Recently in International Law Category

Im sure everyone heard about the recent attempted terrorist attack in times square. I personally think it is pretty scary that after all the security precautions that are in use these days at airports and in the United States in general, this could still happen. It kinda makes you think there is really nothing that we can do about terrorism. This article explains that Faisal Shahzad was pulled off of a plane in which he was attempting to escape to the middle east after a car bomb that he had set up in the middle of Times Square inadvertantly didnt go off. Shahzad was on a plane that was taxxing down the run way attempting to take off when authorities demanded the plane be turned around. The FBI has associated Shahzad with the Pakistan Taliban. He has admitted on video that he was behind the attempted bombing. He is facing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction charges. Obama stated that 100s of lives were saved thanks so the actions of an ordinary citizen and law enforcement.  

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100504/ap_on_re_us/us_times_square_car_bomb

I have came across this article in which a british tv program host has been arrested for murder after he had admitted that he assisted in the death of a former lover that was diagnoses with aids.  Euthanasia is a topic that has been debated in the past. Euthanasia or "mercy killing" is when someone helps a terminally ill person commit suicide to "stop the suffering" I wrote a research paper on this topic at the community college I attended. I think that it is a interesting topic to discuss. Many people will hopefully never experience a loved one being diagnosed with a terminal illness so it is hard to be put into that position just by imaginating it. I am not sure if this should be accepted or not. A person that is terminally ill and is experiencing extreme pain and suffering and there is nothing that the medical field is able to do for that person, and that person is wanting the pain to stop. Should the euthanasia process be able to be carried out legally if it can be done in a "humane" way? I dont know.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/17/bbc.presenter.arrest/index.html 

Veritaserum... Fact or Fiction?

After reading other people's posts this afternoon about lie detection, I started looking for real life chemicals that might make someone spill their secrets. Most of what I found led me to believe that truth serums are better left for pages in a science-fiction novel but I did find one article interesting, on Wikipedia of all places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_serum

Granted, Wikipedia's reliability isn't the greatest but generally speaking they are good for some stuff so I am going to take their word for it for arguments sake. According to this article, there are certain chemicals that can induce people to tell the truth. These chemicals have been deemed unethical under the grounds of torture in international law however they can be used for psychiatry purposes. The reliability of these drugs are called to question in this article as it states that the drugs do not actually cause people to tell the truth, it is the fact that the people the drugs are being administered to BELIEVE that they cannot tell a lie under the influence of the drug. It also states that the drugs causes people to talk more frequently thereby releasing more information and maybe telling more truths.

I found this information very interesting especially the part about it being illegal in international law. Now I am just as much for civil liberties as the next person but I do not feel that this should fall under the guidelines as torture from an international legal standard. I suppose one could argue that in a very contrived scenario where someone is administering truth serum on a governmental figure to obtain information (let's say codes to our nuclear weapons arsenal) then YES maybe then you can view truth serum as torture (although if someone wants access to our nukes then they probably don't care about international law anyway). What do you think? Is a truth serum unethical? If so why or why not?

(For those that didn't get the title reference, Veritaserum is a fictional truth serum)

Bernhard Schlink's novel, The Reader, is one of my all favorite novels because it not only deals with law and psychology but it also is a piece of Holocaust literature. The novel follows narrator, Michael Berg, as he retells his past in three epic parts. The novel begins in West Germany in 1958, almost 13 years after WWII. When Michael was a teenager, he had an affair with a 36 year old train conductress named Hanna. Their relationship was mostly sexual but Michael began to grow strong feelings for Hanna. Hanna was very "down to business" with Michael and very closed off about her past. One of her favorite things to do with Michael was to have him read to her after they had made love. There affair lasts several months until one day Hanna disappeared. Part II of the novel opens several years later with Michael beginning law school. As one of his assignments for law school, Michael observes a war crime trial that attempts to interrogate and punish those who committed war crimes in the Holocaust. On trial is a group of middle-aged women who were active SS officers during WWII and helped guard one of the concentration camps. Michael is shocked and surprised to find out that Hanna was amongst those who were accused.

I do not want to spoil what happens for those who wish to read this book and/or watch the movie, but Part III deals with Michael's life after the trial and what has became of him and Hanna. In Part III several questions are raised that have to do with both the legal world and psychology. One of the main questions that are raised is what are the second generation suppose to do with their Nazi past. In an interview, Schlink has said that one of his favorite professors in school had a visible swastika tattoo. How are the children of the perpetrators suppose to deal with the guilt of their parents as the events of the Holocaust become common knowledge in the 1950s and 1960s? And who can we persecute legally for those who were involved with what had happened in the Holocaust? Surely those who committed murders, but weren't those who committed the murders in fact just following the governments orders? Who can we hold responsible for their actions and where the perpetrators just victims themselves? These are all the things that the book deals with. I would strongly recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in the Holocaust, history, or international law.

http://www.amazon.com/Reader-Bernhard-Schlink/dp/0753801728/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265914414&sr=8-6 

Can you imagine having one of your children taken away from you by your spouse, and have them take the child abroad to where you couldn't get to them?  Well it actually happened to David Goldman.  David's son Sean was taken by his mother.  David's wife told David and his family that she wanted to take Sean to her home country of Brazil so that her family could see Sean.  They agreed to the trip.  After David's wife and son landed in Brazil, David's wife called him to tell him that their marriage was over and Sean would never return to the US.  This website is David's website to try and bring back Sean.  (Sean is now back in the US.)

http://bringseanhome.org/index.html

 In this article, you will read about what happened and why this custody battle raged on for 6 years.  On December 24, 2009, the father and son were finally reunited and told they could both go back to the US together. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091224/ts_nm/us_brazil_usa_boy