Search: self-defense

On Monday, the defense in the Al Bahlul case filed their reply brief. The case is important because it squarely presents the issue that was left hanging after Hamdan, i.e. whether the military commissions have jurisdiction to try inchoate conspiracy. It also raises the far deeper question of whether the jurisdiction of the military commissions is limited to offenses against the law of nations (the international law of war), or whether the military commission’s jurisdiction to try law of war offenses includes domestic offenses as well. The government has repeatedly...

Maybe Duncan or others can help me out here, but how exactly can Russia legally “suspend” its participation in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, as the Washington Post reports today? Russia is unhappy about the planned deployment of a limited NATO missile defense system in Europe. Under the treaty’s Article XIX, the Treaty is of “unlimited duration”. Russia has “the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests.” Under Article 57...

...generations. Our grandparents lived in an age when territorial conquest and colonialism were common place. The idea of the peaceful settlement of disputes was only beginning to gain traction. A century ago major powers bombarded the ports of struggling nations to secure the repayment of public debt. Their dream was that perhaps one day, in the distant future, international society would organize itself in a way that provided for collective security and defense. They were struggling with how to regulate the potential military abuses of that great new technology: the...

...isn't protective enough to ensure that coerced statements get the appropriate treatment by the finders of fact at military commissions. However, in cases of coercion, I would think the judge has more options than that under the rules of evidence. The real question, raised by Glazier unless I misread him too, is how much evidence surrounding or relevant to the making of any statement being admitted will remain classified and potentially undisclosed to the defense. How can the defense argue voluntariness issues without knowing all evidence potentially relevant to that...

...have been delegitimized by those who seem to deny Israel's right to self defense. The British Colonel clearly puts these false and exagerated claims into context by comparing the IDF's performance against other armies of the World. He even uses the UK and US, who have undertaken similar operations in populated areas against terrorist militants, as an example. Have the UK or the US been the recipient of such an outcry by so called "legal experts" etc as the IDF/Israel? Funny that they both killed a larger number of civilians...

Benjamin G Davis Brother McNeal - great stuff! I am not in Obama's head and not privy to those who structured the legal space. Your approach is plausible though I do note that Holder spoke in terms of the self-defense space and not the law of armed conflict. As I have said other places, the strongest of the trimodal categories for the legal justification are loac as you see, next law enforcement, and third self-defense (which I am sqeamish about its strength as a category). Best, Ben Josh I'm afraid...

Jordan "[L]ethal" and "deliberate" targeting can occur many times per hour in the theatre during an international armed conflict or an armed conflict not of an international character. Obama's preference for "near certainty" with respect merely to "drone" targeting is not a requirement under the international laws of war or self-defense. Although the U.S. Constitution should apply with respect to everything the Executive does here or abroad, the question shifts to what does the Constitution require when force is used lawfully under the international laws of war and/or self-defense. For...

Cross-posted at Balkinization UPDATE: Thanks to “Anon” in comments for sending along a link to the engrossed text of the military commissions bill passed by the Senate last week. I really hate to interrupt this great discussion about Kal’s even greater book, and hope to get into it myself before week’s out. In the meantime, I thought it worth noting that while most of Congress was focusing on health care, the Senate quietly succeeded late last week in passing its version of the defense authorization bill (S. 1390) containing a...

...from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values… This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic...

...to annhilate something half a world away? As the article noted, these very costly programs would only represent a minute upgrade in capacity over what we can do now with cruise missiles. Somehow I just think that the DoD should come up with better ways to spend the money...like missile defense, cruise missile defense, improved UAV's, something that makes multi-billion dollar cruisers able to defend themselves against tiny boats packed with explosives, etc.But of course, my impression could be a result of the bias of the NYT, so I guess...

unable to disclose more than 200 potentially-exculpatory documents not only to the defense, but even to the Trial Chamber itself: 64. The prosecution is unable to disclose any of these items of evidence to the accused, in full or in a redacted form. Furthermore, save for a limited number of documents (32) that have been supplied to the Chamber by six unidentified information-providers in redacted form, the prosecution (given the terms of the agreements) is unable to show them to the Chamber. This is because the information-providers do not consent...

...that President Trump tries to make everything sound like a real estate deal while Dr. King spoke with the voice of a pastor, which some would dismiss as prophetic rather than pragmatic. But this would miss, I think, how MLK’s words from fifty years ago apply to the challenges we have before us today. Martin Luther King put himself in the shoes of others and spoke eloquently about their claims for justice. This technique of looking at the world from the standpoint of others is all the more vital when...