Supreme Court’s Kidnap Decision
Terry Eastland’s narrow view of the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. vs. Alvarez Machain ignored some very important tenets of international law (“Supreme Court Rightly Passes the Ball,†Column Right, June 18). While the majority view in this case colored the central issue as one of treaty interpretation, leaving the specifics of interpretation to the discretion of the executive branch, the issue at the core of Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissent rightly focused on national sovereignty and the right of another nation not to have its own laws and the rights of its own citizens violated. It is “monstrous†that the court would condone such lawlessness.
Our treaties with other nations establish ample mechanisms to seek justice without resorting to the violation of another country’s sovereignty. When we allow international safeguards to be violated, we diminish our own liberty and we diminish our stature as a leader of nations. It is not enough to assume that a U.S. President will only infrequently resort to kidnaping if we do not also acknowledge another nation’s right to kidnap our own government officials when they conspire to violate another country’s legitimate laws.
ROBERT C. KONOP
Playa del Rey
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
