POW Timeline

Iraq invades Kuwait in August 1990, triggering its classification by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism and the blocking of its assets in the U.S. During the Gulf War, American POWs held by Iraq are brutally tortured.

An amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) allows State Department-listed terrorist nations (including Iraq) to be held liable for personal injuries incurred by torture victims such as the American POWs from the 1991 Gulf War.

One of the American 1991 Gulf War POWs begins discussions with attorney John Norton Moore to initiate the effort to seek accountability against Iraq for the torture he and the other American POWs suffered and to promote the deterrence against the future torture of American servicemen and women. The law firm of Steptoe & Johnson joins with Moore to serve as co-counsel in representing the POWs.

Seventeen Gulf War POWs and 37 of their family members sue the Republic of Iraq, Saddam Hussein in his official capacity, and the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

After defendants failed to respond to an offer of arbitration and service of process through the State Department, an entry of default was entered against them.

President Bush signs the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), including a provision designed to ensure that Americans can collect court-ordered compensatory damages from frozen assets of terrorist states. The provision earlier passed the Senate as an amendment by Senators Allen and Harkin 81-3, and passed the House 373-0.

Twenty of the most highly regarded former U.S. officials from the national security and defense arenas, including a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urge the President that it is in the United States’ national security interest to help put an end to the torture of American POWs and set aside an escrow to pay the POWs’ eventual judgment.

Bush confiscates and vests the $1.7 billion in Iraqi assets held in private banks since 1990. The Order sets aside assets to pay two judgments against Iraq, including that of the “human shield” hostages. No provision is made for the POWs. The remainder is placed in an account at the FRBNY.

Congress passes an emergency wartime appropriations that gives the President the authority to remove bars to spending and conducting business in Iraq.

Bush issues a Determination that the Government later argues invalidates a law that allows American citizens to sue Iraq in U.S. courts for terror-related injuries.

Bush, after not identifying TRIA or FSIA in his letter of intent or Determination, sends a letter to Congress “eliminating” these (unrelated to appropriations) laws as they apply to Iraq, with the effect of blocking the POWs’ collection efforts.

Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) introduces legislation aimed at helping tortured American prisoners of war seeking monetary damages from the frozen assets of the captors and establishing vital U.S. policy in this area.

Judge Richard Roberts rules 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. He finds 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.”

Judge Roberts grants the POWs’ request to freeze temporarily about $700 million, the remainder of the Iraqi frozen assets, until the issue of satisfying the judgment could be sorted out. Roberts urges the parties to compromise.

The POWs send a letter to the Justice Department seeking a compromise whereby the U.S. would be free to use the assets because of its assertions that they were essential to protecting American troops, provided the government replenish the fund at a later date. The offer is rebuffed.

Justice Department asks Judge Roberts to allow it to intervene in the POWs’ case against Iraq, stating its intention to have the judgment erased from the books. Roberts later writes this could be viewed as retaliatory for the POWs seeking satisfaction.

Paul Bremer, Bush’s envoy to Iraq, files a declaration claiming that to pay the POW victims out of the Iraqi funds would hamper the ability to rebuild Iraq – and noting that the funding has almost already run out.

Plaintiffs challenge the Government’s effort to erase the judgment, noting there is no evidence that Congress intended to throw out the civil actions against Iraq.

Roberts calls the Government’s position on the frozen funds issue “extreme,” but rules that Bush made laws that allow the POWs to recover from Iraqi assets inapplicable. As a result, the POWs are unable to obtain payment from the blocked Iraqi funds. The POWs appeal.

The POWs’ motion for an injunction pending appeal to keep some Iraqi assets in the U.S. is denied.

Senators Reid and Allen send letters stating that defeating the POWs’ case is not what Congress intended.

Judge Roberts denies the Justice Department’s motion to intervene in the underlying case against Iraq, and calls the Government’s argument that the judgment – a public record of the torture – should be thrown out because it hampers rebuilding “meritless.” Nonetheless, the Government appeals.

The Justice Department writes the POWs to tell them that, despite the appeal, the government plans to withdraw approximately $420 million from the Special Purpose Account on Friday, August 29, 2003. The remainder would be transferred in October.

Following oral argument against the Justice Department, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit rules that the POWs must look elsewhere to satisfy their judgment.

Senator Harry Reid sponsors an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill, making clear that Congress did not intend to interfere with the POWs’ suit and calling upon the Bush Administration to develop a fair and reasonable method of providing compensation to the POWs and their family members.

The State Department opposes the Reid amendment in a letter filled with misleading and inaccurate statements. Shortly thereafter, the Reid amendment is taken out of the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill in an effort led by Rep. Frank Wolf.

The New York Times publishes a major story detailing how the Bush Administration is blocking the POWs and is not eager to publicize the fact that Administration lawyers have argued that the POWs’ judgment should be overturned.

Senator Reid, along with Senator Graham of Florida, reintroduces the earlier struck amendment. Senator Reid states: “It is beyond my comprehension why these Federal bureaucrats are now siding with Saddam Hussein and against these former prisoners of war who suffered at his hands. These brave heroes are merely seeking to hold Iraq accountable for its crimes, and deter the torture of any American citizen by a terrorist state in the future. A civilized world cannot let such crimes go unpunished. The perpetrators must be held to account.”

Senator Graham eloquently adds: “We are sending money to rebuild Iraq, but we are turning our back on a judicial decision that was achieved under laws this body created. We are turning our backs on the torture inflicted upon these 17 veterans who were taken as prisoners of war while serving our country. Mr. President, the costs of war do not end at the borders of Iraq; veterans will continue to pay them for years to come. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort to see this injustice is rectified.”

Rep. Meeks introduces a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the POWs and their family members should be adequately compensated, without delay, for their suffering and injury, as decided by the court.

CBS' 60 Minutes broadcasts a Mike Wallace feature on the case with four of the POWs. The piece closed with the following quote from Marine Colonel Cliff Acree: "When it comes to our president and our commander-in-chief, he has our undying support and loyalty. There's no question, no doubt in my mind. Here's what the lawsuit is about. We want to deter, in any way that we can, or lessen the severity of future American POWs - and there will be more - we want to lessen the severity of their captivity in any way that we can. If we don't do that, who will?"

The Justice Department files its opening brief in its appeal of the district court's denial of its motion to intervene and have the POWs' judgment extinguished.

The POWs file their brief with the Court of Appeals, emphasizing the serious constitutional issues at stake. The POWs first argue that the court should affirm the ruling denying the Justice Department's untimely motion to intervene. The fact that the motion was filed after the final judgment, despite the Government's knowledge of the suit from its very filling in early 2002, cuts against the Government. Further sinking the Government is delaying its objections in order to give it time to deplete the frozen Iraqi funds without public scrutiny. In addition, the Government's arguments seek to expand Presidential powers far beyond the limited power granted by Congress. Specifically, the Government says that a phrase, buried in an emergency appropriations bill, written to lift restrictions on providing aid to Iraq, takes away jurisdiction from the court and wipes out the POWs' judgment. This misuse of authority is unlawful and unfair, and the POWs ask the Court to allow their judgment to stand.

Amicus brief is filed by the Washington Legal Foundation on behalf of Members of Congress, including Senators Reid, Allen, and Murray, and Reps. Conyers, Meeks, and Berman. The brief argues, from Congress' perspective, that the legislature did not grant the President the authority to undo the laws that would potentially affect the POWs' judgment, and even if it had, that authority could not be used retroactively to undo their judgment.

DOJ files its reply brief -- the last word to the court before the April 15, 2004 oral argument before three judges. Filled with rehashings of the same arguments, it again tells the court that the POWs' case should be thrown out, even though their judgment is the only evidence to date proving Hussein's complicity in the torture of Americans and is the first case ever to hold a nation accountable for torturing American POWs.

Senators Collins and Allen write to Attorney General Ashcroft asking that he personally review the POWs' situation and that he aid the group in its efforts to engage the Bush Administration in talks. Their request is later declined.

Oral argument is heard at the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on whether the government can intervene and vacate the POWs' judgment.

Sen. Leahy sends a letter to Attorney General Ashcroft confessing "surprise that the Department is siding with Iraq in this lawsuit, and against our veterans."

The DC Circuit vacates the POWs' judgment, ruling that a change in the law in January 2004 written by the same court means the case cannot stand. This result is drastic and unfair. Rather than vacating the case and dismissing, it would have been more proper (and fair) for the court to remand the case to the district court so that the United States could argue the never-briefed issue on which the court vacated, rather than being raised by the court itself.

This result is disheartening, especially given all the POW group has put into this effort -- opening this chapter of their lives back up to try to hold their torturers accountable, and following all the rules set out by Congress, only to be defeated by their own government. Also, it means that the POWs' judgment, among the other debts worldwide, was singled out for extinguishment.

Sen. Reid proposes a new amendment, co-sponsored by Senators Warner and Levin, requiring that any plan for compensation to individuals in military prisons in Iraq include provisions for compensation to former prisoners of war held by the regime of Saddam Hussein.

The POWs file a Petition for Rehearing En Banc to the DC Circuit asking that the case be reheard because, among other things, the Acree decision is inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, a case decided after Acree. Contrary to the decicion in Acree, Sosa holds that foreign sovereigns may be liable under common law causes of action, including common law torts.

The DC Circuit denies the POWs the opportunity to be reheard despite new law from the Supreme Court which contradicts the holding in Acree. The POWs will consider a petition to the Supreme Court because, in addition to the unfairness of the Acree holding and the subsequent change in law in Sosa, there is now a split in the law between the DC Circuit and other Courts of Appeal in the United States.

This same day, news reports state that a soon-to-be-released audit will show that at least $8.8 billion in Iraqi money, including formerly frozen assets, that aws given to Iraqi ministries by the former U.S.-led authority there cannot be accounted for.

The POWs file their petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, requesting that the Court review the case. The United States will respond to the request by March 21, 2005.

The United States files its Opposition to the POWs’ petition, and asks the Supreme Court not to hear their appeal.

Three additional briefs are also filed on the POWs’ behalf, all urging the Court to hear the case and correct the errors made by the court of appeals in its June 2004 decision. The Washington Legal Foundation files a brief on behalf of a bipartisan group of Members of Congress, including Senators Allen, Murray, and Harkin, and 17 U.S. Representatives. The Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary’s University School of Law is joined on its brief by the National League of POW/MIA Families, the National Commander & National Adjutant of American Ex-Prisoners of War, and a distinguished group of American national security experts, including high ranking military, former executive branch officials, ambassadors, and legal experts. The Center for Justice & Accountability files a brief on behalf of twenty-one eminent International Law scholars, emphasizing the universal condemnation of torture under international laws, and the availability under U.S. law of a right to bring torture claims against the perpetrators.

The Supreme Court denies certiorari, thus declining to hear the case.

The POWs file a motion with the district court, urging Judge Roberts to find that extraordinary circumstances warrant the re-opening of the case to hear argument on the issues neither considered nor decided by the court of appeals.

On August 5, 2005, the United States filed its opposition.

On August 12, 2005, the POWs replied. The court has yet to rule.

The Acree Plaintiffs file a new action in district court. In February, 2007, Iraq retains American counsel to represent it in this suit. This case has yet to move forward.

The Acree Plaintiffs file an action in the Court of Federal Claims asserting that the United States took away their judgment and claims. This case has yet to move forward.

Congress passes the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The Act contained provisions that would have substantially assisted the Acree plaintiffs in going forward with their case. The Act passed the House 370-49 and the Senate 90-3.

The President announces in a “Memorandum of Disapproval” that he is vetoing the Act. The President identifies the provisions helpful to the Acree group as the specific reason he is vetoing the massive bill. It is thereafter reported in Congressional Quarterly that President Bush vetoed the bill “[u]nder intense pressure from the Iraqi government” and “[o]nly after lawyers for the Iraqi government threatened to withdraw $25 billion worth of assets from U.S. capital markets early this week did the White House decide to let the bill die.”

The House by voice vote sends the vetoed Defense Authorization Act “back to the Armed Services Committee for reworking rather than force a constitutional confrontation with the White House, according to a senior Democratic leadership aides.” On January 16, 2007, the House passed the “revised” Defense Authorization Act. The revised Act contains the same provisions that would have helped the Acree group, except that the compromise Congress struck with the President in order to protect Iraq meant giving the President the power to issue a waiver so that section 1083 would not apply to any case against Iraq. That is, the newly-enacted provisions designed to assist victims of terrorism apply to all claims except those against Iraq once the President issues the waiver.