I seem to like to discuss unrelated things in pairs...
VIOXX
Well as many of you know, my former law firm is not only the place of social magic where I met Juicy MD and my Pookie Pod, but is also the (one of the-) current defender of Merck in the VIOXX litigation. The verdict in the first case to come to trial (of many, MANY more to come) has been handed-down, and, since it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the substance of the case or give my opinion on it, I'll just say that even though I don't work for the firm anymore, and did not even work on the VIOXX case my entire time, there, this still feels like "we" lost. I know from first-hand experience that the people working on Merck's legal defense are extremely competent and extremely hard-working, and I guess it's unfortunate that "effort" is not what courts use to analyze the merits of a case. Lanier's baptist preacher qualities seem to have really won-over the jury, who awarded punitive damages SIX TIMES in excess of what the family asked for (since the jury is of course more competent to asses damages than the litigants claiming damage), and, more importantly, more than TWENTY THOUSAND TIMES what families in Iraq (and Afghanistan) are paid for each innocent family member killed by US forces. I made this argument to Land Plot in response to the compensation that was handed-out to families of victims of the 9/11 attacks in NYC, and I will make it again: it is impossible to place a dollar value on a life, granted, but do we REALLY believe that Ernst's death is "worth" (in dollars) more than 20,000 Iraqi corpses? Ridiculous.
International Criminal Court
Thanks to Madame Wong for pointing out to me this NYTimes article on the ICC and US policy of punishing countries that refuse to make bilateral agreements with the US to except US soldiers from prosecution under the international court (I won't make any NYTimes conspiracy theory statements about how this article was not on the main page for more than a few hours when some articles remain up for days...). I don't feel up to blogging about it now, but I think most US claims about PROTECTING US soldiers from wrongful prosecution in sensitive situations are total bunk, and anyone familiar with the motivations behind the drafting of the Rome Statute and the formation of the ICC should clearly see the intent and scope of the Court -- which is not to politically target US troops (God that claim is so ridiculous that I have almost nothing to say about it). I would also discourage people from being convinced by this image of the court as an opaque, foreign court looking to challenge the sovereignty of US courts; not only is the ICC explicitly intended to fill gaps in national justice systems with respect to prosecution of war crimes (and the US justice system is, of course, one of the most developed in the world), but one should be skeptical of language that attempts to equate prosecution at the ICC with the kinds of drug trials and other foreign prosecutions we see in Southeast Asia and Latin America. I am horrified by the thought of US citizens (or even Indonesia's own citizens) being subject to the version of "due process" to which Schapelle Corby has found herself recently subjected. That said, an international court, accountable to the UN and founded with the support of more than 100 nations (including many of the US's Security Council permanent partners) that operates using some of the best legal minds found on the globe, is HARDLY comparable to the scary "foreign prosecutions" the US government would have you mentally equate it to.
Incidentally, check out the (clearly out of context) quote in the article from my former professor, Bruce Broomhall -- he was my first professor of International Human Rights Law and is a really intelligent, understated legal scholar and advocate.
VC