Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
You switch from justice to legalism way fast, kemo sabe. They are legal debts that are being cancelled on the basis of the moral-based theory of "odious debt".
|
You should have stuck with justice. I've now spent some time to read the circuit court decision in
Acree, and I'm stumped as to why bilmore could claim some measure of vindication from it. I don't see any inconsistency between with the Slate article. The central point of the Slate article is that the circuit court, in a wartime nod of support to the executive branch, weakened the long-term interests of POWs by weakening the legal remedies for victims of torture. The author doesn't explain exactly what the court did, since he's writing for non-lawyers, but the court's holding is that the plaintiffs had no cause of action against the country of Iraq, as opposed to other named defendants, but -- and this is crucial -- not for any of the policy reasons that bilmore has suggested, but because there simply is, according to the court, no federal law providing for a cause of action against sovereign nations. This is the point of the Slate article -- by so holding, notwithstanding that no one ever raised this argument, the court has weakened the legal prohibitions on torture.
There's a whole separate issue about the court's jurisdiction to consider claims against Iraq, but the plaintiffs win that issue. And the Slate author accuses the government of making additional arguments that the court didn't reach or expressly rely on; as to these, bilmore is confused if he believes that the fact that the court didn't discuss these arguments means that the government didn't make them.
The key to what's wrong with the court's holding is that the same holding would apply to any other country which tortured our prisoners, without regard to all of the facts on which bilmore relies -- i.e., the benefits (or lack thereof) of the torture to Iraqis, the odiousness of the regime, etc.
The Slate author doesn't explain why the court's holding on the cause of action issue is in error, presumably because he's writing for non-lawyers, but the fact that a cert petition is pending would lead you to believe he's got an argument. As a matter of law, maybe he's wrong, of course.
