Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Has the USA ever allowed its Courts to be over-ruled by an international Court enforcing international Law?  Empires don't do this, and a President who allowed an International Court to over-rule SCOTUS would be branded a traitor, probably impeached, and certainly hounded out of office.  The US does not defer to dem yurpians....

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu May 7th, 2009 at 05:09:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What I mean is that the legislative/administrative/executive actions making torture lawful in the sense of making a CIA operative refusing to carry it out liable for insubordination would have to be deemed unconstitutional but only the SCOTUS can do that, and you can only get to the SCOTUS after exhausting all the ladder of appeals (unlike in Spain where an unconstitutionality complaint can be lodged as soon as the law is published in the official journal).

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 7th, 2009 at 06:09:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yea but in other countries, even Supreme Court judgements can be appealed to an International Court - and have been many times.  I am not aware of SCOTUS ever having been over-ruled by an international court.  I am not even aware if it such an appeal has ever been allowed to proceed.  Effectively the USA is above international law even where (as in the Geneva Conventions) it has signed up to the International Law in question.

The question of whether waterboarding is torture, and whether those who justified and practised it are guilty of a war crime is ultimately for an International Court to decide - not SCOTUS or US radio talk show hosts.  

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu May 7th, 2009 at 06:25:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But I wasn't going that far - I was only going up to the point where the SCOTUS has to rule on whether the US Preznit has the constitutional authority to overrule the Geneva Conventions.

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 8th, 2009 at 04:30:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When a Sovereign State signs an international Treaty, it agrees to be bound by it and by the judicial processes provided for in that Treaty.  Thus it is not for SCOTUS to be the final arbiter on whether the USA or its servants commited torture.

The immediate problem  may be in finding a victim and a prosecutor in a position to take such a case in the first place.

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri May 8th, 2009 at 08:11:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series