justice must really be blind
And people wonder why the Western gooberments did nothing when Germany, yes Germany, none of this political bs where many now like to say âthe Naziâsâ sent millions to the ovens.
Iâll bet Belhaj was horrified too. But a different kind of horrified.
Every one of these acts is a win for the terrorists. I donât mean dissidents in far off countries. I mean the people trying to keep the general populace of every developed country terrified.
Except that isnât why. That is not a legal reason to dismiss a case but may be a pertinent factor. The case was dismissed because it involved Officials under the jurisdiction of the ISC. The court challenged this jurisdiction but had no further authority, so they did exactly what they should do. They also rightly pointed out that perusing it further may damage Britainâs national relations, which it would and would matter as to whether the court should run a case outside of its jurisdiction.
Whether this should be reviewed by the ISC or not is a totally different question but making up stories and twisting evidence because you donât like the policies makes you no better than the government committees you condemn.
Justice is blind mean
s that it sees the plaintive no differently than the government and would not dismiss a case to save face for a body it is supposedly independent of. If the case were as presented then it would be a clear demonstration of justice not being blind.
Indeed, the system is broken, and itâs unfair to expect the system to fix itself while playing by its own rules. Itâs an abdication of the responsibility of the electorate in a democratic system. The judge had no power to do anything, from the Guardian article
He said the potential effect of the principle of âstate doctrineâ, which bound him in this case, was âto preclude the right to a remedy against the potential misuse of executive power and in respect of breaches of fundamental rightsâ. [Emphasis added]
The judge wasnât happy about it, but itâs beyond him. Judges canât be activist in their rulings, it jeopardizes the principle of representative democracy, and consistency of law.
Did I say âjustice is blindâ? No. I said âjustice must really be blindâ.
Perhaps I was improperly using a common saying to give an outrageous piece of news an ironic twist?
I was definitely not seeking a lesson on proper usage of colloquial speech, and I would like to direct you to Muphryâs law.
I find it helpful to ask what someone means when I am not 100% sure that theyâre âdoing it wrongâ. In my experience, most miscommunication is a shared responsibility.
I donât even understand the motivation for doing such a thing. Was this part of the deal for normalizing relations with Libya back in 2004?
ah christmas in england, itâs the home of the c of e isnât it? lovely weather iâd bet.
not negotiating but trading with terrorists for their own interests.
(Disclaimer: IA really NAL)
The judge wasnât happy about it, but itâs beyond him. Judges canât be activist in their rulings, it jeopardizes the principle of representative democracy, and consistency of law.
Since the principles of representative democracy and consistency of law have already been thoroughly trashed, thatâs not as good a reason as it should be.
Judges are also bound, in principle, by international human rights (as incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act), but sadly this is pretty rarely cited, even in cases like this.
Thatâs what Iâm still unclear onâwhat did the U.S. and U.K. get out of the deal? Did Gaddafiâs government hand somebody over to our guys in exchange?
I love law as a field. I would like to practice law in the future. If you think that keeps me from being skeptical of its value to society, I was briefly inspired by Ambrose Bierce to start on my own Devilâs Dictionary. My first entry?
Law (n): The formal system by which might makes right. See also: International Law
âŚ
International Law: The body which governs the final disposition of rubble.
Iâve quoted it a bit backward to make a little more sense. I donât think itâs particularly clever, which is why it lays unfinished. Bierce was better,
LAW, n.
Once Law was sitting on the bench,
And Mercy knelt a-weeping.
âClear out!â he cried, âdisordered wench!
Nor come before me creeping.
Upon your knees if you appear,
'Tis plain your have no standing here.â
Then Justice came. His Honor cried:
âYour status?âdevil seize you!â
âAmica curiae,â she repliedâ
âFriend of the court, so please you.â
âBegone!â he shoutedââthereâs the doorâ
I never saw your face before!â
All of this is to say the judicial system isnât the place to expect reform and change, thatâs not the role it serves. Thereâs a host of reasons vague declarations about obligations to human rights donât trump everything else, but the primary one is you. Maybe not you personally, but the collective âyou.â âYouâ wanted your legislators to have the power to make laws independent of international control and convenience. âYouâ didnât think it was worth putting more protections under the law. âYouâ valued state power over the rights of the individual. The law is merely serving its master.
maybe. speculation from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14786924 was "I think the reason that they would give for dealing with Gaddafiâs regime - and this is certainly not going to satisfy a lot of people - is that they needed to dismantle their active WMD programme. "
amounts to a âbloodlessâ win in that instance (for the type of people that apparently worked in intelligence management early this millennium). they get to justify their jobs and not really have to deal with any problems. or maybe they used him as a bargaining chip without specification. could all be nonsense, designed to promote this man as a legitimate, pro-lybian personna.
wiki was pretty helpful but also vague and contradictory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Islamic_Fighting_Group#Libyan_civil_war
I have never seen anyone so ashamed to admit they made a mistake in an off the cuff attempt at humour.
It might embarrass America but it sure as hell embarrasses the UK. Do the people who were rendered have a right of appeal?
Donât you wish that when you screw up you could just push a button and tax payers money would make your problem go away?
