Discussion in 'Literature' started by Master_Keralys, Jan 1, 2009.
Wait, what? What human rights laws?
Going into it, was this an unexpected outcome? Reading up on it, I'm not surprised, but I hadn't been following the case before now.
LI: The text of the statute and logic might dictate the outcome, but not 25 years of precedent. The court had allowed and endorsed it 'til now.
The law of nations.
We have a statute on the books from 1789 that says that an alien may bring a suit, in tort only, for violations of the law of nations. It was enacted because some French dude beat up a French consul in Philadelphia during the Articles of Confederation period, and the PA courts didn't have the ability to allow for charges to be pressed against the French dude for violating international law b/c you're not supposed to beat up consuls.
Anyway, fast forward to 1987 and the first time the Alien Tort Statute comes up again is this guy who tortured a bunch of people in Panama. He's in the US, and the relatives of his victims sue him in federal court under the ATS. The court says that torture is against the law of nations since no nation on earth allows it and numerous treaties ban it, so they allow for the suit to continue even though the plaintiffs, victims, and conduct complained about all occurred abroad. This spawns a quarter century of human rights suits, where the US is the only jurisdiction in the world which will give certain victims their day in court, thanks to the ATS. It's one of the biggest things in international human rights law.
Enter Kiobel: though originally about whether or not corporations could violate human rights law by aiding and abetting crimes against humanity, the Court asked for oral argument on whether the ATS was extraterritorial or not. I've done work on both sides of the argument, on behalf of human rights people and on behalf of the United States government. I've worked on it through basically the last two and a half years of law school. Most of my friends have worked on it, filing amicus briefs and things. And the decision comes out the day of my last class.
Titanic sort of thing. The ATS is now completely dead in the water. It has no meaning if it doesnt' apply extraterritorially.
I have to ask- what's a tort?
What is that picture from?
Boba Fett: Agent of Doom.
A harm for which you get money damages. I punch you, that's a tort. I pollute your yard, that's a tort. I imprison you without color of law, that's a tort. I imprison you under color of law but without due process, that's a tort. Etc. Basically a harm that leads to liability under civil law (therefore excluding criminal, contract, etc based harms)
edit: As for that primary state thing -- yeah, no, you're definitely right in that nothing in Italia as far as I know developed autochthonously (sort of the Greek way of saying primary state, I guess!). My knowledge gets VERY spotty when we're pre-Republic, and most of my knowledge of that is legendary/literary/historiographical rather than archaeological so I couldn't say anything for certain but yeah...
It's a real pity that we have little to no real Italian, non-Latin primary sources (I.e. pre-Social War). In my capstone, the Italian point of view is represented almost entirely through archaeological evidence. Occasionally Roman sources try to portray the Italian point of view on the relevant matters, but they tend to be rather biased, not to mention written centuries after the fact. It's rather aggravating.
And interesting that you mentioned literature in an earlier post- several Mesoamerican cultures lacked a formal writing system (or at least one attested to in the archaeological record).
Well you can't really be a civilization without epic poetry, can you?
Don't worry, my classics professors thought I was ridiculously outmoded too. Even in that field, cultural snobbery was considered out of date.
If you ever want to experience something really trippy, there's a cartoon of the Popol Vuh, which is the Mayan creation myth. Having watched it in my Mesoamerican Archaeology course last semester, I can confirm that it's as trippy as Pink Floyd.
@CooperTFN Bringing the topic back to TV.... deleted scene from Parks re: Episode VII.
edit: Hilariously, it maintains continuity regarding Chewie... sort of.
I've been seeing that pop up on my facebook constantly, and since it's now here, I guess I have to watch it.
And turns out it actually was pretty amusing. And I had no idea Moonknight was a first tier hero
...in my last class ever. discussing the relationship between CIA and Disney
hmmm... maybe this means we'll see the Isards in the ST.
What was the ultimate conclusion? Are Disney bugging our phones?
Nothing as exciting as all that, alas. It'd be classified if so, which means we wouldn't be able to discuss it in class and I wouldn't be able to tell you guys anything.
It's just a discussion about what would happen in the case of an attack on US soil in Florida, near the Disney properties. How we'd have to coordinate with them etc, the role FBI would play, local police would play, CIA would play, Disney people would play, etc.
Sounds like a Dan Brown novel.
Joy? Is joy an option?
Re: Parks & Rec video: at work right now, but I'm sure I'll have something to say about it later. I am however not the least bit surprised that Patton Oswalt could riff on the ST for 9 minutes straight.
You'd think, except the things I learned while working for Disney makes me think Disneyland or Disneyworld is the place I'd want to be in case of disaster. Those places have enough food and supplies to last months!
Okay, Oswalt had me until "Kash-ee-ak".
and that's not even getting into "the X-Men's quinjet"
I give him props for trolling the show and the cast though.
I love that Amy Poehler actually argues back.
I know I've said this before, but ... yes, you do.
Interesting take. Of course, it's been a lot longer between Return of the Jedi and now than between TOS and TMP; I wonder if the actors can fall into that same sort of casual camaraderie after so long?
Was that not scripted? That's hilarious if not.