Suchergebnisse

Sanford Levinson explores the controversy in the US following the terrorist attacks of September 11 (2001) & the resulting war on terrorism -- whether it is legitimate to torture suspected terrorists in order to gain information that would help prevent future terrorist actions. The debate includes the appropriateness of "rendering" uncooperative suspects to less fastidious allies, where torture may be practiced, & the use of measures just short of torture to get information from hardened al Qaeda operatives. Possible responses to the obvious fact that torture & other degrading acts are happening could be any of the following: (1) denial of the efficacy of torture &, therefore, prohibition of it; (2) acceptance of torture as necessary; (3) acceptance of torture as a behavior that is only occasionally justified; or (4) denial that torture is happening. Alan Dershowitz's suggestion for requiring the state to obtain a "torture warrant" is explored. Arguments are made that the US cannot afford to adopt the tactics of its enemy, & its position of world leadership even more emphatically requires the rejection of torture in any circumstances. Henry Shue responds that if the world's lone superpower, with its high technology weapons, cannot avoid torture, then other countries are even more justified in resuming that practice. Even the prevention of another loss like that of the World Trade Center & thousands of lives, could not justify the degraded moral world that the people who were saved would inherit. Richard H. Weisberg condemns the argument concerning torture, asserting that the practice is wrong under any circumstances, & the mere discussion of it is a potential road map for the unacceptable. Levinson replies that it is better to have the argument over torture in public, rather than to ignore the fact that torture is happening. L. A. Hoffman

Explores the need for Senate oversight of presidential judicial nominations in terms of checking presidential attempts to shape constitutional interpretation, making use of historical examples. The large role that courts now play in political life, ie, in contouring constitutional meaning, was not foreseen by the Founders, nor was the president's practice of partisan nominations to press his party's ideological agenda. The contempt for other branches of government shown by the current Supreme Court is noted, along with the extraordinary manner in which George W. Bush secured his office. In this light, problems with Bush v. Gore are addressed, then briefly considered in light of the events of September 11 (2001). The issue of balancing the court is examined, stressing the presidential authority required to load the bench. Bush is seen to lack this authority, & the question arises regarding whether the Senate should allow the current constitutional revolution to continue. Balance can be achieved via (1) the ordinary political process of power shifts in political parties & (2) Senatorial attention to the life experience of nominations as well as ideology; a need for political experience on the bench is advocated. The relevance of circuit judges to the constitutional revolution is noted. J. Zendejas

The general topic of this symposium—the interplay between public careers and private lives in the selection of presidential candidates—is important. Many debates around dinner tables undoubtedly followed the disclosure by the Miami Herald of Gary Hart's time spent with Donna Rice. In the United States especially, as Tocqueville pointed out 150 years ago, we tend to believe that the law speaks with insight, even if not necessarily with finality, on issues of public importance. This explains, I suspect, my presence in this forum. The embarrassing reality, though, is that the law of privacy is at best tangential to the concerns behind the symposium.I might best fulfill my task—to comment on the legal regulation of disclosures of private facts regarding public figures—in a sentence: The very fact that public figures are by definition "newsworthy" means that in fact they forego any legal protection against the publication of true facts about them, however embarrassing or offensive such publication might be. There is simply no case law supporting the claim of a public figure seeking political office to enjoy a "right of privacy." The courts rightly have held that the recognition of any such right would disserve the democratic process itself, for it would inevitably deprive the public of truthful information relevant to deciding who should exercise public responsibilities.

Questions of individual responsibility & collective guilt for war crimes are discussed. There is a dilemma: to adopt collective responsibility is either to commit an injustice or to undermine the community condemnation on which the criminal law rests & which esp should be the basis for the punishment of war crimes. If one wants to preserve the force of the notion of war criminality, he must find discrete criminals or else argue that in fact everyone is guilty & deserving of punishment. The trials of German war criminals before the Internat'l Military Tribunal at Nuernberg are examined in this context. The problem of allocating responsibility becomes even more complex when the distinction between line & staff officials is considered, whether in a civilian or military context. The case of Ernst von Weizsaecker, State Secretary of the German Foreign Ministry from Apr, 1938, through Spr 1943, is referred to extensively. Defining acquiescence for civilians in criminal activity is an even more complex issue. On the basis of the Nuernberg principles high officials are responsible if crimes are committed by a gov. But there has been a reluctance to apply these principles to the slaughter caused by the US in the War in Vietnam. The decision-makers in this case are members of the dominant soc & pol'al elite of the US & are in a previleged position re the ordinary citizen to reject charges of being war criminals. M. Maxfield.