« Market Failures Mean The Poor Still Pay More |
| My Colbert Report Appearance »
David Cole explains Why the Court Said No in Hamdan.
Posted by Rebecca Tushnet in Constitutional Law, Current Affairs, Geneva Conventions, International Law | Permalink
“If another nation's leader adopted such positions, the United States would be quick to condemn him or her for violating fundamental tenets of the rule of law, human rights, and the separation of powers.”
I think that would depend on the administration or regime that promulgated such tactics. The Bush administration has been quick to condemn those governments that may be objectively ‘democratic’ (controversial term, in any case) but that he feels don’t support his objectives, etc. (e.g. arguably Venezuela) but much more reluctant to criticize more authoritarian regimes that either strategically or politically bolster the agenda (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, perhaps Russia).
Or maybe I am just too cynical. Either way, an enjoyable article, as most of those of yours I’ve read are!
Do you think Congress will take steps to lessen the impact of the decision- by authorizing the tribunals by statute, for example? I think I read somewhere that something of that nature was already in the works…
"In fact, both the strength and security of the nation in the struggle with terrorists rest on adherence to the rule of law, including international law, because only such adherence provides the legitimacy we need if we are to win back the world's respect. "
Well put. There is only so long that we can ride on the coat-tails of power and former leadership. If determined to take a firm stance on foreign affairs (which is important, but at the same time there is so much going on domestically to fix...) the U.S. should reassert itself as a positive force in the world.. and not just by their own definition. (if that make sense..?)
Ewa Budz |
July 28, 2006 at 11:58 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.