>
> [The article below makes some interesting points. For one thing, it
> turns out not to be true that the Geneva convention bans
> interrogation. The rule about only having to give your name rank
> and serial number is more like a variant of Miranda's "you have the
> right to remain silent" - it doesn't mean they can't interrogate
> the hell out of you trying to get you to say more.]
>
> [And of course on top of that, these guys haven't got ranks or serial numbers, which means they haven't got officially guaranteed names.
> Anyway, that's just a footnote. She's got other points and she makes them
> well. I wouldn't be surprised if she was one of the administration's legal
> advisors.]
>
>
Michael, goodgod, Ruth Glushien Wedgwood. She has never failed to justify whatever the US has just done with whatever arguments are at hand, good or bad, in the twenty years that I've been aware of her. You're right as to her dreams and desires - certainly she's hoping to become Legal Advisor to the State Department. My most recent fave of hers was the "argument" that the Chinese could not enter the spy plane they downed because it was "US territory." She was against me in _United States v Kostadinov_, 734 F.2d 905 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 US 881 - which we won in the District Court originally and then again on remand despite the 2d Circuit opinion. She is as much a publicist for the US position - whatever it is at the moment - as anything, but then that is precisely what establishment "international law" in the US *is.*
john mage
> > numbers, which means they haven't got officially guaranteed names. Anyway, that's just a footnote. She's got other points and she makes them
> well. I wouldn't be surprised if she was one of the administration's legal
> advisors.]
>
>
Michael, goodgod, Ruth Glushien Wedgwood. She has never failed to justify whatever the US has just done with whatever arguments are at hand, good or bad, in the twenty years that I've been aware of her. You're right as to her dreams and desires - certainly she's hoping to become Legal Advisor to the State Department. My most recent fave of hers was the "argument" that the Chinese could not enter the spy plane they downed because it was "US territory." She was against me in _United States v Kostadinov_, 734 F.2d 905 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 US 881 - which we won in the District Court originally and then again on remand despite the 2d Circuit opinion. She is as much a publicist for the US position - whatever it is at the moment - as anything, but then that is precisely what establishment "international law" in the US *is.*
john mage
> > Anyway, that's just a footnote. She's got other points and she
> makes them well. I wouldn't be surprised if she was one of the
> administration's legal advisors.]
>
>
Michael, goodgod, Ruth Glushien Wedgwood. She has never failed to justify whatever the US has just done with whatever arguments are at hand, good or bad, in the twenty years that I've been aware of her. You're right as to her dreams and desires - certainly she's hoping to become Legal Advisor to the State Department. My most recent fave of hers was the "argument" that the Chinese could not enter the spy plane they downed because it was "US territory." She was against me in _United States v Kostadinov_, 734 F.2d 905 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 US 881 - which we won in the District Court originally and then again on remand despite the 2d Circuit opinion. She is as much a publicist for the US position - whatever it is at the moment - as anything, but then that is precisely what establishment "international law" in the US *is.*
john mage