A new judicial absurdity
Under this ruling, most of the Nazis tried for crimes against humanity at Nuremberg might have been exonerated. How do you determine a person’s motivation for being a thug? All of the Nazi officers said they acted as they did because “Befehl ist Befehl” (Orders are orders) and they certainly would have been killed if they had disobeyed. That defence was unsuccessful at Nuremberg but has in effect just been allowed by SCOTUS — creating new law in the process
If an asylum-seeking refugee persecuted someone overseas, U.S. government officials deciding their fate can consider whether the refugee was coerced to participate, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday. The justices overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that the issues of coercion, motivation and intent were irrelevant in considering an asylum request.
The high court’s decision was a victory for Daniel Negusie, who had been denied asylum in the United States because he had served as a guard in an Eritrean military prison where inmates were tortured and killed. Negusie argued that he had been forced under threat of death to act as a prison guard and that he never personally beat or killed anyone, although he did witness torture and had been ordered to mistreat prisoners. Negusie eventually escaped from the prison and came to the United States, where he sought asylum.
Under U.S. law, asylum must be denied for anyone who participated or assisted in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, ethnicity or political opinion. Supported by human rights groups, Negusie’s attorneys argued that the law should apply to only those who voluntarily participate in persecution.
The Supreme Court ordered the federal government’s Board of Immigration Appeals to consider a new standard that takes into account whether the participation in the persecution was voluntary. Previously, a refugee’s motivation or intent were deemed irrelevant factors.
The court’s majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined in whole or in part by seven other justices. Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. He said the law applied whether or not the participation in the persecution was voluntary.
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, DISSECTING LEFTISM, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . List of backup or “mirror” sites here or here — for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is “down” or failing to update. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
Email This
Posted by JonJayRay on March 3, 2009 6:49 pm
» Filed Under Activist Judges, Constitution, Judicial Tyranny, News, Revisionism, Separation of Powers, U.S. Constitution
Trackback URL:
- Watcher of Weasels » I Wonder If the Media Sees Themselves in the Mirror? pinged this post.
- Cheat Seeking Missiles » Cafferty And Other Weasels pinged this post.
- Bookworm Room » What I’m reading today pinged this post.
- Watcher of Weasels » Entitlement and Mob Rule pinged this post.
- Bookworm Room » Watcher’s results — better late than never pinged this post.
Comments
3 Responses to “A new judicial absurdity”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Too bad for all those German citizens who did their duty, followed the orders of their leaders and still were sent to the gallows. I have a feeling skin color once again has mitigated the actions of the current crop of “asylum seekers”. If they were White, they could probably go hang.
Grim observation vis a vis the above news:
Hitler’s biggest personal mistake was not starting World War II. Nope, his biggest mistake was starting it 70 years too soon.
This is a foolish misreading of the Negussie case. I would advise you take a second reading. In fact, the court refused to make any ruling as to whether Negussie was eligible for asylum. Instead, they insisted that the Board of Immigration Appeals decide the matter for themselves and several judges suggested they would be inclined to support whatever ruling the BIA made.