US refuses arrest blunder damages

[soddim]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/bristol/4518411.stm

Uncle Sam, you've become a turkey!

[SaturnV]

Without getting into whether the United States ought to pay damages to a person wrongfully detained in South Africa for several weeks at the request of the United States, the Supreme Court decision that is cited by Mr. Bond's solicitor appears to be a June 2004 decision, SOSA V. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN.

Alvarez's claim for damages was based on the United States (agents of the the Drug Enforcement Agency) having conspired with a group of Mexicans to unlawfully seize him and bring him into U.S. jurisdiction. The Mexicans abducted Alvarez in Mexico, then flew him on a small plane into the United States, where he was promptly arrested. At a subsequent trial, Alvarez was acquited, and returned to Mexico.

The Supreme Court wrestled a bit with Alvarez's claim for damages, because the claim was based on a law enacted by the first Congress in 1789, and no claims had been raised under that law for the first 170 years thereafter. So nobody had a good sense of what Congress really intended 220 or so years ago in giving non-US citizens a right to sue the United States in Federal court for certain actions committed in a foreign country. Historically, the certain actions seem to have been those defined by Lord Blackstone as offenses against the law of nations at the time: piracy, violation of safe conducts, and crimes against ambassadors.

The Supreme Court ruled against Alvarez's claim for damages for his illegal abduction. The Court was reluctant to expand judicially the type of offenses for which a claim might be brought in the absence of more specific
and recent Congressional action broadening the range of offenses for which a claim might be pursued in Federal court.

[sammypilot]

All litigation tends to start with a total denial of responsibility so I don't think anybody should be surprised by this opening stance. However I am sure Mr. Bond's solicitors are on the ball and will start by suing the persons making the arrest and detention, i.e. the South African authorities. It will then be up to those authorities as to whether they join those fighters for freedom, the F.B.I., into the action.

[Globaliser]

One of the big legal problems with a legal claim for compensation is that in many legal systems, being arrested on the basis of an honest but reasonable mistake about who you are does not give you a legal entitlement to compensation.

And one of the marks of good government is to recognise wrongs when they have been committed and to pay appropriate compensation when it is truly called for by the facts, even when there is strictly speaking no legal entitlement to that compensation.

[Queenslander]

This is concerning in many ways, you have the Americans turning away aircraft that are in mid Atlantic because they are not happy with a passenger, who knows what this person has done. They are turning aircraft away that are not going anywhere near the main land but are flying NEAR the coastline.

The airlines have no way of claiming compensation from the US government when they refuse the aircraft access to US airspace. It now seems that the FBI/CIA can $crew up, admit they where wrong, and that’s it, nothing is done, that Ladies and Gentlemen is wrong, international law must be able to do something?

What would happen if the UK refused access to UK airspace of American Airlines flight mid atlantic?
:E

[Out Of Trim]

What would happen if the UK refused access to UK airspace of American Airlines flight mid atlantic?

Err, they'd either have to Turn back, Divert, Ditch or Be Shot Down.. It works both ways! :ooh:

Harsh but fair!

[ShotOne]

...except as you well know, out of trim, it's neither harsh nor fair since it would NEVER happen -as Blair is a fawning lapdog who would not dare do anything that might upset the Bush administration

[Queenslander]

Err, they'd either have to Turn back, Divert, Ditch or Be Shot Down.. It works both ways!

Out Of Trim what the hell are you talking about.........you that stupid, you must be..............when have the UK turned back American aircraft, as you say "Harsh but fair" for who at the moment it's all one way.......would they turn back.........NO, the RAF as I remember, as an x-member, would never do that, as the Pomms are that weak they would never do that.

So if they did, what would the Americans do, cry to............you tell us, Out Of Trim, as the European airlines can't...........but one thing is for sure, the EU is a little bit more powerful, then the US.......Boeing or Airbus...................who are the Americans crying to about this, the US Government, why, are the EU getting more support………