> From: Human Rights Watch <hrwatchnyc at igc.org>
> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 14:18:00 +0000
>
> Human Rights Watch Q&A on International Law
>
> (New York, October 16, 2001) -- Human Rights Watch today issued a
> background paper on legal issues arising from the September 11
> attacks, the war in Afghanistan and related anti-terrorism efforts.
> The paper discusses in everyday language some of the complex legal
> questions that states involved in the campaign against terrorism
must
> address.
>
> As this paper explains, governments may not use unlimited methods
and
> means to pursue war, even a war against indistinct enemies.
=========
So how many lawyers are leasing aircraft to go to Afghanistan to issue citations? Have Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney been subjected to lawyer/citizens arrests?
> International humanitarian law, also known as the "laws of war," is
> designed in principal part to protect civilians and other
> non-combatants. Warring forces may not intentionally attack
civilians
> and civilian facilities. Attacks on military targets must minimize
> harm to civilians and refrain entirely from attacks that would
> disproportionately harm civilians or whose effects would be
> indiscriminate as between combatants and civilians.
======== Ah yes, the tragedy of the impotence of law, ex ante with regards to the production of hostilities. The paradox of ex post enforcement is that it's always too late which renders the law pretty moot, Nuremburg being the best exception. How many US military officers will suffer international law based penalties for their actions, and how many will use the Adolf Eichmann strategy of justification?
>
> Despite the existence of an armed conflict, certain aspects of
> international human rights law also remain in force. Even in a state
> of emergency, it is unlawful to suspend some rights, such as the
> prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of life, the prohibition of
> torture, freedom of religion, and trial ex post facto.
========== Again, when is the UN going to intervene in the halls of Congress on S1510 etc. The emptiness of "remain in force" says it all.
>
> The two bodies of law - humanitarian and human rights - can
> simultaneously govern different geographic areas.
=======
Only if the nation-state[s] in question accede, during hostilities, to
said gonvernance--not likely right now.
Ian