Sorry, but I'm a little shocked that Chiquita is so easily dismissed. When one defends a white supremacist or a nazi, it is because one believes in freedom of speech or a right to a fair trial for all. Chiquita was never in danger of receiving an unfair trial. The state has defended and protected them for years.

Nor am I saying that I think the government should now determine who is and isn't guilty beforehand. I am arguing that our government should prosecute those that carry out these actions. I also am saying as a individual, rational person that this situation is beyond the pale. Fellow human beings in the south are being raped, tortured, and killed in pursuit of profit. Chiquita did not dispute that fact. Now there is a legal decision that others can plug in to a cost/benefit analysis to determine if they can continue doing so. To defend the powerful in a system designed to accomodate them is unethical.

Thinkers from Marx on down have argued that the dominant ideology, including law, is the ideology of the dominant class. I think Glenn's pretty legal maxim is no different. Perhaps it has some function to it because it allows us to defend the weak and the despised. But it does have another function which we see here. It is a defender of the status quo. Let's examine how it works in practice. Looking at our jails we will see an overwhelming majority of the weak and the despised, and 0 Chiquita execs.

Please take a step back and think about what you are saying here. A rich and powerful man helped clear the way for mass murder, rape, and torture. This man will now be our attorney general.

could I please nominate the Mooser?

Why the repeat?

This part seems to be the basis of the US saying it is not bound by the convention.

"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, ,b>if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

One could argue that since Al Q'aeda does not seem to acccept or implement the convention, then the US is not bound by it either. That's their argument isn't it?

man, that's really fast!

If I understand correctly, a court ruled that Elian Gonzalez had to remain in the U.S. pending an asylum hearing. The government tried to have the American relatives return Elian to his father voluntarily, but they refused to do so. (Note: I believe the father was in the U.S. at this point.) While negotiations were ongoing, a Florida family court judge revoked Elian's great-uncle's temporary custody. I'm assuming that once his great-uncle's custody was revoked, it reverted to his father. Essentially, that decision cleared the way for the government to remove Elian from the house because they were, in effect, returning Elian to the rightful custody of his father.

I don't see how the government violated the first court order because they did not remove Elian from the United States.* It was only after the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which stated that Elian was too young to file for asylum on his own behalf and that his American relatives lacked legal standing, that Elian returned to Cuba.

I have no idea what Holden had to do with any of this.

*Disclaimer. I am not a lawyer and I did not stay at a Holiday Express last night.

"if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

That seems to be the punchline.

the Gladiolas!

The problem with your argument is that the Protocols are international treaties that our Senate have not ratified. Thus, we are not a direct party to them and, therefore, they certainly have no force of law within the US.

You cannot expect the USSC to base its decisions on international law that, by our Constitution, is not binding on us.

I know you said you objected to this criticism previously, but I did not see exactly what you argued there.

Having now read the editorial by Tribe, I see what the problem was. I obviously take much too long to post - by the time I finish my post, Glenn has already updated!

I don't know how you managed to parse it the way you did, but the first sentence in Article 2 clearly says that if you're party to the Conventions, it doesn't matter if your opponent is or not.

No, the first sentence says that if there are multiple parties in the conflict and one or more of them is not party to the GCs, then those that are party to the GCs will remain bound to each other in their mutual relations.

"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations."

So, if parties X, Y and Z are at war and X, Y are signatories to the GCs but Z is not, then X and Y are bound by the GCs in relation to each other (but not with Z). The following sentence then says that even if Z is not a signatory, if Z accepts and implements the tenets of the GCs, then X and Y are also bound by the GCs in their relations with Z.

If the signatories were always bound by the GCs, then why wouldn't they just say exactly that? Why have a whole complicated paragraph discussing what happens when a non-signatory is a party to a conflict?

The HCs also have similar escape clauses because no one would have signed them if it meant that they had to fight with a hand tied behind their back while their enemy did as they liked.