Texas gives finger to World Court

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**grizgrin**

Gangsta Tau: Because you earned it. Evidently you have forgotten where you "are".

Only 6 more days from my current time zone. I must confess, the backlash from The Hague is going to be interesting.

**Orlanth**

Ahtman wrote:Every state, and country, has violated some prisoners rights at some point in time so it doesn't really work that well as an argument. You might as well say you can't be tried under any court system because they may violate your rights. How many judges will accept that argument?

Spoiler:

None. It's been tried before

1. The IRA hired lawyers who used US law on just this point to prevent extradition to the UK for some terrorists hiding in the US.

2. Sweden has a policy of never allowing extradition to any country where the person could get the death penalty for the crimes they are charged with.

**Orlanth**

jfrazell wrote:Exactly (and if Ahtman and I agree then look out). To Orlanth, those arguments were tried, and found by SCOTUS to not be persuasive. This is not a theoretical argument, but already tested.

Orlanth your treaty summary is not correct. The US cannot create jurisdictional rights via treaty, when the federal government did not have those rights in the first place.

For example. The federal governement can sign (and Senate ratify) a treaty that says the 1st Amendment is null and void. Its irrelevant though, and will be struck down as contravening the US Constitution.

The trouble here is that if natioanal governments consider legal treaties with the US government to have no standing with individual states then the treaties themselves will be in jeapordy as they would clearly be one sided. There is evidence to suggest this problem already occurs.

**Ahtman**

It's not all treaties, but ones that overstep the Federal governments power. You know they don't have unlimited power right? This isn't that black and white though. This wasn't a unanimous decision and could be revisited at some time. This also didn't happen overnight, but gone through the legal process for 15 years. It may be upsetting to know, but in trials and elections, the side you want to win may not and there is nothing corrupt or illegal about it.

**Frazzled**

True that Ahtman. True that.

**Ahtman**

I wonder how much of the decision came down to the fact that it would have made no difference in the case at all; if it had been less of an obvious conviction, consular meeting or not, if there might have been a different verdict. Hmmm.

**Frazzled**

At what level are you referring to - SCOTUS? I think the causality is the same but bad cases make bad law so who knows.