The United States Interaction with the International Court of Justice Over Consular Rights: How Our Refusal to Obey Is Impacting Foreign Nationals an

The Third Geneva Convention is probably the most recognized and important treaty concerning prisoners of war to ever be put down on paper that is recognized by the world over. Though this treaty is very thorough and complete in its wording regarding those that are affected and bound by its wording, there still is one major defect in the treaty that needs to be rectified and dealt with. This flaw is that there is no independent court body or commission that oversees abuses by parties against others in regards to their mistreatment or torture. Persons who find themselves at the hands of captors only have international courts or commissions as well as domestic courts to hear their cases. This can cause an untimely delay in hearing these cases,

Raat, W. Dirk, and Michael M. Brescia. Mexico and the United States : Ambivalent Vistas (4th Edition). Athens, GA, USA: University of Georgia Press, 2010.

Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al. could prove the undoing of the Bush administration’s legal defense of the abuses at Guantanamo Bay. In this case, four British citizens are suing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as well as a host of Army and Air Force Generals and policy apparatchiks for allegedly authorizing the use of torture in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. The four were captured in Afghanistan, either by Americans or America’s ally, the Northern Alliance, and transported to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba where they were held for over two years. Their status there was not as enemy combatant, which guaranteed them certain protections under the Geneva Convention, but rather as

On U.S. territory and the government argues that they therefore have neither constitutional rights nor the rights guaranteed under the Geneva Convention, the international treaty governing detention during wartime. Basic principles like due process,

The case is about detention of a citizen from the United States of America unlawfully without being charged or tried. The issue in the case is whether the military officials violate the law through such conducting such a detention unless the Congress authorizes them to do so. Jose Padilla, an American, returned from Pakistan in 2002 when he was later arrested in O’Hare International Airport in Chicago (Ann, 2004). At first, he was detained as a witness during the investigation that the government conducted in the al Qaeda network. However, his detention was followed by a declaration that he was an ‘enemy combatant.’ The Defense Department of Chicago, by declaring him so implied that he could now be taken to prison without accessing an attorney or even the courts. The main reason why he was arrested was that the FBI suspected that his return to the United States of America was to continue carrying out criminal acts in the country.

To begin with, since John has no legal status in America, could they just have sent him back to his home country right? Nonetheless, the police officer should have stopped him when he realized that John was incriminating himself and read him the Miranda Rights (Fifth Amendment). For this reason, I believe that the Miranda Rights should be read when the arrest happens. That was the officer’s first mistake. Not reading him his rights could get the whole case thrown out or anything said before his rights was read to him will be inadmissible in court. After taking John to the station and begin questioning him, this is when he has the right to counsel (Sixth Amendment). The Miranda Rights states that if you can’t afford counsel then one would be appointed to you. John Doe indeed had the right to speak to someone before the investigators began interrogating him. Regardless of the fact the John is an immigrant, he’s now in the U.S and deserves

The Supreme Court speaks not only through its rulings in cases argued before it, but also through its choice not to hear certain cases -- the ones denied certiorari, in legal lingo. By refusing to hear claims brought by victims of Bush-era torture and detention practices, and failing to decisively reject the government's array of bad excuses for denying them a modicum of justice, the Court in recent years has sent an appalling message of indifference and impunity. These missing cases constitute a profound stain on the court's record, and they are worth recalling on this week's tenth anniversary of John Roberts's swearing-in as Chief

If Central American refugees ' rights to political asylum are decisively rejected by the U.S. government or if the U.S. legal system insists on ransom that exceeds our ability to pay, active resistance will be the only alternative to abandoning the refugees to their fate. The creation of a network of actively concerned, mutually supportive people in the U.S. and Mexico may be the best preparation for an adequate response (Corbett 1988).

It is increasing because the supreme court has the ability to contemplate and decide which constitutional rights are undoubtedly necessary to be given to those who are outside of the U.S. In other words, the Supreme Court held the power to decide which constitutional rights have to be given under the constitution to those beyond the U.S borders. The author also discusses a different approach, Mutuality of Obligation. The author describes this approach by saying that those who are inside of the United States illegally, but have obeyed the laws in the country, can have the privilege to enjoy a complete protection under the

This paper will explore three separate cases, providing facts about the apprehension and detention of enemy combatants, assessing the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and will explain whether any rights were denied or granted in contrast with each other. Anyone engaging in aggressive or hostile behavior towards a country is held to several political and constitutional legalities as explored in the three following cases.

When comparing apples to pears, one is not making a fair comparison, but a disproportionate comparison. Often times when international law is discussed or attempts are made to understand international law; many often attempt to compare international law with existing laws such as national law or domestic law. Making such disproportionate comparisons leads to many misconceived notions and attitudes toward international law. For an adequate comparison of international law to other laws, one should look closely at the available facts. This essay will demonstrate the vitality of international law, in a world of nations which continue to increase in interdependence.

Once at the police station, detectives will conduct an interview with John asking him about the crime. Because of the Fifth Amendment the officers are required to read John his Miranda rights. The Miranda rights is used to explain that anything he says to the officers in the interviwe can be used against him in the court of law and how he has a right to obtain counsel before he answers any questions. Even though John is an illegal immigrant he is still privileged to have the right to due process and equal protection clause. The clause also allows him to receive help from a translator if he is unable to speak English. If law the enforcement officers fail to advise the person that is arrested of rights any unwarned statements made by the arrested person cannot be used against the arrested person at his/her trial.

In the United States, one of the major methods in obtaining crucial information has been through the use of Guantanamo Bay. While many have condemned of the torture that is believed to occur there, not only does Guantanamo Bay comply with national and international standards, but it also complies with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (Meese 1) which states

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is originally a naval base that was once used to house detention facilities for Haitian and Cuban refugees fleeing to the United States. It was also used as a refueling station for Navy ships. It was then converted into a high level detention facility to house enemy troops captured in the War on Terror campaign by Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfield. It has three main camps that house the prisoners. These prisoners of war were later referred to as enemy combatants. They were excluded from the prisoner of war statutes of the Geneva Convention because of their involvement in a foreign terrorist organization and therefore earning themselves the title of terrorists. The Guantanamo Bay Detention Center served as the perfect location to send these terrorists. It allowed the United States to strip them of any due process or protection that is provided by US law. Due to its location, being in foreign territory they are only subjected to military law. They are close enough for them to be monitored without interference of intentional agencies or international oversight. Furthermore, the US Government is holding these men without due process because they are deemed too dangerous to be released into the public because of their associations with terrorist organizations and possession of valuable information relating to National Security such as location of key members of a terrorist groups, whereabouts. However, the United States cannot release those

     Besides posing a threat to America’s sovereignty, some aspects of the ICC pose a threat to the rights of American citizens. Many legal protections that Americans are entitled to under our constitution have no place so far in the ICC’s treaty. Dempsey points out that “the prohibition against double jeopardy, the right to trial by an impartial jury, and the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him” are American legalities not present in the ICC, and by agreeing to hand over our nationals for trial in an internationally-regulated courtroom we are denying them these constitutional rights and participating in an unconstitutional act.