A Thousand Cranes for Peace
Victoria played Beethoven's Ode to Joy.
# Carlson and Wasserman via The Militant Libertarian - Medical Marijuana & the Supreme Court - a couple of good cartoons about GONZALES v. RAICH.
# Dave Kopel, Paul Gallant, & Joanne D. Eisen - Is Resisting Genocide a Human Right? - (PDF, 47 pages) Of course it is. And how do you resist genocide? You kill the perps, that's how. Or put them in fear for their lives so they won't try it. The authors conclude that genocide victims have the right to arms, local, national, and international laws notwithstanding. You and I know that everybody has the right to keep and bear arms, always and everywhere, local, national, and international laws notwithstanding. [geekwitha.45]
The first half of this Article, Parts I through III, details the catastrophic inadequacy of current anti-genocide remedies. Part I shows how non-violent economic and other sanctions have failed. Part II examines the lack of success on the part of multilateral "peacekeeping" forces, such as the United Nations' Standby High Readiness Brigade (SHIRBRIG), or the Standby Force of the African Union. Part III acknowledges that unilateral military action by states acting in their own self-interest has sometimes stopped a genocide in progress; however, such unilateral action is considered illegal according to the predominant interpretations of the United Nations Charter.
The second half of this Article examines an alternative approach. Under international law there must be an effective remedy to genocide. Given that the international community has manifestly failed--and is, as we write, continuing to fail--to prevent genocide, there must be some other anti-genocide remedy which is genuinely effective. Our alternative remedy focuses on empowering genocide victims, rather than asking them to wait helplessly until the international community rescues them; waiting for the United Nations to act is often just as futile as waiting for Godot, and hundreds of thousands or millions of people die while waiting. (In this article, we use the term "genocide victims" to refer to the spectrum of the entire targeted group. So when we speak about empowering "genocide victims," we are referring to members of the targeted group who might still be saved, rather than to members who have already been murdered.)
Part IV points out that civilian armament has historically been very effective at preventing genocide. Indeed, genocide scholars have found that genocides are carried out almost exclusively against populations which have first been systematically disarmed. Because genocidal regimes consider prior disarmament the sine qua non for beginning a genocide, it seems indisputable that civilian armament deters genocide in most cases. Part IV considers the practical possibilities of arming the Darfur genocide victims.
In Part V, we carefully analyze the international law implications of arming genocide victims. Genocide victims who acquired arms, and persons who supplied arms to genocide victims, would almost certainly be in violation of the gun control laws in the country where the genocide was taking place. In addition, the arms acquisition might violate international treaties against bringing arms into a nation without the consent of the national government. Under international law, could the genocide victims and their arms suppliers claim that their actions were nevertheless legal? We answer "yes."
...
Part VI applies the principles of Bosnia v. Yugoslavia and the Genocide Convention to some contemporary legal issues. First, Sudan's highly restrictive gun licensing law, which in effect prohibits gun acquisition by the Darfur victims, is invalid (as applied to the Darfur victims, not in general).
...
In this Article, we have shown that, under existing international law, genocide victims are not obliged to wait for foreign governments or world organizations to rescue them. According to normative principles of international law and according to positive international law, genocide victims have a fundamental human right to use armed force to resist genocide. Because the prohibition of genocide is a preemptory jus cogens norm of international law, any local, national, or international laws or government actions which interfere with self-defense by genocide victims are necessarily unlawful. In particular, arms control laws which may be generally valid may not be enforced against genocide victims or against persons who supply arms to genocide victims; enforcement would make the enforcing court or other state agency complicit in genocide.
Accordingly, the Security Council 2005 arms embargo on Sudan may not lawfully be enforced so as to deny defensive arms to the genocide victims in Darfur. The new UN Protocol against firearms trafficking and manufacturing is equally inapplicable to arms acquisition by genocide victims, including the Darfur victims. All future international small arms control treaties should explicitly recognize that the treaty does not (and, as a matter of existing international law, can not) apply so as to prevent genocide victims from acquiring and using defensive arms.
Any interference--including interference under color of law--with the self-defense rights of genocide victims constitutes a grave violation of the most fundamental of all international and moral laws.
# Toby Muse at Reason - Legalization Now!: War-weary Colombia--and its Conservative Party--consider ending the drug war - Columbia, one of the world's murder capitals, feels accutely the unintended consequences of prohibition. End funding of criminals. End the war on some drugs, the war on the bill of rights. End the war on freedom. Now. Won't happen, though, since many of the criminals who profit are in positions of power in governments throughout the world, including the U.S. There's no way they're going to voluntarily kill their cash and power cow. [cafe]
Surveys indicate that public support for legalization has grown since Legalization Now was founded five years ago, when it hovered around 7 percent. A poll taken in July 2003 by Invamer-Gallup showed 22 percent national support for "the legalization of production and consumption of drugs." What was more interesting was how the figures broke down. In the capital, 27 percent of people were in favor, while in the historic centers of the cocaine cartels, Medellin and Cali, the numbers were 16 percent and 13 percent, respectively. Responses also varied by class, with nearly 40 percent of Colombia's upper classes supporting legalization, compared to 16 percent of Colombia's lowest social strata.
"We have found that it's an educational difference," says Legalization Now's Lozano. "Poorer neighborhoods often are more against this because they believe that as soon as we legalize everyone will immediately become addicts. We've got to educate these people that the current approach is not working and if you really want to protect your children, you must help legalize drugs."
# Troy Tiscareno, Tatjana von E., and Derek F. - The AR15.com Ammo-Oracle - "Everything you ever wanted to know about .223 and 5.56 ammunition or double your money back." [clairefiles]
# Aaron Turpen via The Militant Libertarian - Anger is a Gift: Self-Defense That Works - good short essay on the importance of anger in responding to an attack or the threat of one. [militant]
# Jacob Sullum at Reason - No Clause for Celebration: Flush that commerce, it's the feds! - a commentary on the Constitutional amendment by judicial fiat represented by the Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v. Raich. [drugsense]
As the Court explained, the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 "did not outlaw the possession or sale of marijuana outright." Instead it imposed tax, registration, and reporting requirements that made legal possession of the drug prohibitively expensive and burdensome. Members of Congress would not have taken this complex, indirect approach (aspects of which ultimately were ruled unconstitutional) if they thought they could get away with a straightforward ban simply by citing the Commerce Clause.
The fact that Congress felt it had to disguise its first marijuana law as a tax measure suggests how far we have traveled since the 1930s from the plain meaning of the Commerce Clause, which has been transformed into an all-purpose excuse for federal meddling. As a result, individuals oppressed by an overbearing national government cannot realistically expect Congress to explain how its actions are authorized by the Constitution. Instead they must search for a constitutional provision that protects the specific freedom they wish to exercise--precisely the situation the Framers sought to avoid by creating a federal government of limited and enumerated powers.
# Clay Rockefeller at Drugsense - Fix the Rockefeller Drug Laws, Rockefellers Say - Writing "on behalf of 37 other direct descendants of Nelson A. Rockefeller", Mr. Rockefeller opines that Nelson himself would support reform of the laws he created. He still characterizes businessmen who sell drugs as "kingpins", but nobody's perfeck. [drugsense]
# Nicki Fellenzer - I love it when gun banners get their panties in a wad! - the Brady Bunch is upset about Folsom Shooting Club's ban on Kalifornia LEO use of their range. Hey, Ms. Wilcox and Mr. Hamm. Ever hear of private property? Get used to it. [nicki]
Even Jim Brady has wheeled himself out from behind his wife's bony back to castigate the club owners for their policy. Apparently, according to Brady, it's "unAmerican" for a private enterprise to exercise freely its discretion in barring whomever it wants from its premises. "What's next," whines Brady, "should police who support sensible gun laws have their firearms taken away?"
No, Jim. They should retain their rights just like anyone else -- despite their desire to deprive others of doing so -- and go somewhere they're welcome, instead of relying on a wheelchair bound man and his wife to whine on their behalf. That's the meaning of "freedom." But apparently neither you nor your chain-smoking vulture of a wife comprehend the true meaning of that word.
