Friday, August 5
there are many other countries who do not like international courts and are happily going down the Zimbabwe route
This article discusses three credible attempts by African governments to restrict the jurisdiction of three similarly situated sub-regional courts in response to politically controversial rulings. In West Africa, when the Court of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) upheld allegations of torture by opposition journalists in Gambia, that country’s political leaders sought to restrict the Court’s power to review human rights complaints. The other member states ultimately defeated Gambia’s proposal. In East Africa, Kenya failed in its efforts to eliminate the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) and to remove some of its judges after a decision challenging an election to a sub-regional legislature. However, the member states agreed to restructure the EACJ in ways that have significantly affected the Court’s subsequent trajectory. In Southern Africa, after the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal ruled in favour of white farmers in disputes over land seizures, Zimbabwe prevailed upon SADC member states to suspend the Tribunal and strip its power to review complaints from private litigants. Variations in the mobilization efforts of community secretariats, civil society groups and sub-regional parliaments explain why efforts to eliminate the three courts or narrow their jurisdiction were defeated in ECOWAS, scaled back in the EACJ and largely succeeded in the SADC.
It is indeed sad that states do not uphold the law, politicians need to be controlled tightly otherwise they will busy go about buggering up countries.
Thursday, August 4
As I've said so many times before, I hate wars. It's the most spectacular waste of energy and lives. And pretty much war mongers are literally bastards who are intellectually dishonest. But they are murderers. We launch wars, get thousands and millions killed and then the people who actually ordered the wars go on to become rich. Look at the prime ministers and presidents.
Surely they should obey laws? Read this article to see why you have to constantly be on the guard against people exceeding their powers including democratic mandates. I asked my member of Parliament what his vote did after the Syrian war and he has no answer. Such are our leaders.
The U.S. President Has a Blank Check for Waging War
Let's face it — in times of war, the Constitution tends to take a beating. With the safety or survival of the nation said to be at risk, the basic law of the land — otherwise considered sacrosanct — becomes nonbinding, subject to being waived at the whim of government authorities who are impatient, scared, panicky or just plain pissed off.
The examples are legion. During the Civil War, Pres. Abraham Lincoln arbitrarily suspended the writ of habeas corpus and ignored court orders that took issue with his authority to do so. After U.S. entry into World War I, the administration of Woodrow Wilson mounted a comprehensive effort to crush dissent, shutting down anti-war publications in complete disregard of the First Amendment.
Amid the hysteria triggered by Pearl Harbor, Pres. Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order consigning to concentration camps more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans, many of them native-born citizens. Asked in 1944 to review this gross violation of due process, the Supreme Court endorsed the government's action by a six-to-three vote.