Search: crossing lines

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...

...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...

...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."...

...the UN Charter. See UN SC resolutions 62 and 73. The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations says: "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 party or which it is otherwise bound to respect." It is no secret that the 10th Emergency Special...

...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 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...

...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...