[MarkL]

If you give Leus an exception, then you have to give everyone else an exception.

An exception to what? I've read this article a few times, and I really don't understand the claims of this "commission." The fact is that the wall was built well within the boundaries of their property. Is the commission stating that their authority over property is, in effect, an easement well onto their own property?

What really pisses me off is the attitude of the US representative, in saying a) that he's got the job for life and can't be fired, and b) that they're not a government commission, and therefore not subject to laws or the Constitution.

IMHO, if an international entity is operating on US soil, it's subject to the laws of the US. Since these people are NOT diplomats, no diplomatic immunity is assumed.

Mark

[Ben Ficklin]

"I don't understand"

Its on the internet

[drjimmy]

I've read this article a few times, and I really don't understand the claims of this "commission."

That is because the article is an editorial, and one of its authors is a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which has represented the property owner. So the co-author has a vested interest in presenting only one side of the case, which is conveniently not disclosed.