Search: crossing lines

...law. On the Seminole point, why does no one address this point. Is it terribly uncomfortable to come to grips with the Seminoles not being a non-state actor but being a sovereign in their territory? Very heavy isn't it? The history is so deep on these things and we blithely go over it without looking at the underlying truth. It changes the entire way of looking at those events. We have to be very suspicious of party lines and revisionist party lines if we are doing this kind of history....

...is easy to see why his 1970 reasoning resonates throughout the Bush Administration's 2002 and 2003 memorandums. Just as Bybee finds that torture isn't torture, Rehnquist argued that the invasion of Cambodia wasn't really an invasion: "By crossing the Cambodian border to attack sanctuaries used by the enemy, the United States has in no sense gone to war with Cambodia." The Bybee memo offers officials accused of torture the "necessity" defense; in 1970, Rehnquist argued that pursuing Vietcong troops into previously neutral territory was "necessary to assure [American troops'] safety...

...would be tried by a Court Martial if commtted by a US soldier. When committed by an enemy soldier captured by the US, it can be tried as an ordinary crime by a Court Martial or military commission. Spying (technically crossing lines out of uniform) is an offense against the Laws of War, but one which may not be a crime and certainly is not a "war crime". The most prominent example is Captain Nathan Hale (1776) who we regard as a hero, not a criminal. There are a few...

...of moral development. Depending on the access and ability to manipulate the levers of power, a state can allow itself to be bound by such obligations for a mix of reasons that may be associated with one some or all of the moral stages as articulated through the interactions of humans in that state. Just some thoughts. Best, Ben Harlan G. Cohen Roger, I think I've been thinking along similar lines to you about Andrew Guzman's theory. I too have been concerned that his rational choice theory may not tell...

...any others who are legally classified as combatants. These are typically the unlawful combatants (or "unlawful belligerents" before 1949). In the Quirin case, the Supreme Court applies the term to "enemies of the United States and acting for ... the German Reich, a belligerent enemy nation, [who] secretly and covertly passed, in civilian dress, contrary to the law of war, through the military and naval lines and defenses of the United States ... and went behind such lines, contrary to the law of war, in civilian dress ... for the...

...protest against his leadership because of his Holocaust role? Did the Arab Communists protest that role? Maybe. But by and large he was accepted as the top leader despite his Nazi record. Elliott Maon, concerning the Jewish majority in the Land of Israel west of the Jordan. I did not say that the Jews were the majority in the Judea-Samaria (west bank) area. I said there was a Jewish majority in the Judea-Samaria area plus Little Israel within the 1949 armistice lines. Indeed there is a Jewish majority in the...

..."The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."...

...a scorecard which breaks so heavily along party lines. (I'd question it if it went the other way too). IAVA's Executive Director, Paul Reickoff (a former Democrat) gave the Democratic Response to the President in 2004, which also colors my judgment on the non-partisan nature of the group's scorecard. I'm certain the group does good work, but I don't know that the scorecard was the best example of that. I really think Roger hit the nail on the head with questioning why certain pieces of legislation made it onto the...

...the armistice agreement in its brief analysis of the status of the territory in the 2004 advisory opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of the Wall. The Declaration On Principles Of International Law Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations stipulates that "Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a...

...water or phone lines. The IDF then invaded and reoccupied nearly all of the PA self-rule areas, including the cities of Bethlehem, Jenin, Tulkaram, Qalqilya and Nablus. Soldiers imposed tight 24-hour curfews and cut electricity and water supply to the population. Palestinians, both militiamen and some policemen given arms by Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements, resisted the offensives with force, particularly during pitched battles in Nablus and Jenin. The Israeli operation has been characterized by massive tank deployments and intense shelling of PA and civilian buildings, house-to-house searches, confiscations of arms and...

...status of a state to begin with, before the occupation, which is not the case of Palestine. In my opinion, it is senseless to speak of a "government" that does not govern the relevant territory. It is simply an oxymoron. Moreover, some scholars have noted that the rational directing the Montevideo qualifications is Indipendence. Occupation and Indipendence can not coexist. As to the defined territory and the question of borders: the 1967 lines are actually the 1948-1949 armistice lines. All Arab states insisted to include in these agreements a clear...

...without infringing upon powers reserved to other branches, or by infringing no more than is permissible under the circumstances. (Enter the uncertainty of a our Constitution, the broad outlines of which were understood to require time to liquidate their meaning.) Moreover, objective advice is not necessarily the same as advocacy. What I advise my client in private is not necessarily the same as what I might ethically argue on my client's behalf in court. So I am curious whether Koh's public statements might be in part explained by the idea...