Ignoring wisdom

As the Court observes at the outset of its opinion, there is reason to believe that respondent participated in an especially brutal murder of an American law enforcement agent. That fact, if true, may explain the Executive's intense interest in punishing [the defendant] in our courts. Such an explanation, however, provides no justification for disregarding the Rule of Law that this Court has a duty to uphold. That the Executive may wish to reinterpret the Treaty to allow for an action that the Treaty in no way authorizes should not influence this Court's interpretation. Indeed, the desire for revenge exerts "a kind of hydraulic pressure . . . before which even well settled principles of law will bend," (Holmes, J., dissenting), but it is precisely at such moments that we should remember and be guided by our duty "to render judgment evenly and dispassionately according to law, as each is given understanding to ascertain and apply it." (Rutledge, J., dissenting). The way that we perform that duty in a case of this kind sets an example that . . . other countries are sure to emulate.

This is from a Supreme Court case in 1992. The opinion was written by Justice Stevens. The defendant was a foreign citizen who was kidnapped by the US government and brought here to stand trial, in violation of international law. Ironically, the backdrop to that case was another one of our foolhardy ventures: the War on Drugs. I particularly like how Stevens quoted Oliver Wendel Holmes, who was a Civil War hero and one of our country's greatest jurists, as well as Justice Rutledge.

Stevens also quoted Justice Brandeis in a footnote:

"In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means -- to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal -- would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485, 72 L. Ed. 944, 48 S. Ct. 564 (1928) (dissenting opinion).

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court in 1992 didn't listen to Stevens.  Why is it, as Alexander Pope said, that fools rush in where angels fear to tread?