Cartoon Goes South?
Duncan Currie justifies a South Park episode that shows Jesus defecating on the president and the American flag on the grounds that South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker were angry at Comedy Central for not airing a depiction of Muhammad ("The Cartoon Wars Are Over," May 1). Such logic and ethics are revealing.
The editors of the Insurgent, a left-wing newspaper at the University of Oregon, recently employed similar logic. A conservative student newspaper, Commentary, published the Danish cartoons of Muhammad so as to "provoke dialogue," so the Insurgent decided to "provoke dialogue" by printing an entire issue attacking Christianity, especially Catholicism. They even went so far as to put on the cover a cartoon of a naked Jesus on the cross with an erection and another that showed a naked Jesus kissing another naked man, both sporting erections. Although it is entirely legitimate to highlight hypocrisy over the Danish cartoons, attempts to do so by gratuitously trashing Christianity, as Stone, Parker, and the student newspaper editors do, are plainly unjustified.
William A. Donohue
President, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
New York, N.Y.
Judicial Amigos
As one who helped coordinate the amicus filings in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, I disagree with Daveed Gartenstein-Ross's characterization of the amicus brief filed by current and former members of the U.K. and E.U. Parliaments as an attempt by "foreign politicians" to "pressure" the Supreme Court to decide the case on the basis of "international opinion." ("Not So Friendly Amici," April 24.)
In reality, the parliamentarians argue that President Bush, who is prosecuting Hamdan and others held at Guantanamo for alleged violations of international law, should be required to abide by international law in prosecuting them. Anyone wary of international law should be especially wary of military tribunals, which are creatures of international law. The military tribunal cases on which the government relies in Hamdan themselves invoke a wealth of foreign authority to justify particular charges as triable by military tribunal.
The ultimate principle that the parliamentarians champion is not that international law should control U.S. law, but that federal courts should construe U.S. law, insofar as possible, in a manner consistent with the law of nations. Chief Justice John Marshall announced this principle over 200 years ago in the Charming Betsy canon, and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed it as recently as 2004.
Amicus briefs making similar points were filed by eminent professors of international and human rights law at top U.S. law schools, by Madeleine Albright and other former senior U.S. diplomats, and by a distinguished group of retired U.S. generals and admirals (I filed the brief on their behalf). In a case of such far-reaching significance as Hamdan, the Supreme Court depends on amicus briefs to apprise it of every relevant aspect of the case. The parliamentarians' amicus brief performs such a vital role here.
David H. Remes
Washington, D.C.
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross responds: The brief clearly holds that international opinion should factor heavily in the Supreme Court's determination, yet it fails to cite any law that is binding on the United States. Instead, it relies on treaties that the United States didn't ratify, which, under accepted international law principles, makes them inapplicable. While David Remes contends that federal courts should, where possible, interpret U.S. law "in a manner consistent with the law of nations," it has been recognized since the Paquete Habana case (1900) that the "law of nations" has no force in the face of a "controlling Executive . . . decision." The brief is thus part of a broader trend where the High Court is increasingly asked to bend to foreign laws.