Will Baude   Amy Lamboley   Amanda Butler   Jonathan Baude  Peter Northup   Beth Plocharczyk   Greg Goelzhauser   Heidi Bond   Sudeep Agarwala   Jeremy Reff   Leora Baude

March 18, 2003

I personally can't think of

I personally can't think of a better way to die.



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Grrrr

Grrrr



TrackBack URL for this entry:

The Slate Conspiracy: Eugene Volokh

The Slate Conspiracy:

Eugene Volokh has written for Slate. It's a highly worthwhile piece on slippery slopes vis-a-vis Iraq.



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Crimes against Oil?: From the

Crimes against Oil?:

From the text of Bush's speech last night about Iraq:

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished.

I assume the ordering of these clauses is ambiguous (and no doubt will be more so when translated) intentionally. Is Bush saying that destroying oil wells is a war crime? It appears to be. This is from the International Criminal Court, Elements of Crimes:
Article 8 (2) (a) (iv): War crime of destruction and appropriation of property

1. The perpetrator destroyed or appropriated certain property.

2. The destruction or appropriation was not justified by military necessity.

3. The destruction or appropriation was extensive and carried out wantonly.

4. Such property was protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

5. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.

6. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.

7. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Supremes: Which Supreme Court Justice

Supremes:

Which Supreme Court Justice are you?
I am, surprise, O'Connor or Kennedy. My lowest choices are Ginsburg and Stevens.



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Clayton Cramer: So as any

Clayton Cramer:

So as any of you who regularly read The Volokh Conspiracy will know, Eugene has recently inducted Clayton Cramer, a semi-celebrity in the blogosphere. The latest inductee was Jacob Levy, who has been-- IMHO-- a great addition. Indeed, his blog is the reason I started reading blogs. I'm worried that Mr. Cramer, on the other hand, will spoil what I consider to be the understated and uber-rational tone of the volokh conspiracy. I haven't read enough of his stuff to judge for sure, but the reason I haven't is, well, that I've not been very impressed with what he's written. Hope he proves me wrong.



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Duplicity? Clayton Cramer suggests that

Duplicity?

Clayton Cramer suggests that France "is not our ally" once this war is over. This seems like a needlessly absolutist position to take. Indeed, the most defensible defense I've seen of Bush's relatively hot-headed approach has been the knowledge that other countries will follow our lead once war becomes inevitable. There's nothing wrong with being against war, so long as it can be prevented, but wanting to win it once it can. Anti-war protestors also hope our troops will make it home safely. If anything, this is proof that one can be anti-war without being anti-American. Wounded patriotism shouldn't sabotage a national coalition, even if it is too little or too late.



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Chocolate.... My brother suggests that

Chocolate....

My brother suggests that dogs should be made out of chocolate. But then wouldn't they die when they licked themselves?



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Hope from the Guardian: Just

Hope from the Guardian:

Just when I was beginning to get sick of the position-without-a-position from the New York Times, the Guardian comes to the rescue (although, not, it's granted, from the editorial page). They have, first of all, this wonderful speech from Tony Blair-- (an excerpt):
To fall back into the lassitude of the last 12 years, to talk, to discuss, to debate but never act; to declare our will but not enforce it; to combine strong language with weak intentions, is a worse outcome than never speaking at all.
Then the Guardian also publishes this Clinton op-ed, which is less fun to read, but might be more persuasive to the British public; I don't know.



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Back in Action: Apologies for

Back in Action:

Apologies for the radio silence, but now that my differential equations final is done with . . . here I am.



TrackBack URL for this entry: