CONTINUING URGENT NEED FOR AMERICAN VICTIMS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 STATE 061202 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/10/2024 TAGS: IZ KJUS PGOV PHUM PINS PREL EFIN SUBJECT: CONTINUING URGENT NEED FOR AMERICAN VICTIMS CLAIMS NEGOTIATIONS FOLLOWING THE BEATY DECISION REF: A. STATE 50829 ¶B. BAGHDAD 1487 Classified By: NEA DAS Richard Schmierer for reasons E.O. 12958 1.4 (b) and (d) ¶1. (SBU) This is an action request. Please see paragraph nine. ¶2. (C) SUMMARY: The Supreme Court's recent decision upholding the restoration of Iraq's immunity in cases brought by American victims of the Saddam Hussein regime reinforces the need to move forward on government-to-government claims negotiations. Ambassador Hill is requested to speak directly with Prime Minister Maliki to emphasize that, while the U.S. believes the court reached the right result, the decision does not, repeat, not decrease the urgent need for Iraq to demonstrate a commitment -- and progress -- toward resolving the claims that are at the center of this ruling, a need which will not go away even if the specific cases are removed from U.S. courts. On the contrary, Iraq's the Supreme Court's decision is certain to increase the pressure on Congress to act, and absent quick and demonstrable forward movement on claims negotiations, it is possible that the positive development concerning claims against Iraq gains in the courts could be reversed in the Congress. END SUMMARY. -------------- BACKGROUND -------------- ¶3. (SBU) On Monday, June 8, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Iraq in two consolidated cases by U.S. victims of the Saddam Hussein regime, Beaty and Simon v. Republic of Iraq. These cases were brought by the children of two men detained and tortured by Iraqi officials, and plaintiffs held hostage and tortured by the Saddam Hussein government during the 1990 Gulf War. The Supreme Court concluded that U.S. courts no longer had jurisdiction over victims of terrorism cases against Iraq as a result of President Bush's exercise of statutory authority in May 2003 to restore Iraq's sovereign immunity for such cases. The United States filed a brief in the case in support of Iraq's legal position, arguing that the President properly exercised this authority as part of an overall effort to manage U.S.-led reconstruction and stabilization in Iraq. ¶4. (C) These cases will now be dismissed from U.S. courts, absent a further request by the plaintiffs for rehearing by the Supreme Court. Additional cases against Iraq brought by 1990 Gulf War POWs and individuals held as "human shields" will likely also be affected by the court's ruling. It is important, however, that Iraq consult closely with its U.S. counsel in these and other cases so that appropriate legal action can be taken. ¶5. (SBU) While the ruling is positive news for Iraq, and the U.S. believes the court reached the right result, the decision does not affect Iraq's responsibility to resolve the claims that are affected by this ruling. As the United States has consistently maintained in litigation and with the GOI, Congress, and the claimants, removal of these claims from U.S. courts would not terminate them, but rather return them to the realm of diplomacy between the U.S. and the GOI. ¶6. (C) In March, Dr. Fadel Jawad Khadum, the Iraqi Prime Minister's legal advisor, traveled to Washington to meet with U.S. officials and lay the foundations for a possible settlement of claims. The Prime Minister raised the claims during the visits of the Secretary, Speaker Pelosi, and STATE 00061202 002 OF 003 other U.S. officials, asserting that Iraq understood the importance of settling the claims. In addition, the Prime Minister requested the U.S. government to extend for another year the Executive Orders protecting Iraq's assets from attachment in U.S. courts. This was done in late May. Negotiations were scheduled to begin in early June, but were postponed indefinitely by Iraq prior to the Supreme Court's decision. In postponing discussions, Dr. Fadel pointed to political sensitivities in Iraq. With the Beaty ruling there are concerns among plaintiffs and on Captiol Hill that this may undermine the commitment and willingness of the of the GOI to resolve the claims expeditiously. ¶7. (C) Now more than ever it is important for the two governments to procede with negotiations to resolve these claims. Delay will not benefit the GOI in terms of putting this problem behind it. To the contrary, it will only hurt, given the Congress' inclination to pursue legislative solutions to address these types of cases if other avenues do not appear fruitful. While the litigation risk to Iraq has been reduced by the recent court decision, the risk of legislation to allow the cases to return to U.S. courts in an attempt to force Iraq to a settlement has increased. Congressional Affairs (H) believes that the claimants, including the 1990 Gulf War POWs who have demonstrated their effectiveness on the Hill in the past, will use this decision to push Congress more aggressively for legislation. ¶8. (C) A bill was introduced in the House in early-May which, if passed, would countermand the Presidential waiver that protects Iraq from the application of section 1083 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008 (NDAA),the so-called Lautenberg Amendment, unless Iraq settles certain claims at specified amounts. Removal of the waiver would subject Iraq to the provisions of section 1083 and substantially erode Iraq's immunity under U.S. law, the threatened outcome that motivated then-President Bush to take the extraordinary and unprecedented step of vetoing the NDAA and arranging with the Congress for its re-passage with waiver authority to protect Iraq from the legislation. In recent consultations prior to the Beaty decision, NEA, L, and H were able to convince Congressional staff that legislation should be deferred pending U.S.-Iraqi efforts to undertake claims settlement negotiations. However, the GOI's indefinite postponement of claims n egotiations prior to the decision had already caused Congressional concern about the lack of progress. H now believes the Supreme Court's decision will prompt renewed interest in moving forward with legislation. During the most recent consultations on the Hill, Congressional staff stated such new legislation is likely to be attached to the Defense Authorization bill now in the House -- if we are unable to show demonstrable progress with the negotiations in the near term -- potentially creating the same scenario which led to the Presidential veto of the NDAA. -------------- ACTION REQUEST -------------- ¶9. (SBU) Embassy Baghdad is requested to demarche the GOI regarding the need for swift and tangible progress on claims negotiations and can draw from the following points: -- The decision in the Beaty case is positive news for Iraq, and we are pleased with the outcome. We believe the Supreme Court reached the right result. -- However, the decision did not extinguish the claims; it only removed them from the U.S. court system, which places them back in the realm of diplomacy between our two governments. -- In fact, we are confident that the claimants will use this decision to aggressively push Congress for legislation to return their cases to U.S. courts, and make it easier for them to attach Iraq's assets. -- In fact, legislation that would unravel the waiver President Bush sought to protect Iraq from section 1083 of the NDAA (the Lautenberg Amendment) is currently pending in the Congress. -- Congress appears receptive to the claimants' arguments. STATE 00061202 003 OF 003 New legislation could move soon if we cannot show demonstrable progress on the claims negotiations in the near term (weeks, not months). -- If legislation begins to move, it will be much more difficult for us to work on an overall fair resolution of the claims through government-to-government negotiations. -- We urge Iraq to finalize its delegation and fix an early date to begin negotiations as quickly as possible and advise when the delegation will travel to Washington to undertake negotiations in earnest. ¶10. (U) Points of Contact in Washington for questions or concerns are Mary Mitchell (L/AN),MitchellMT AT state.sgov.gov, 202-647-2007 or Kevin Taecker (NEA/I-EAA),TaeckerKR2 AT state.sgov.gov. CLINTON