORE. The precedent actually works in favor of settlement. 

Because to be able to settle what is the debt of honor that is something that is 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 debts that they have. 

I believe that there are some anonymous advisors for Iraq. I don’t 

know who they are, I don’t know where it is coming from, and I 

don’t know the reason, Congressman. I think they are receiving 

terribly bad advice in their own interest and in the interest of the 

war effort. 

Mr. KING. And I thank you. So another component of this, and 

I would think that probably everybody on the panel knows this, but 

I will stick with you Ambassador, and then is there a precedent for 

American POWs who were tortured receiving compensation from 

the Nation? I am thinking particularly, of course, John McCain 

who might be an expert on this and probably has an opinion. 

Mr. MOORE. 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 is absolutely the wrong precedent. And if that is 

what the United States does and how it responds every country in 

the world is simply going to continue to torture Americans in war 

after war as they have been doing. 

46 

Mr. KING. So how might I understand whether there have been 

Americans compensated who were tortured in previous wars? Has 

that ever happened? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes, some of them have been. Small amounts in 

World War II. 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 of POWs and one of the most 

effective ways to do it was to implement that provision in the POW 

Convention. 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 principal witness for 

the POWs was the top Army expert on protection of POWs and understanding of the laws of war who testified for them in the court. 

We courier’d copies of the complaint the day it was filed to the Vice 

President of the United States and the Deputy Secretary of Defense. This case was fully known by the Administration at the time 

we filed with them and they supported it. 

Mr. KING. Let me ask this question. This is the one that actually 

troubles me. And that is when I am looking at a Braley amendment, it is actually number 65, and the language here is, or an unqualified and unconditional guarantee made by a United States depository institution to pay within 30 days, and then it lists the 

claims individually. I expect you are familiar with this language. 

Is there any precedent for a nation who was at war to take on a 

liability in place of a nation who was committing the torture? 

I mean, this language binds the United States taxpayer, and I 

think that is an entirely different question. Could you tell me if 

there is a precedent in that regard? 

Mr. MOORE. Congressman, with due respect, I know the intent 

of the Braley-Sestak bill is not to, in 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 its funds or Iraq, not the United States, 

to get a bank obligation at that point. And if that is an issue we 

certainly have no issue or problem at all in changing that. 

We seek and have always sought to 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 

POWs we probably would have done so. 

Mr. KING. Well, I appreciate your position, Ambassador, and I 

share that position that I think it would be an unfortunate precedent to hold the U.S. taxpayers accountable for a liability that is 

likely created by a foreign government, enemy government, a terrorist nation. And that is an important point. And I can’t support 

it if it is going to bind American taxpayers and what is, according 

to the Braley amendment says, an unqualified and unconditional 

guarantee made by a United States depository institution, unless, 

of course, that refers to a bond that might be posted with U.S. currency, and that is a possibility. I see Mr. Wolf leaning forward. 

Mr. WOLF. I think the intention there is at the direction of the 

Iraqi Government, the bank would release funds to pay the judgments. It is not a mandate that a bank holding U.S. taxpayer funds 

would pay them money. 

47 

Mr. KING. Under that description and understanding, I appreciate that. And then could you then, just a final question, Mr. 

Chair, if you will indulge me here under the protocol we have been 

using, the precedence, could you list, again, Ambassador, could you 

list some of the precedents historically that have, and I am thinking of war reparations, that have been levied against perhaps Germany post World War I, and then 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 successful liberation of Iraqi people, are there precedents 

historically aside from that one I just mentioned? 

Mr. MOORE. Congressman, I can give you some examples, but indeed, I will talk about one in a second. But let me just say that 

that is not what we are about, that is not, to my knowledge, what 

this bill is about. I couldn’t agree more with you. What we are 

about here is holding Iraq accountable. We want Iraq, the torturing 

state, to be held accountable. And if there is any question about the 

language at all that needs to be, as I have understood it all along, 

to be something that is only either Iraq either pays within the 90 

days or Iraq has a bank pledged to pay, Iraq does, but not the 

United States. 

Mr. KING. I think, Ambassador, my point wasn’t clearly stated. 

But when you have a nation that was a terrorist nation that committed acts of atrocity against the individuals sitting here on this 

panel included, then that nation is liberated as they were with the 

help of individuals on this panel and ultimately the successors in 

that government now are representing the people of Iraq who were 

not culpable in 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, shifts a liability on to them. What 

are the historical precedents for something like that? 

Mr. MOORE. Thanks for clarifying it. I misinterpreted your statement, Congressman, and I don’t know any examples of that. But 

let me tell you why it is right in this case. It is right in this particular case, one, because the United States Government has always held, and it is 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 it is right in this particular case is this is a unique setting in 

which there is an obligation that you can never absolve the torturing state of liability. That treaty obligation from Article 131 of 

the POW Convention would trump anything else. And the third, if 

you simply looked at this in fairness terms, Mr. Chairman, 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 are 

dealing with is the innocent people of Iraq versus the innocent 

American POWs who were innocent and injured. That is a standard setting in tort law, frankly, in which you go with the innocent 

and injured. 

Mr. KING. Let me say, Ambassador, I do not disagree with your 

response at all, and I appreciate it. It was succinct, and I believe 

48 

it was correct and I will follow up with a written question. And I 

yield back and thank the Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. I just want to give you a couple of examples. Because 

as I understand it, after World War II, American POWs, some of 

our POWs tortured by Japan were paid out of blocked Japanese assets. Obviously, the Nazi government in Germany paid a lot of foreign nationals for years to come after the Holocaust, and there are, 

in fact, a series of other examples. I think that the problem that 

we have here, and I do totally agree with Professor Moore’s statement, as you do as well, I understand, that the successor government is liable or 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 exigencies 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 to ignore these claims for 18 

years. 

Mr. KING. I would submit also it is very difficult to sort out the 

reality of the history post World War II. There were orders that the 

court issued that were not followed. The American public believes 

one thing, reality is another. So it is hard to track that. But I think 

your point is well made and well taken. I appreciate all the witnesses’ testimony. I thank Mr. Chairman and I yield back. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow through 

on the idea of what precedents we are setting that the gentleman 

from Iowa started. But first Ambassador Moore let me get just 

background. These judgments that you obtained were against the 

Republic of Iraq? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes, Congressman Scott, they were against the State 

of Iraq, they were against the Iraqi intelligence service and they 

were against Saddam Hussein initially. They were also joint and 

several. So actually the survivor of all that, of course, today is the 

State of Iraq, so they are all against the State of Iraq. 

Mr. SCOTT. The money that is being held is money owned by the 

Republic of Iraq? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. And just following through on some of the comments 

made. We are over in Iraq presumably right now trying to help 

Iraq, and they are refusing to settle for what is a, as you have indicated, fairly modest portion of what is being held in Iraq—I mean, 

held here in the United States. Just what rationale are they giving 

for failing to settle? 

Mr. MOORE. Sadly, Congressman, they are giving none. They 

have not talked to us and we have not heard any discussion. The 

only official statement we have heard from our own government, 

and we do appreciate that statement, was one read at a White 

House presidential press conference in which the press secretary 

said on behalf of the President of the United States, ‘‘there is no 

amount of money that can adequately compensate these brave 

Americans for the terrible torture that they went through.’’ 

Mr. SCOTT. In terms of precedents, we have had examples of 

prior lawsuits, but it seemed to me that we are talking about those 

49 

that are lost in a war. Are these kinds of judgments recognized 

internationally? 

Mr. MOORE. Congressman, yes we believe so. That this is a 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 POWs. By the way, this is a very clear question of POWs, 

very, very narrowly limited, torture of POWs. 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 131 never to, ‘‘absolve’’ 

a torturing state of, ‘‘any liability’’ for the torture of POWs. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if you have a precedence it could work both 

ways. In this case, the judgments were obtained in the United 

States? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. If another country were to find say the United States 

had tortured someone, would the same principle apply? 

Mr. MOORE. Congressman, it applies only in a setting, of course, 

in our case, as a precedent when you are actually dealing with a 

prisoner of war, recognized prisoner of war under the Convention. 

I am aware that there is a detainee issue that we have had and 

discussed in the United States. I do not believe that that is a comparable one to the setting we have because here it is a matter of 

clearly state-directed torture of clear prisoners of war. And in that 

case any such setting, if we did that, yes, there would be liability 

and there should be. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, and that would be a determination of fact in 

the appropriate tribunal? 

Mr. MOORE. That is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if in another country they so found, what would 

our reaction be to their lawsuit? 

Mr. MOORE. Well, I think 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 are talking about is a sham trial in some 

country that is a terrorist country, I think we would properly say 

this not the rule of law. If what we are 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 when the Secretary of Defense of the 

United States testified before the Congress in relation to the Abu 

Ghraib setting, he said the United States owed appropriate compensation to those. So what we find is it is rather strange to have 

the—— 

Mr. SCOTT. But in that case, if they were to actually have a lawsuit in Iraq and come up with a judgment amount, would we recognize it? 

Mr. MOORE. 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. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, that is a finding, that would be a matter of 

finding of fact. 

50 

Mr. MOORE. Yes, but the findings of fact are essential and critical in terms of the rule of law as to what it is. 

Mr. SCOTT. And the finding of fact would be a determination of 

the tribunal where it is? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes, but it would have to be a fair setting in a fair 

tribunal in terms of what the setting is. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if both sides have the opportunity to present evidence and the tribunal decided against us, would we recognize or 

not recognize it, depending on whether we agreed with their determination? 

Mr. MOORE. I think that would be an issue for, as it always is, 

for looking at individual settings in individual cases, Congressman. 

But let me just say that I realize we can talk a variety of 

hypotheticals. But 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 and 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 of a setting of torture, command directed 

torture of clear prisoners of war. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you think we would have similar exposure in 

Guantanamo Bay or in Abu Ghraib? 

Mr. MOORE. Congressman, I don’t think it is my place to speculate about those settings at this point. Let me just say 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. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I agree with you. My question was what precedence might we be setting that could be used both ways? 

Mr. WOLF. Congressman, could I just speak to that first for a moment? 

Mr. SCOTT. My time is expired, so you have the last word. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay, thank you. These arguments allowing American victims of terrorism to hold foreign states accountable in 

American courts would lead to the American government being 

hailed into court abroad have been made by the State Department 

and various Administrations since the 1990’s when these proposals 

were first 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 had already been crossed. And the 

issue that we are dealing here today with is whether we are going 

to make a single exception for one terrorist state that terrorized 

American victims and we are going to treat that state differently 

than we are treating other state sponsors of terrorism, and there 

is simply no justification for that. The policy decision has been 

made by Congress. They would have to—Congress would have to 

undo the entire decision before there could possibly be justification 

for exempting one terrorist state. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, where are the other examples where terrorist 

states have been sued by people in another country using their 

courts, getting judgments in the local courts and those judgments 

have been actually enforced? 

51 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I mean—— 

Mr. SCOTT. You say this is the exception. Where are the others? 

Mr. WOLF. What I am saying Congressman is that, for instance, 

there have been judgments against the Iranian government in our 

courts, judgments against the Libyan government, judgments 

against the Sudanese government, all terrorist states, one by the 

way a former terrorist state Libya. And the question here today is 

are we going to exempt. 

Mr. SCOTT. And those judgments were enforced? 

Mr. WOLF. They were enforced, absolutely. Pan Am 103. 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 of Iran against the United 

States. And I think that basically our government does with those 

judgments, or treats those judgments with the dignity that they deserve. We just ignore them because we don’t have any real faith 

in the Iranian judicial system. But our foreign policy I don’t believe 

has been compromised by those judgments. 

Mr. MOORE. May I add to that Congressman, if you would. This 

is a setting also in terms of the question as to 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 2,000 pound gorilla 

when it comes to the rule of law and when it comes to financial 

institutions around the world, is the rule of law. 

It is in our interest to have fair trials, terror states will not. It 

is in our interest working with our allies to promote the rule of law 

in this area. By the way we are talking here also about national 

law. All of these actions were brought under laws that were authorized by the Congress of the United States in the 1996 anti terror amendments. None of the actions that we brought, while they 

are fully consistent with international law, none of these actions 

were brought under international law. They were filed 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 is 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 unanimous resolution saying we are going to hold accountable 

those who torture American POWs. So this is really American law 

that we are talking about in American court. And it is most broadly, you are absolutely right in asking this question of how does it 

work in terms of what comes around goes around, et cetera. The 

answer is that is in our interest, unequivocally in our interest. 

And I would like to join my colleague, Mr. Wolf, in 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 broad 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. 

It is one of the most effective tools that we have. 

52 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. Let me ask a question of Mr. Wolf and 

Ambassador. Are there any other groups of victims who you know 

of with pending lawsuits against the Iraqi Government. 

Mr. WOLF. There are two cases, or actually one pending case of 

which I am aware. It involves a continuation of what was known 

as the Dalaberti case involving two American citizens or three 

American citizens who had strayed too close to the Iraqi border or 

strayed close to the Iraqi border and they were taken, imprisoned, 

held in horrible conditions and really held hostage. And these are 

suits by the children. Those suits were—the initial suits were successfully resolved. The continuation are suits by the children. And 

that is the only pending suit right now that I am aware of. 

Mr. COHEN. Are there analogous cases with the Libyan government where American service men might have been injured. 

Mr. WOLF. I am glad you asked the question concerning the Libyan government. There are cases concerning the Libyan government. I don’t know whether any of those cases involve American 

service men, but therecertainly are cases against the Libyan government involving American citizens. And it is interesting, especially in light of Congressman King’s comment about former governments and whether, former terrorist governments and whether 

the 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 or families that were 

killed and otherwise abused, tortured, by the Libyan government. 

So we are doing that with respect to Libya, but with respect to Iraq 

it seems like our government wants to let them off the hook. 

Mr. COHEN. Let me ask you one last question, and I will recognize Mr. Gohmert. As I understand it, we have got a goodly number of amount of assets of Iraq on hold here in America, right. 

Mr. WOLF. That is correct. More than $50 billion. 

Mr. COHEN. And these were assets of the previous government, 

the Saddam Hussein government, right? 

Mr. WOLF. I believe that some of them may be residue of the 

Saddam Hussein government, but I am not 100 percent sure of 

that fact. I think some of the money has to do with proceeds from 

oil sales that have been made since then, but yes, I believe some 

of that money is from the former government. It was transferred 

to accounts in New York. 

Mr. COHEN. 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 

successor government? 

Mr. WOLF. In a sense, although we would argue, and I believe 

correctly, that the successor government is liable. 

Mr. COHEN. Would you argue that the assets that are existent 

that were there because of the previous government, the terrorist 

government, really aren’t the terrorist government’s assets in that 

they committed tortious acts, terror, murder, whatever, and that 

because of those tortious acts, that money is really the money of 

the plaintiffs and never should have been considered the money of 

the previous government, since they had a liability that they incurred and that that liability that they incurred even prior to judgVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:04 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\061708\42971.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42971
53 

ment was a liability toward these plaintiffs, 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 would be a windfall to 

the new government to get the assets and not to have the liabilities 

also accrued to them? Would that be an accurate statement? 

Mr. WOLF. I like that argument, and I think it would be correct. 

Mr. COHEN. I thought you might. The gentleman from Texas is 

recognized. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. It is interesting to hear discussion 

about the rule of law when we can’t even follow proper procedure 

here in our Committee. We are in the second round, and now I am 

getting my first round. So I appreciate finally being recognized. I 

have a number of questions. And really I agree with you, Ambassador, that it is important to hold people accountable. It 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 effective than the criminal 

law enforcement and the punishment of war crimes where you actually get into individual culpability. I think that is 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 fair 

system we are trying to introduce them to really works. 

But I was intrigued, a statement was made basically, as I understood it, that we had always recognized the subsequent country as 

being responsible for debts. And I was under the impression that 

Washington didn’t buy 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 is why we came so much outof-pocket with the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe. What exactly 

did Germany pay toward these types of claims? 

Mr. WOLF. They clearly paid for years, and are still paying, the 

compensation on behalf of those who were victims of the Nazi Holocaust. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And who is paying that? 

Mr. WOLF. The German government. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The German government is paying that to whom? 

Mr. WOLF. To the direct victims of the Holocaust. And that happened for years and years after. 

Mr. GOHMERT. How do you get to become a part of that class? 

Mr. WOLF. There wasn’t a lawsuit. It was just a system of compensation that was, I suspect, enacted by the German legislature. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Do you know how you would get to be a part of 

those who were appropriated? 

Mr. WOLF. Well, certainly if you were a former internee at a Nazi 

concentration camp. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, that would qualify you, but it wouldn’t necessarily get you compensated. 

Mr. WOLF. I suspect they had some sort of administrative claim 

process. I really can’t answer that. 

54 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, see, you all are testifying here under basically penalties of perjury. And one of the things that troubles me 

as a former judge is people come in and make these statements so 

broadly which really is supposed to be truth basically with culpability for false statements. Anyway, I get troubled with broad—— 

Mr. WOLF. I know that is a fact. I am not speculating. I just don’t 

know the system, that is why I am giving you the answer I don’t 

know. I don’t think I am perjuring myself. 

Mr. MOORE. Congressman, could I respond to part of that question that you have asked? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. Because you are using ‘‘always,’’ and I would 

have thought somebody in your position would, especially an attorney, would advise clients don’t ever say ‘‘always.’’ 

Mr. MOORE. I think, Congressman, we are talking about a number of different things. One issue is sort of reparations and whether 

there are war reparations, et cetera. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I called you on the fact that you said that 

we have always recognized the subsequent country’s obligation to 

pay the prior country’s debts, and I am not sure that is the case. 

Mr. MOORE. 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 liability. And let me just note on that 

point that all of the commercial claims that are being paid, the $20 

billion to $30 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 POWs are prewar commercial 

debts of Iraq. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I agree with you, the victims should be compensated even before corporations are. I would agree with that. I 

have handled cases as a plaintiff’s attorney, as a defense attorney 

and had them come before me. What is the going rate for a contingency on a case of this type? 

Mr. MOORE. I think as a judge, you would have a pretty good 

idea of contingency fees. 

Mr. GOHMERT. We had them go from 10 to 45 percent. 

Mr. MOORE. They tend to raise from I suppose 20 to 45 or whatever. We are under a privacy agreement in relation to the clients 

in this case. And let me also say, sir, that there is nothing that I 

have ever done in my entire career as an attorney that has made 

me feel more honored in relation to what we are doing. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I am not casting aspersions. I am one of those 

conservative Republicans that believe that contingency fees have 

allowed for people to have legal assistance that couldn’t otherwise 

get it. 

Mr. MOORE. Whatever the form of fees I think they have been 

very helpful in this case for the clients though. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And one final matter with regard to Abu Ghraib. 

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 has ever 

been set up to set off what kind of damages would be available to 

someone in that circumstance as compared to the persons they may 

55 

have blown their inner guts out, how those kind of claims might 

offset each other if they do? 

Mr. MOORE. Congressman I have not studied the legal questions 

that you have raised so I don’t know the answer. But I would like 

to just add a point in relation to, I think, the issue you are asking 

that is 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 civil liability. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I think you can have both. I am not saying either 

one should be mutually exclusive. 

Mr. MOORE. I appreciate that very much. And one of the problems here is we have never pursued the criminal liability. Typically, you don’t have the people involved. Let me just say that—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. I think Saddam Hussein has paid a pretty significant price through the criminal system. 

Mr. MOORE. Sadly Congressman, to my knowledge—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Oh, is he still alive? 

Mr. MOORE. Saddam Hussein was never charged with any of the 

actions concerning the torture of American POWs. So he was 

charged with a variety of things. And, of course, we know that Saddam Hussein died. 

Mr. GOHMERT. That is my understanding. 

Mr. MOORE. If you are looking 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 is rather interesting as tyo why 

among all the various charges against Saddam Hussein there was 

no charge for the torture of American POWs. And one of the reasons that you have, the double provisions in the POW Convention 

for accountability for torture, 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. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I would submit to you that when you have 

the death penalty that is being applied because of one charge, it 

is not really necessary to try thousands of other charges. That is 

what I have observed. My time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. COHEN. Are there further questions of the panel? Let me ask 

one. Does anybody know if there is a CBO score on the BraleySestak proposal. 

Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir, I know the answer to that. 

Mr. COHEN. You are recognized. 

Mr. MOORE. I am delighted to say I know the answer to that, Mr. 

Chairman. This issue has been put to the CBO and to the Budget 

Committee. And I am informed that they have ruled that there are 

no United States monies at stake whatsoever in the Braley-Sestak 

proposal. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. Mr. Charchalis, let me ask you one 

question. Were you or any of the other people in Kuwait 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. 

Mr. CHARCHALIS. No, sir, and that is 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. A figure 

56 

that was given about 125. And I called the embassy. And you 

know, I was concerned about it. And they said there isn’t any problem, don’t worry about it. I went to the Director General of the Institute and told him I would like to take my wife to Bahrain. And 

he said no, the Crown Prince is meeting in Taif and there is no 

problem. And we found out that there was a problem. That the 

Iraqis invaded on August 2nd. 

We tried to contact the embassy and the phone, nobody answered 

the phone. It was busy. We finally got through late and they said 

don’t bother us we are 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 were in jeopardy. 

I will tell you this, that we found out later on, that the road from 

Kuwait to Saudi Arabia was open for 3 days, because we were told 

it was closed. We could have got in, my wife could have got in our 

car and driven there and been out of harms way. We would have 

had to leave everything, but that is a lot better than jeopardizing 

your life. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. Captain Slade, do you know from 

your own personal recollection or from any hearsay any effect that 

the failure of the United States to honor and to help with these 

claims, any effect it has had on the morale of soldiers, our military? 

Captain SLADE. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have data on that, although anecdotally I have had obviously many, many peers over 

the years who have looked to us and wondered why this hasn’t 

moved and where it has gone and why it appears to have dissolved 

at the behest of government. 

So there is a lot of confusion, and those are people who have returned to theater. In fact, I returned to theater in 1998 for another 

deployment in Iraq, as have many of the former POWs from the 

first Gulf War. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. If there are no other questions, I would 

like to thank each of the panelists for their service to this Committee, to their service for our country and to the scholarly works 

and to the bar which they have exhibited here and for your testimony. 

Without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit any additional written questions for you, which we will forward 

and ask that you answer as promptly as you can. They will be 

made a part of the record. And without objection, the record will 

remain open for 5 legislative days for the submission of any other 

additional materials. 

This hearing has helped illuminate the many twists and turns in 

the POWs’ and human shields’ quest for justice. The Chairman and 

I look forward to working with our 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 does not unduly burden the 

present Government of Iraq. The Committee will consider the next 

appropriate steps accordingly. 

And with that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(57) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY


SJL-1.eps
58 


SJL-2.eps
59 


SJL-3.eps
60 


SJL-4.eps
61 


SJL-5.eps
62 


SJL-6.eps
63 

Æ 


SJL-7.eps