I May answer your ⓠ but can eat you.... what am I?

Fear is the great teacher & The Hundred Years War

btw just because wars sometimes last hundreds of years doesn’t mean i think the USA is locked into wars for the next hundred years. See? Anyone can push the panic button.

See also: Told ya so.

Welcome to the Labyrinth.

first the free ebooks then a quick break down.

The fear of imminent death clarifies thinking.

This week’s free ebooks! Copyright & Trademark Law for Authors and Small Businesses

Quizmaster 20 Questions:

The Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) Multiple Choice Questions

Mastering Civil Procedure Law for the Multistate Bar Exam Multiple Choice Section

Criminal Law & Criminal Procedure: Quizmaster Law Quiz Questions & Explanatory Answers for 1L Law School & the Bar Exam

China’s New Client States?

Language Secrets

CHINESE VOCABULARY COGNATES

Preemptive Self Defense?

No, there is no Right of “preemptive self-defense”

There is however the fact that international law is peer enforced. You get away with it, until everyone else gangs up on you and then you don’t, such is the key character of internation law. This legal fact, that international law is peer enforced, explains some of the apparent lawlessness in international affairs: then again, there are plenty of domestic criminals, and no one questions whether a domestic legal order exists. As a law of peers among peers individual rights and duties are only exceptionally accorded by international law: most of your rights are at the level of your State and your primary lawgiver is your State, not the international system. Clarity about these first principles helps greatly in understanding the limits and possibilities of international law.

Although the use of nuclear weapons is at least arguably a war crime, and certainly is when used to commit genocide, there is no rule under international law admitting the legality of preemptive strikes. This doesn’t mean Israel’s illegal action was imprudent or baleful. The reason preemptive strikes are illegal under international law is more or less the same as in daily life. Some jerk has a gun. I can’t for that reason alone beat the shit out of him (and I do that, just ask WPD). The problem of the law of armed conflict, the right to strike, jus ad bellum is practical. It is clear Israel and Jews have been victims of genocide, and clear also that Iran was preparing such means. While the Israeli and American actions are illegal international law is peer enforced. That means that if you don’t like it — what are You gonna do about it? This also means you can’t be surprised when other states follow your own example. Israel’s peers are other States, not you, me, Sunstein, Dershowitz, or any other mortal person: and it is this quality of the state potential immortality that explains why people and peoples through all human history have besought, entreatied, begged, and pleaded with their Sovereign for justice and right.

I don’t see any of the peer’s lining up to inflict a beatdown on Israel other than Iran.

Illegality often goes unpunished, even saluted: lynch mobs were popular, and internationally we are more or less subject to lynch law, at least when it comes to war. The better legal argument is: Israel’s actions, though legal, are proportional and thus justifiable, or at least excusable. Justification renders otherwise illegal actions legal, as when a cop puts the cuffs on me for brawling, yet again, as they do. Excuse is when the action is illegal but unpunished, as when I bring the pain to a criminal released into the general public, which I may do, but then face the mechanisms of justice. Domestically those mechanisms are: cops and courts. Internationally, it ain’t crickets. It’s bombs and bullets. It may also help your comprehension to notice the parallels between tort and crime (for every common law crime had a corresponding common law tort) as well as between national and international law, such as proportionality in use of force, necessity of the use of force, and the right to self-defense and also to defend others in the face of imminent bodily harm, including deadly force in the case of grave bodily harm, which is those threats that are to life and limb. This is true in other national legal orders and internationally as well. Civil procedure is also largely paralleled among other States and internationally, whether as Zivilverfahrensrecht, procédure civile, et cetera.

Israel’s actions, though illegal, are excusable, One might argue justification, but I don’t think that carries the day. But what carries the day is: proportionality and excuse.

We should mourn for the Iranians subjected to a tyrannical regime, so careless with their own people’s lives and well being. The Israeli actions are illegal. So what: they will go unpunished, even excused. A pointed argument would claim the Israeli and U.S. actions to be legally justified (depends on the most recent covert nastiness), but currently I think that goes too far, at least so far.

Word of the Day:

Word of the day: AIRSTRIKE Sample sentence: Airstrikes hit Iran, but a revolution requires rebellion.

Translations

English:

• Airstrike: strike (n), hit (v)

• Iran: proper noun (country)

• revolution: rebellion (n)

French:

• Airstrike: frappe aérienne (n), attaquer/frapper (v)

• Iran: nom propre (pays)

• revolution: révolution (n)

Spanish:

• Airstrike: ataque aéreo (n), atacar/golpear (v)

• los: la (article)

• Iran: nombre propio (país)

• revolution: revolución (n)

German:

• Airstrike: Luftangriff (m)

• Iran: Eigenname (Land)

• revolution: Revolution (f)

Estonian:

• Airstrike: õhupükse (m)

• Irani: Õigusti

• revolution: revolutsioon (n)

Russian:

• Airstrike: воздушное нападение (n), наносить удар (v)

• Iran: собственное имя (страна)

• revolution: революция (f)

Chinese (Simplified):

• Airstrike: 空袭 (kong1 ji2) (v/n)

• Iran: 伊朗 - Yī lǎng [伊朗]

• revolution: 革命 (gé mìng) (n)

Chinese (Traditional):

• Airstrike: 空襲 (kōng jī) (v/n)

• Iran: 伊朗 - Yī lǎng [伊朗]

• revolution: 革命 (gé mìng) (n)

Sample sentence translations:

Airstrikes hit Iran, but a revolution requires rebellion.

• Les frappes aériennes frappent l'Iran, mais une révolution nécessite une rébellion. (French)

• Ataques aéreos alcanzan Irán, pero una revolución requiere rebelión. (Spanish)

• Luftangriffe treffen den Iran, aber eine Revolution erfordert Rebellion. (German)

• Õhupükse jaab Iraani. Käesolevat revolutsiooni jaoks on vajalik vastupanu. (Estonian)

• Воздушные удары по Ирану, но революция требует восстания (Russian)

• 空袭伊朗，革命需反叛。(Chinese)