SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The High Court in London ruled that British arms sales to Saudi Arabia may continue.
The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) had sought an order to block export licences for British-made fighter jets, bombs and other munitions which it said the Saudi-led Arab coalition was using in a campaign against Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen's civil war.
[...] "Saudi Arabia has been, and remains, genuinely committed to compliance with International Humanitarian Law; and there was no 'real risk' that there might be 'serious violations' of International Humanitarian Law (in its various manifestations) such that UK arm sales to Saudi Arabia should be suspended or cancelled," the court said.
[...] CAAT said it would appeal against the decision, and the leader of the opposition Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn, heavily criticised the government for its trade with Saudi Arabia.
"The government continues to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive and brutal regimes, that finances terrorism and is breaching humanitarian law," Corbyn said.
Source: Reuters
(Score: -1, Troll) by jmorris on Friday July 14 2017, @01:49AM (10 children)
Isn't it amazing how everyone seems to accept the broken premise here? That Her Majesty's Government must ask the courts if it has it's permission to implement Foreign Policy. We see the same subservient behavior in all Western countries now, where the Executive (and often even the Legislative) functions are clearly and obviously inferior to the Courts and everyone thinks this is normal and sane. It isn't. The Courts are almost always the branch of government most divorced from the consequences of its policy decisions, most difficult for the People to exercise oversight, etc. Which of of course the exact reason the Progressives love using the Courts to implement policy the other branches would pay too high a price for attempting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @02:00AM (6 children)
So, it's totally not a coincidence then that your ilk are padding the SCOTUS with right-wing nutters? Clearly that's just because "the other guy is doing it as well so we must retaliate", no? I mean, it's not like they're trying to implement some sort of policy over there, is it?
You need to lay of whatever you are smoking, man...
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday July 14 2017, @02:26AM (5 children)
I know the concept will go "whoosh!" right over yer head but there is an important difference. We seek to STOP the courts from making law, to roll back past abuses. Mind pointing to an example where the Right even WANTS the courts to invent a brand new law or "right"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @03:13AM (2 children)
I would try, but I have no firm idea what "The Right" is to you. My best guess would be something that would otherwise be a crazy stereotype.
Here's a recently "invented" right: the right to record police officers in public performing their duty. I know what the warped stereotype I have in mind would say to that, and it's likely not far off the mark.
Do you see where I put the scare quotes in "invented" right? Can anybody tell me what the salient difference is between my choice and jmorris' choice? That's what's wrong with "The Right" these days, and that's why I can no longer see myself as a conservative.
It's ceased being right in a small letter sense.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday July 14 2017, @03:30AM (1 child)
The Rule of Law position on that would be that if recording is generally permitted at a particular place and time then the presence of an LEO wouldn't change that, barring a properly enacted law specifying otherwise. What other position is even possible if we envision courts as limited to applying already existing laws? And by the same process we must conclude that if the lawful legislative authority DID enact such a law, either blanket banning filming law enforcement activity or creating some executive process to restrict recordings, that policy decision would be beyond the power of a court to challenge; the court could only rule whether you had violated it or not. Whether the law is wise is not within the scope of a court to determine. Jury Nullification is of course an entirely different thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @08:15AM
This has to be the most sustained argument ever put forth by the jmorris! So sad it is of the same quality of his isomorphic idiosyncratic assertions!
But in short, this reflects the stupidity of the Right, they think that right is what declared by courts, instead of the truth that courts declare what is truth, based on argument, precendent, and something that jmorris will never understand, reason. Law is ethics with rational establishment, dudes! jmorris is on the losing side of history, logic, reality, reason, and the chocolate/vanilla divide. I'll just leave that here.
Look, justice and truth are not the outcome of a fight, just because you win a culture war does not mean your are right! I mean, just look at Pat Buchanan and Newtered Gringrich! Losers! Cuckholder Conservatives who are relativists when it comes to morals! And some of them (all?) are Catholics? The Pope should be ashamed, or get busy with the old excommunication stick!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @08:46AM (1 child)
The right not to have scary trans people in their public toilets?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @09:45AM
Different queens. Only the Northern Jurisdiction. Keep calm, and do not look to the right, or left.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday July 14 2017, @02:00AM
Ah, sure. The govt is more controllable by the citizens than the principles and laws.
"Don't trust the justice system, trust the govt!" argument.
'Cause it will be the govt to protect you when the govt will penetrate your ass!
Must be a weird place the planet you a living on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by tfried on Friday July 14 2017, @07:55AM
Well, in the present case, the court ruled that the government has the right do this. But even if it had not, the solution is remarkably simple: Repeal the export laws to make clear that you totally do not mind who buys your arms, or what they are going to do with them.
Now, such a level of honesty might not be too popular, with The West(TM) still trying to pose as morally superior, and all. But possible? Absolutely.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TheRaven on Friday July 14 2017, @08:15AM
sudo mod me up