Yep Slap Bang in the Middle.

I arrived back from the supermarket exactly in the middle of US President Obama's speech to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). As a result I've not yet seen the speech but I'll try and make the time to watch it and other UNGA speeches on the Internet. In the meantime I have to say that I'm very impressed with the US' contribution to the main business of the UNGA - the rule of law at national and international levels.

Back in 2009 a US Federal Court ruled that the US Army Corp of Engineers were liable for the flooding of New Orleans in the wake of hurricane Katrina, awarded five families hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation and opened the door for pretty much anyone living in New Orleans at the time to sue for damages. On Monday (24/9/12) an appeals overturned that decision citing something known as the Discretionary Function Exemption (DFE) which basically means that the US Federal Government cannot be held liable for damages caused by it taking or not taking an action which it is not obligated to by law, regulation or policy. It even goes further to prevent the federal government being sued over actions that it is obligated by law, regulation or policy (such as abortion provision) if the legal action is being mounted on grounds of social, economic or political policy.

This raises massive questions about the relationship between the state/government and the individual with the DFE giving the state/government a lot of scope to behave as badly as it likes towards the individual. This is particularly relevant to a host of international issues such as the Thalidomide case that came up during the para-Olympics and the long running case of ex-British military personnel who have been attempting to win compensation from the British government over health problems they suffered during nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific in the 1950's. A similar but very different legal principle has been used by Heads of Government/State such as Liberia's Charles Taylor to argue (unsuccessfully) that they are immune from the reach of international courts such as the International Criminal Court (ICC). Furthermore it highlights the differing attitudes to the importance of the rule of law in two supposedly advanced, democratic nations. In the US they have the principle of DFE written into law so although arguably the principle is unfair at least everybody knows where they stand. In Britain however while they have no such official policy the state/government is still just as protected (probably more so) from being held accountable for it's actions because political interference in the Courts means that the Courts will never find against the state/government regardless of what the law says. A prime example of this would be that Environmental Protection case I brought against the Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT). Although I'd prepared the legal case perfectly their lawyer basically stood up in front of the Court waved his arms about and said; "My client is much more important to the government/state then he is" so the Court ruled in their favour and to this day have been unable to come up with a legal explanation for it's actions.

Also I should just take a moment to mention Texas' response to the Megan Stammers case. It revolves around complaints that a male teacher spanked a teenage female cheerleader so hard she apparently couldn't sit down for a week. So no there is not an element of that story that doesn't sound like it's come directly out of a porn film. Interesting to know that Texas is in favour of same sex spanking though.

16:20 on 25/9/12.