Search: crossing lines

Well, sort of. Yoo and co-author Robert Delahunty have a provocative piece in the latest edition of the National Interest (“Lines in the Sand,” not available on-line, but you can get it on Lexis) in which they argue against the primacy of the nation-state, or at least the primacy of existing nation-states. The cash-out here, of course, is splitting up Iraq. I don’t know enough about the context there to buy in or out, but it’s clear that in some situations (Somaliland probably now the best example) redrawing borders makes...

...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...

...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...

humblelawstudent Let's clarify a few things. First, let's look at this statement of yours: "I do not know enough to conclude that Israel’s attacks are criminal." Not to nit-pick, but don’t you mean something along the lines of “whether a particular attack is criminal”? Second, you said, “Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, or science is a war crime.” But, if such buildings are used by belligerents to create or store weaponry, then those “protected placed” become legitimate targets. See for example the allegations regarding Gaza...

...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....

...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...

...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...

...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...

...along these lines: if the members of the UN can give precedence to the Charter, then that is part and parcel of international law. Respecting international law, you would then have to respect Article 103, and its derogating effect on conflicting treaty obligations, as well. But, of course, that is where your second point comes in, namely to show that the members of the could not give precedence to the Charter over obligations owed to non-members. I would argue that they could, in effect, have done that, though not without...

...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...

...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 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."...