OK, the World Court has ruled...

[De Selby]

SS,  Go read this and come back when your facts are in order.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0880801484/bookstorenow18-20


And I'll join with the rest of you guys, The "World Court" can sod off.  I am subject to U.S. Law, none other.

This theory works fine for normal situations-but would you allow a Nazi to raise that same defense?

"Hey, I was only subject to german law...I can't be tried for crimes that weren't against the law of my country, can I?"

Sometimes the laws permit behavior that is contrary to everything civilized-with international law, you have a process for dealing with those situations, rather than just arbitrarily shooting anyone who doesn't conform to some other country's code of conduct.

[RaspberrySurprise]

Last I checked murder is and was illegal in Germany.

[De Selby]

Last I checked murder is and was illegal in Germany.

The state makes the laws-the Nazis clearly made provisions for their genocide.

Of course outside of extreme circumstances applying the admittedly vague "humanitarian" type laws in international law is totally inappropriate.

But certainly there are cases where you can see that a theory of law provides you with a method for dealing with people like the Nazis, who legalized behavior that is exceeds all bounds of decency and humanity.  You can try them for crimes, and have institutions similar to the World Court (like the ICJ) make heads and tails of the charges. 

[ilbob]

now let's see them enforce their ruling...


"THE HAGUE (Reuters) - The World Court ordered the United States on Wednesday to do all it could to halt the imminent executions of five Mexicans until the court makes a final judgment in a dispute over suspects' rights.

And the US has complied by doing all it could do to halt the executions. The US was unable to halt them. Thats the end of it.

[Manedwolf]

Last I checked murder is and was illegal in Germany.

The state makes the laws-the Nazis clearly made provisions for their genocide.

Of course outside of extreme circumstances applying the admittedly vague "humanitarian" type laws in international law is totally inappropriate.

But certainly there are cases where you can see that a theory of law provides you with a method for dealing with people like the Nazis, who legalized behavior that is exceeds all bounds of decency and humanity.  You can try them for crimes, and have institutions similar to the World Court (like the ICJ) make heads and tails of the charges. 

THREAD GODWIN'D

[ilbob]

OK. Does anyone here believe that the Nuremburg tribunals had even a remote basis in any law? Bottom line is that the law is whatever those who enforce it want it to be.

[Werewolf]

OK. Does anyone here believe that the Nuremburg tribunals had even a remote basis in any law? Bottom line is that the law is whatever those who enforce it want it to be.

All power emanates from the barrel of a gun...

Or something like that anyway...

[Laurent du Var]

This thread has gone nowhere. I love the male gorilla posters.
We are in America the world court can go to hell ! ugah,ugah,ugah,...

 >>>  Under the Vienna Convention, foreign nationals have a right to talk to consular officers after their arrests.<<<<

Read it and get it.

Have a right to talk to consular officers is all there is to it. 

No we tell you how to  judge criminals who comitted crimes in your country.

At all. Nowhere, ever any interference.

Everybody should be glad to be able to talk to a fellow citizen (member of the embassy) in a foreign country who could maybe help.
 

[doc2rn]

Kill them all, let the big man sort 'em out!

[xavier fremboe]

Laurent,

I won't speak for anyone else, but it's things like this that disturb me the most and make me skeptical of the motives of internationalists.

Writing for the majority in a landmark decision supporting gay civil rights, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that the European Court of Human Rights and other foreign courts have affirmed the "rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct."

Never before had the Supreme Court's majority cited a foreign legal precedent in such a big case. Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence vs. Texas, which was signed by four other justices, has ignited a debate among analysts over whether it was a signal that the justices will adopt foreign courts' views of individual liberties.

In theory, that could mean the conservative court someday might be influenced by other countries' opposition to the death penalty, their emphasis on foreign prisoners' rights and even their acceptance of same-sex marriages. (Last month, a court in Canada lifted a ban on such unions.)

But it is far from clear that the U.S. high court routinely will turn to foreign law, and the practice has its critics  notably Justice Antonin Scalia. When the court interprets the Constitution, he has written, U.S. attitudes about what is decent and right  not foreign ones  are what should matter.

Of course people detained should be allowed to contact their consulate, if for no other reason than their embassy can likely explain the ins and outs of our legal system.  However, it's my view that anything that subordinates the sovereignty of the US to a "higher power" must be very carefully considered, whether it is SCOTUS citing European cases or asking us to voluntarily emasculate our economy via cap and trade schemes. 

[seeker_two]

If I kill someone in France, I expect to be held accountable under French law. Talking to my consulate would be nice, but it doesn't mean that I should expect any special favors.......


.....unless I kill Gérard Depardieu before he makes another film.....I expect to be treated as an international hero, then.....  

[MechAg94]

I don't have any disagreement Laurent.  However, I don't think the fact that didn't happen should nullify the court decision or the punishment for that reason only.

And yes, I think it should go both ways.  I wouldn't expect special treatment in other countries because I am from the US.  Texas maybe, but not the US. 

[RevDisk]

We will, and should, cave.  (Pissing off the world, by executing five people, ain't worth it.)

Let them do their little dance, then we kill them.

No, we should not cave.  Sovereignty is more important than the feelings of other countries. 

On the flip side, it could be used as an excuse to give Americans worse punishments in foreign countries.  Of course, it's known to happen already. 

[De Selby]

OK. Does anyone here believe that the Nuremburg tribunals had even a remote basis in any law? Bottom line is that the law is whatever those who enforce it want it to be.

No, that's clearly not what happened at Nuremburg-they did rely on conventions and customs of European international law that had been built up for a good 500 years before the end of World War II.

International law in modern form was going strong by the 1700's-nothing new there. 

[RevDisk]

Laurent,

I won't speak for anyone else, but it's things like this that disturb me the most and make me skeptical of the motives of internationalists.

Of course people detained should be allowed to contact their consulate, if for no other reason than their embassy can likely explain the ins and outs of our legal system.  However, it's my view that anything that subordinates the sovereignty of the US to a "higher power" must be very carefully considered, whether it is SCOTUS citing European cases or asking us to voluntarily emasculate our economy via cap and trade schemes. 

Then this is going to absolutely horrorify you.  Our legal system is based on English common law.   *GASP*

Legally speaking, nothing in the US supercedes the Constitution.  When covering non-Constitutional law or going for some historical depth, there's nothing wrong with making comparison to foreign laws.  We have four sources of "the Law".  Constitutional law, administrative law, statutory law, and the common law (which includes case law).   Minus some stuff specifically banned, common law is entirely based off the English system.   Of course, you have Justice Scalia arguing that American courts should never look for guidance to post-Revolution cases from legal systems outside of the United States, but even he doesn't deny the origins of our Law.

Using foreign laws as reference material isn't innately a bad thing.   Trying to enforce foreign laws in the US that do not have corresponding US laws, very bad idea.

[De Selby]

Using foreign laws as reference material isn't innately a bad thing.   Trying to enforce foreign laws in the US that do not have corresponding US laws, very bad idea.

For criminal law, for sure. For business relationships, sometimes it's necessary to carry out a contract and to litigate a dispute properly-choice of law rules and all that.

But yep, I think you have the attitude of those jurists who refer to international law pegged-it is good for analogy and example, not because it is the law.

Take a look through early opinions of the Supreme Court-it was very common to see them cite foreign laws and cases.  They were more than happy to look at how other countries had dealt with the same legal issues we had here in America.

[xavier fremboe]

Laurent,

I won't speak for anyone else, but it's things like this that disturb me the most and make me skeptical of the motives of internationalists.

Of course people detained should be allowed to contact their consulate, if for no other reason than their embassy can likely explain the ins and outs of our legal system.  However, it's my view that anything that subordinates the sovereignty of the US to a "higher power" must be very carefully considered, whether it is SCOTUS citing European cases or asking us to voluntarily emasculate our economy via cap and trade schemes. 

Then this is going to absolutely horrorify you.  Our legal system is based on English common law.   *GASP*

Legally speaking, nothing in the US supercedes the Constitution.  When covering non-Constitutional law or going for some historical depth, there's nothing wrong with making comparison to foreign laws.  We have four sources of "the Law".  Constitutional law, administrative law, statutory law, and the common law (which includes case law).   Minus some stuff specifically banned, common law is entirely based off the English system.   Of course, you have Justice Scalia arguing that American courts should never look for guidance to post-Revolution cases from legal systems outside of the United States, but even he doesn't deny the origins of our Law.

Using foreign laws as reference material isn't innately a bad thing.   Trying to enforce foreign laws in the US that do not have corresponding US laws, very bad idea.

I'm well aware of the foundations of the Constitution being English Common Law.  The Framer's had to start with something, and it would be natural to begin with what they already knew.  Likewise, citation of foreign precedent would make sense in early decisions.  Our paths have diverged since that point, however. 

I'm with Justice Scalia on this one.  I don't see any particular reason for us to emulate their legal system.  We have our own.

[RevDisk]

I'm well aware of the foundations of the Constitution being English Common Law.  The Framer's had to start with something, and it would be natural to begin with what they already knew.  Likewise, citation of foreign precedent would make sense in early decisions.  Our paths have diverged since that point, however. 

I'm with Justice Scalia on this one.  I don't see any particular reason for us to emulate their legal system.  We have our own.

Do you think there's any room for reference, or is any citation of foreign laws considered emulation?

[Bigjake]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you, Laurent. 

The point is these internationalist weasels at the "World Court" seem to think they can just rule on something in OUR country and that we should bow to that decision.  That's where the problem lies.

A foreigner commits a crime here and wants to talk to their consulate? Great! let them, I don't see that as anything much different than to talking to your lawyer.  But that damned sure doesn't buy you a get-out-of-jail-free ticket.

We have the finest Justice system on the planet.  We don't need the "World Court"

PS-  Is it just me, or does anyone else automatically sneer at the term "World" used in any context?  It's becoming the same as "UN" to me. 

[De Selby]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you, Laurent. 

The point is these internationalist weasels at the "World Court" seem to think they can just rule on something in OUR country and that we should bow to that decision.  That's where the problem lies.

A foreigner commits a crime here and wants to talk to their consulate? Great! let them, I don't see that as anything much different than to talking to your lawyer.  But that damned sure doesn't buy you a get-out-of-jail-free ticket.

We have the finest Justice system on the planet.  We don't need the "World Court"

PS-  Is it just me, or does anyone else automatically sneer at the term "World" used in any context?  It's becoming the same as "UN" to me. 

I think a lot of the anger stems from a fundamental lack of understanding of how the world court works, or what it rules on.

If you have no problem with what Laurent said, it would be nearly impossible to explain how you could be angry at the world court for its ruling, after having read the ruling.

here's the opinion:  http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/139/14639.pdf?PHPSESSID=9793c362481faa14098922546683cde7

[Bigjake]

No, the point is, is that a non US court took it upon itself to mess with the perfectly legal findings of the US court system. 

Laurent may have a good idea, but it doesn't change the fact that the dirty bastards slated to ride the lightning were found guilty of their crimes in the most perfect justice system on the planet.  No amount of "They didn't get access to their respective consulates!!!!" is going to make them less guilty.  End of story.

The "World Court", once again, can go pound sand.

[De Selby]

No, the point is, is that a non US court took it upon itself to mess with the perfectly legal findings of the US court system. 

Laurent may have a good idea, but it doesn't change the fact that the dirty bastards slated to ride the lightning were found guilty of their crimes in the most perfect justice system on the planet.  No amount of "They didn't get access to their respective consulates!!!!" is going to make them less guilty.  End of story.

The "World Court", once again, can go pound sand.

Uh, yeah, but if one country can deny people access to consular visits, so can other countries-and you therefore have no such rights when you travel abroad.  That's important for those of us who are American and travel abroad-you know, to not be tossed in the can without even being able to let the folks back home know what's happening.

It's also a treaty obligation of the US-which, if you read the opinion, you'll see is its main issue, not a problem with the US courts and their process, which the opinion doesn't consider or review.  It didn't "reach into the US justice system"-what it did do was say that, as part of the US government's obligations under the treaty that it is a party to, the US government is required to make efforts to implement the treaty insofar as it requires that accused foreigners get access to consular services.

The 'world's most perfect justice system' and its operation has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of the dispute here; Only the right which you agreed was sensible-that the accused should have the right to contact the consulate of their home nations. 

[xavier fremboe]

I'm well aware of the foundations of the Constitution being English Common Law.  The Framer's had to start with something, and it would be natural to begin with what they already knew.  Likewise, citation of foreign precedent would make sense in early decisions.  Our paths have diverged since that point, however. 

I'm with Justice Scalia on this one.  I don't see any particular reason for us to emulate their legal system.  We have our own.

Do you think there's any room for reference, or is any citation of foreign laws considered emulation?

Interesting question.  In and of itself, as you have stated in your prior posts, there is nothing wrong with citing foreign law.  In practice though, it seems like the citations always seem to show a reverence for an enlightened European viewpoint, as in the quote I provided.  It always seems to be the four liberal Supremes and Kennedy who cite foreign law.  The conservative Supremes seem to be fine with US precedent. 

I haven't done thorough research in the matter, nor am I an attorney, so I may be dead wrong.

[ilbob]

OK. Does anyone here believe that the Nuremburg tribunals had even a remote basis in any law? Bottom line is that the law is whatever those who enforce it want it to be.

No, that's clearly not what happened at Nuremburg-they did rely on conventions and customs of European international law that had been built up for a good 500 years before the end of World War II.

International law in modern form was going strong by the 1700's-nothing new there. 

And one of those conventions and customs was to hang the losers?

[ilbob]

Uh, yeah, but if one country can deny people access to consular visits, so can other countries-and you therefore have no such rights when you travel abroad.  That's important for those of us who are American and travel abroad-you know, to not be tossed in the can without even being able to let the folks back home know what's happening.

Do you really believe that most countries actually abide by this?