Quote:
Originally posted by Solid
That's interesting, I thought that Int' law would supersede the first amendment. Thank you for pointing that out to me.
Solid
|
Apples and oranges in this case.
The applicable international laws, in this case the Third Geneva Convention (
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949), apply to states. The First Amendment applies
against the state. The U.S. government does not have First Amendment rights and non-government actors, in this case the media, are not parties to the Geneva Conventions.
It does get more complicated if you were to change the facts though. If Fox were to start running a reality show called "When animals attack ... enemy detainees", the government might try to censor such a program in the name of the Conventions' duty to protect the detainees "against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." Fox might scream First Amendment violation. I doubt they would win, but not because the treaty trumped the Constitution, but rather because the First Amendment is not absolute, and fulfilling the Convention's goals would be a compelling government interest.
If the government tried to enforce a blanket prohibition on media coverage of prisoners on the grounds of the Geneva Conventions, it might lose though. The Supreme Court has recognized that while a treaty might impact the exercise of a Constitutional right (see, e.g.,
Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920)), it cannot take them away.
Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1(1957) ("This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."). See also
De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890):
"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent."