It would be one thing if the Supremes merely said the law does not specifically exclude foreign courts. But the NY Times report on the Small case gets more interesting:
“And it is eminently practical to put foreign convictions to the same use as domestic ones,” the dissenters [Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy] said. “Foreign convictions indicate dangerousness just as reliably as domestic convictions.”
So, if one is accused and convicted of, say, speaking out against the government where that isn’t allowed, or of practicing a religion that is not allowed by law, that is enough to count as dangerous in the United States? Don’t get caught talking trash about the Chinese Communist Party, or celebrating communion in Saudi Arabia, or you might lose your rights in America too.
And “conservatives” still get bent out of shape at the mere mention of “international law?”
6:28 am on April 28, 2005
