|
torture (mainly because of the length)
Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Yes. The main issue was, is there a cause of action against a "state". The answer was, no. But, to get there, the US had to have permission to bring the motion - they got booted in lower court for moving to intervene too late. It's all tied together, and you need to read the whole thing. As to the "well, they don't say "odious debt, do they?" thingie, no. They talk about how Saddam was the correct target, and not the "state", or the people remaining there. You know - like my last four posts on the topic.
|
Having accused me of blindly relying on the statements made by the author of that piece -- who, incidentally, is a professor of law at Virginia, has been appointed to several positions by Republican presidents, and was the legal advisor to Kuwait's Ambassador to the United States from 1991 -- there is some irony involved in having you explain to me that he's wrong by quoting selectively from the opinion he was criticizing. That said, I'll read the decision.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
