Search: battlefield robots

...any system to investigate or punish war crimes, let alone desire. National investigations might be inherently biased in favor of their nationals. As for national tribunals, assuming you get that far, the problem is that an asymmetrical battlefield provides plenty of ambiguity. That ambiguity results in doubt of guilt at trial -- and a national tribunal will naturally resolve any doubt in favor of its national (if for no other reason than a lack of self-awareness and self-identification with the accused coupled with a lack thereof with the victim). Even...

...period of his liberty of an enemy combatant that would have been forfeit on the battlefield. From a utilitarian perspective, I would suggest that it is exceedingly unwise to treat an enemy combatant as a civilian criminal defendant. Under civilian criminal law, you are deciding whether to punish the perpetrator after the fact. Thus, one can afford to release ten guilty people so that one innocent person is not punished. However, the equation fundamentally changes when you are at war. Holding an enemy combatant as a prisoner of war is...

...is well worth noting that even during its heyday in Afghanistan, one of its largest "bases" was in its Pakistani birthplace, and even before the Northwest frontier started to go steadily into the pits after 2006, it was by far the dominant power in the area. And in any case, the Taliban's open refusal to follow international law, particularly on the battlefield, makes the legitimacy of both its rule in Afghanistan and its armed formations dubious to say the least, and coupled with its less-than-legit activities across the frontiers (largely...

...So you can roll this thing anyway that you wish, but you seem at least to me to always end up with the fact that even our enemies who I detest have minimum rights once captured - however you qualify the battlefield or even if you do not qualify it as a battlefield. As does every human. The debate then merely turns to whether this or that state will recognize that right. Of course one of those basic rights being not to be tortured. If a state does not recognize...

...legally allowed to shoot such individuals as soon as you can identify them as such without the benefit of even the flimsiest trial right on the battlefield. Naturally, I am not advocating this action be taken in all cases (in no small part because not only is it highly distasteful and liable to be abused in horrible ways- which should be reason enough in all but the most trying circumstances- but also because I have a feeling that most of those involved are not the Islamist "Old Guard" form Afghanistan,...

...Hamdi. If you think adhering to precedent is question-begging, then you do not respect the rule of law because you find respect for the rule of law to be illogical. It seems to be the case that you consider foreign enemy combatants on foreign battlefields who kill American civilians abroad to be a part of the "We the People" that the Constitution protects, and, unremarkably, I can find no support for that in any of the Anti-Federalist papers that you cite. So I have no idea what Constitution you pretend...

...his book, Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield. He reports that as legal adviser, “Harold Koh, wanted to lay out the case publicly before Aulaqi was killed,” in an effort to preempt critiques of the administration’s decision to target and kill a U.S. citizen in secret and without a trial.[15] According to Mr. Scahill: “In advance of his public speech, the CIA and military gave Koh access to their intel on Aulaqi. Koh settled in for a long day of reading in the Secured Classified Intelligence Facility. According to...

...be targeted. Human rights law generally applies in time of war on the battlefield or during self-defense targetings, but applicable human rights instruments such as the ICCPR apply to a person within the actual power or effective control of the United States -- which is not the case in this instance. See generally http://ssrn.com/abstract=1520717 Concerning international law and enhancement of presidential power, see, e.g., Paust, Van Dyke, Malone, International Law and Litigation in the U.S. 271-73 (3 ed. 2009) (West - American Casebook Series). Jordan J. Paust Kal Raustiala Response......

...have had no analysis of IDF proceedures, or any analysis of the battlefield reality faced by the IDF, or any attempts to determine whether any specific actions on the battlefield can be explained without criminal intent. And no evidence of any intent whatsoever, beyond statements by random politicians with no power to influence anything and no evidence that any soldier is influenced by such statement.s Not even a single incident has been analysed in any depth to establish any plausible criminal wrongdoing. In particular, the problem with South Africa's genocide...

...to society and/or to innovation. (Uh, you know, issues having to do with African cyberpunk, DNA hacking and stuff like that. And don’t even let Ken Anderson (1, 2, 3, etc.) or me (1, 2, etc.) get started on robots…) So I was happy to see that the current issue of Scientific American looks at “The Future of Science: 50, 100, and 150 Years from Now.” Heady stuff. Ubiquitous computing, biotech, colonizing Mars, possibly even my long-awaited flying cars. But reading this with the cool eye of a lawyer (as...

...the economies of resource-exporting nations. What would happen to most of Africa? What would it do to the cost of iron ore? And what about refining and manufacturing? If we spend the money to harvest iron in space, why not outsource the other related processes as well? Imagine a future in which solar-powered robots toil in lunar or orbital factories. “On the one hand, it’s great,” Brother Consolmango said. “You’ve now taken all of this dirty industry off the surface of the Earth. On the other hand, you’ve put a...

...military advantage through weapons research. Instead of green technology, the competitionists invent killer robots. Instead of cyber security, their researchers find new ways to destroy through computer applications. China builds coal-fired power plants to pay for a navy bigger than the U.S.’s. The contrast with the non-polar world could not be greater. The pandemic is leading to de-coupling from hegemonic rivalry. Figures like Putin, Trump, or Xi, are not found among those committed to solidarity. And the solidarists are everywhere. Their names reach headlines without stoking cults of personality, including,...