TaN: As a side comment on the issue of (the construction of) a special holding/detention facility for convicted people like Lance Cpl Pemberton is an indication of (1) current facilities are unfit for their function/purpose and (2) certain convicted individuals, especially foreigners, are in danger when they are held in facilities that likewise hold the “common” criminals. Holding facilities should be fit for all, regardless of whether they are locals or foreigners or whatever. This is the true test of a society’s fairness and justice — treated all equally and humanely.
Although it is admitted that the standards of one country (usually) differs from that of another — even among First World or industrialized or developed countries — (mainly due to cultural and values differences and variations), it is nevertheless expected to at least have the bare or rudimentary minimum and these are that the facilities are clean and hygienic, food and treatment is fit and dignified, and inmates are secure from abuse and maltreatment from both detention officials and fellow inmates.
As to Mr Pemberton (and the United States of America), the more significant issue is whether the detention should be turned over to civilian authority (since the crime was a criminal case and was committed while on furlough and in another country) or to military authority (because the perpetrator is a military personnel and military code dictates that any and all acts of a soldier are subject to military conduct and discipline, regardless of the nature of the act).
With respect to the supposed executive agreement, the fact remains that any form or sort of agreement between two sovereign nations should not and never undermine existing laws and constitutions and sovereignty of nations involved. Furthermore, whatever name is decided to label a certain understanding, especially if it is binding, should the understanding contain provisions that supersede or superimpose on another country’s laws and Constitution, the said understanding is, for all intents and purposes, a treaty and must undergo ratification and concurrence, at the very least, by Congress and not merely by the Executive
In this regard, should the detention of a foreign national, and most usually a foreign military personnel, any and all provisions in the understanding that conflicts, contradicts or otherwise cause inconsistency or incongruence to existing and pending laws of the land shall be rendered invalid and void. In any instance, no provision of any extra-national agreement should supersede as if the latter does not exist or has been rendered inactive or unenforced.
In conclusion, special holding/detention facilities only attest and confirm that there is inequality (where there should be equality and fairness). Put Pemberton in a facility that any local convict with the same crime is detained. It is bad enough that such convicts caused harm to society, why should they be “rewarded” with special treatment — executive agreement or otherwise, bar none.
TaN: Can a TRO be issued (by a court) against another (obviously subordinate or inferior) court? I do not have any legal background but logic and common sense tells me that it will be awkward but, since the law is silent on the matter (at least I think it is), I would hazard a guess and say that it can be (but just not) done — since a court is (treated) just like any other entity or being that is subject to court action (like from a superior court).
Anyway, this is just a musing, just to fill up space and I have a little time on my hands (between TaNs).
TaN: As a rejoinder and clarification to my earlier posts on preaching the Gospels and profiting from it, I argued that spreading the Word of God is not only a privilege but an honor and should never be tainted with selfish gains. But people have argued back that, How else would a preacher survive if s/he does not derive income from preaching?
My response is that a preacher should have a “day job” in order to support and sustain him/herself and continue with preaching. One should never use spreading the Good News of and from God as a means to make a living, to commercialize or commoditize it. It is an insult — an insidious and hideous insult — to make or receive compensation for doing something that is sacred and was given to man, to all men, for free.
Deriving gains from preaching should only be in the form of spiritual and not material gains. It is very wrong and immoral to derive material gains for something that was given for free and freely and intended to be for all men (for our salvation). If one cannot survive on preaching for free, one should not be preaching at all — even when whatever material gains or tokens of appreciation were given for free and freely by whoever donor s/he may be and for no matter how noble or innocent intention. Should anyone want to show appreciation and gratitude to the preacher, it is best to direct any and all acts of kindness and compassion and charity to those less fortunate among us — except the preacher.