3 ms·
>The majority opinion basically said it would be too difficult for the U.S. to project its power overseas if it still had to obey its own laws there. I don't fi
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
>The majority opinion basically said it would be too difficult for the U.S. to project its power overseas if it still had to obey its own laws there. I don't find political expedience to be an acceptable argument for voiding anyone's rights.
Are any other nations obligated to follow this principle as well, or just the United States?
>A foreign state need not petition for statehood. It would be sufficient to establish by treaty a court wherein a foreign person may sue a U.S. government and its agents for violations of U.S. law.
Why on Earth would we sign such a treaty?
- logfromblammo 10y agoPhilosophy and politics do not always intersect in convenient places. The only law that all nations must currently obey is "might makes right". In taking the position that the U.S. may break its own laws whenever following them would be too inconvenient, the Supreme Court implicitly says that the rule of law is more of a guideline, really. They apparently have not plumbed the deeper meanings of "wherever you go, there you are". Why, indeed? The foreign state might desire it so that U.S. agents could not act with such impunity against its subjects, but what would be in it for the U.S.? Like any other treaty, that would be a point for negotiation.