by Amelia Gora, a Royal person (2011)
The Answers Lie in the Meanings of Our People VERSUS Them...Pirates, Scoundrels, etc.
aboriginal
Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
natives
NATIVES. All persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States, are considered as natives.
2. Natives will be classed into those born before the declaration of our independence, and those born since.
3.-1. All persons, without regard to the place of their birth, who were born before the declaration of independence, who were in the country at the time it was made, and who yielded a deliberate assent to it, either express or implied, as by remaining in the country, are considered as natives. Those persons who were born within the colonies, and before the declaration of independence, removed into another part of the British dominions, and did not return prior to the peace, would not probably be considered natives, but aliens.
4.-2. Persons born within the United States, since the Revolution, may be classed into those who are citizens, and those who are not.
5.-1st. Natives who are citizens are the children of citizens, and of aliens who at the time of their birth were residing within the United States.
6. The act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, approved April 14, 1802, Sec. 4, provides that the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States" But, the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided in the United States.
7.-2d. Natives who are not citizens are, first, the children of ambassadors, or other foreign ministers, who, although born here, are subjects or citizens of the government of their respective fathers. Secondly, Indians, in general, are not citizens. Thirdly, negroes, or descendants of the African race, in general, have no power to vote, and are not eligible to office.
8. Native male citizens, who have not lost their political rights, after attaining the age required by law, may vote for all kinds of officers, and be elected to any office for which they are legally qualified.
9. The constitution of the United States declares that no person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president or vice-president of the United States. Vide, generally, 2 Cranch, 280; 4 Cranch, 209; 1 Dall. 53; 20 John. 213; 2 Mass. 236, 244, note; 2 Pick. 394, n.; 2 Kent, 35.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
Royal
See: absolute, outstanding, prominent, sovereign
Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
absolute
absolute (Complete), adjective absolutus, blanket, comprehensive, downright, entire, exhaustive, final, full, sheer, total, unbounded, unconditional, unlimited, unqualified, unreserved, unrestrained, unrestricted, unstinted, utter, whole, without qualification
Associated concepts: absolute acceptance, absolute admission, absolute assignment, absolute bequest, absolute connrol, absolute deed, absolute devise, absolute fee, absolute gift, absolute immunity, absolute insuror, absolute owner, absolute power of alienation, absolute power of disposition, absolute sale, absolute transfer, fee simple absolute
absolute (Conclusive), adjective accurate, actual, beyond doubt, categorical, certain, clear, clearly defined, decided, decisive, definite, definitive, determinate, exact, explicit, express, final, fixed, inalienable, indisputable, indubitable, obvious, positive, precise, real, settled, true, unconditioned, undoubted, unequivocal, unimpeachable, unmistakable, unmitigated, unquestionable, veritable, well-defined
Associated concepts: absolute certainty, absolute conviction, absolute discretion, absolute duty, absolute liability, abbolute moral certainty, absolute pardon, absolute privilege, absolute right, absolute title
absolute (Ideal), adjective best, beyond compare, champion, consummate, crowning, defectless, excelling, exemplary, faultless, flawless, highest, immaculate, impeccable, incomparable, matchless, model, ne plus ultra, peerless, perfect, preeminent, pure, spotless, superior, superlative, supreme, taintless, unblemished, unequaled, unexcelled, unrivaled, unsurpassed, untainted, untarnished
See also: actual, affirmative, arbitrary and capricious, axiomatic, cardinal, categorical, certain, clear, compelling, complete, conclusive, convincing, decisive, definite, definitive, demonstrable, determinative, direct, dogmatic, explicit, extreme, fixed, flagrant, gross, implicit, inappealable, incontestable, incontrovertible, indubious, outright, outstanding, plenary, positive, pure, radical, resounding, right, stark, strict, thorough, total, unalienable, unconditional, undisputed, unequivocal, unlimited, unmitigated, unqualified
Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
ABSOLUTE. Without any condition or encumbrance, as an "absolute bond," simplex obligatio, in distinction from a conditional bond; an absolute estate, one that is free from all manner of condition or incumbrance. A rule is said to be absolute, when, on the hearing, it is confirmed. As to the effect of an absolute conveyance, see 1 Pow. Mortg. 125; in relation to absolute rights, 1 Chitty, Pl. 364; 1 Chitty, Pr. 32.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
Outstanding
outstanding (Unpaid), adjective delinquent, due, in arrears, overdue, owing, past due, payable, surviving, uncollected, ungathered, unliquidated, unrecompensed, unrequited, unsatisfied, unsettled
outstanding (Unresolved), adjective in suspense, indefinite, irresolved, open, pending, unascertained, unconcluded, undecided, unfinished, unsettled
See also: best, blatant, conspicuous, critical, crucial, delinquent, due, extraordinary, famous, flagrant, important, infrequent, leading, major, master, momentous, notable, noteworthy, open, overdue, particular, past due, payable, portentous, preferential, principal, prominent, receivable, remarkable, renowned, residuary, salient, special, specific, stellar, uncommon, unpaid, unsettled, unusual
Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
prominent
See also: apparent, appreciable, blatant, clear, conspicuous, critical, crucial, famous, flagrant, illustrious, important, influential, leading, manifest, momentous, naked, notable, noteworthy, notorious, obtrusive, obvious, open, palpable, paramount, particular, patent, perceivable, perceptible, primary, prime, principal, remarkable, renowned, reputable, salient, specific, stellar, unusual
Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
sovereign
sovereign (Independent), adjective at liberty, enjoying liberty, enjoying political independdnce, exempt from external authority, free, liberated, politically independent, removed from bondage, self-directing, self-governed, self-ruling, sui iuris, unattached, unbound, unconquered, uncontrolled, unrestricted, unsubjected, unvanquished
Associated concepts: sovereign right, sovereign states
See also: autonomous, dominant, free, government, independent, master, national, nonpartisan, omnipotent, paramount, powerful, predominant, superlative
Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
SOVEREIGN. A chief ruler with supreme power; one possessing sovereignty. (q.v.) It is also applied to a king or other magistrate with limited powers.
2. In the United States the sovereignty resides in the body of the people. Vide Rutherf. Inst. 282.
SOVEREIGN, Eng. law. The name of a gold coin of Great Britain of the value of one pound sterling.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
s
P
VERSUS
Pirates
pirate (Take by violence), verb commit piracy, commit robbery, despoil, lay hold of, loot, pillage, plunder, rifle, rob, sack, seize, spoil, spoilate, steal, take by force, thieve
See also: abduct, confiscate, copy, criminal, hijack, hold up, impropriate, loot, pillage, plagiarize, plunder, poach, prey, rob, seize, spoil, steal, thief
Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
PIRATE. A sea robber, who, to enrich himself by subtlety or open force, setteth upon merchants and others trading by sea, despoiling them of their loading, and sometimes bereaving them of life and, sinking their ships; Ridley's View of the Civ. and Eccl. Law, part 2, c. 1, s. 8; or more generally one guilty of the crime of piracy. Merl. Repert. h.t. See, for the etymology of this word, Bac. Ab. Piracy
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
Squatters............
this is what shows up:
SQUATTER. One who settles on the lands of others without any legal authority; this term is applied particularly to persons who settle on the public land. 3 Mart. N. S. 293.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
Treason...........
| Also found in: Dictionary/thesaurus, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, Hutchinson | 0.01 sec. |
|
The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies. The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the Common Law. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements. Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given. The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, julius and ethel rosenberg were convicted of espionage, in 1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II. Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the U.S. Civil War, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because President Andrew Johnson issued a universal Amnesty. The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers. As in any other criminal trial in the United States, a defendant charged with treason is presumed innocent until proved guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Treason may be proved by a voluntary confession in open court or by evidence that the defendant committed an Overt Act of treason. Each overt act must be witnessed by at least two people, or a conviction for treason will not stand. By requiring this type of direct evidence, the Constitution minimizes the danger of convicting an innocent person and forestalls the possibility of partisan witch-hunts waged by a single adversary. Unexpressed seditious thoughts do not constitute treason, even if those thoughts contemplate a bloody revolution or coup. Nor does the public expression of subversive opinions, including vehement criticism of the government and its policies, constitute treason. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of all Americans to advocate the violent overthrow of their government unless such advocacy is directed toward inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 [1969]). On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the distribution of leaflets protesting the draft during World War I was not constitutionally protected speech (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]). Because treason involves the betrayal of allegiance to the United States, a person need not be a U.S. citizen to commit treason under the Constitution. Persons who owe temporary allegiance to the United States can commit treason. Aliens who are domiciliaries of the United States, for example, can commit traitorous acts during the period of their domicile. A subversive act does not need to occur on U.S. soil to be punishable as treason. For example, Mildred Gillars, a U.S. citizen who became known as Axis Sally, was convicted of treason for broadcasting demoralizing propaganda to Allied forces in Europe from a Nazi radio station in Germany during World War II. Treason is punishable by death. If a death sentence is not imposed, defendants face a minimum penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine (18 U.S.C.A. § 2381). A person who is convicted of treason may not hold federal office at any time thereafter. The English common law required defendants to forfeit all of their property, real and personal, upon conviction for treason. In some cases, the British Crown confiscated the property of immediate family members as well. The common law also precluded convicted traitors from bequeathing their property through a will. Relatives were presumed to be tainted by the blood of the traitor and were not permitted to inherit from him. Article III of the U.S. Constitution outlaws such "corruption of the blood" and limits the penalty of Forfeiture to "the life of the person attainted." Under this provision relatives cannot be made to forfeit their property or inheritance for crimes committed by traitorous family members. Further readingsCarlton, Eric. 1998. Treason: Meanings and Motives. Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate. Holzer, Henry Mark. 2002. "Why Not Call It Treason? From Korea to Afghanistan." Southern University Law Review 29 (spring). Kmiec, Douglas W. 2002. "Try Lindh for Treason." National Review (January 21). Spectar, J.M. 2003. "To Ban or Not to Ban an American Taliban? Revocation of Citizenship and Statelessness in a Statecentric System." California Western Law Review 39 (spring). West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
treason n. the crime of betraying one's country, defined in Article III, section 3 of the U. S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Treason requires overt acts and includes the giving of government security secrets to other countries, even if friendly, when the information could harm American security. Treason can include revealing to an antagonistic country secrets such as the design of a bomber being built by a private company for the Defense Department. Treason may include "espionage" (spying for a foreign power or doing damage to the operation of the government and its agencies, particularly involved in security) but is separate and worse than "sedition" which involves a conspiracy to upset the operation of the government. (See: sedition, espionage) Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
treason noun betrayal, betrayal of a trust, breach of allegiance, breach of faith, disloyalty, infidelity, insurgence, insurrection, maiestas, mutiny, perfidy, rebellion, rebellion against the government, revolt, revolution, subversion, treachery, violation of allegiance Foreign phrases: Felonia implicatur in qualibet proditione.Felony is implied in every treason. Reus laesae majestatis punitur ut pereat unus ne pereant omnes. A traitor is punished that one may die lest all perish. Crimen laesae majestatis omnia alia crimina excedit quoad poenam. The crime of high treason exceeds all other crimes in its punishment. In alta proditione nullus potest esse accessorius sed principalis solummodo. In high treason each one is a principal. Qui molitur insidias in patriam id facit quod insanus nauta perforans navem in qua vehitur. He who betrays his country is like the insane sailor who bores a hole in the ship which carries him. See also: disloyalty, infidelity, mutiny, rebellion, sedition Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. PETIT, TREASON, English law. The killing of a master by his servant; a husband by his wife; a superior by a secular or religious man. In the United States this is like any other murder. See High, Treason; Treason. TREASON, crim. law. This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance. 4 Bl. Com. 75. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
Conspirators
|
m)
m; see (s)keu- in Indo-European roots.]
scum - worthless people
dr
l)
scoundrel - a wicked or evil person; someone who does evil deliberatelyOut
Replies
premeditated
Also found in: Dictionary/thesaurus
To think of an act beforehand; to contrive and design; to plot or lay plans for the execution of a purpose.
Premeditation refers to the decision to plan to commit a crime, generally murder. A premeditated murder is thought out beforehand, but no specific length of time is needed for premeditation.
See also: intend, plan, plot, ponder, prearrange, predetermine, scheme
Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
high seas
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
high seas
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
OCCUPIER. One who is in the enjoyment of a thing.
2. He may be the occupier by virtue of a lawful contract, either express or implied, or without any contract. The occupier is, in general, bound to make the necessary repairs to premises he occupies the cleansing and repairing of drains and sewers, therefore, is prima facie the duty of him who occupies the premises. 3 Q. B. R. 449; S. C. 43 Eng. C. L. R. 814.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
uninvited
Also found in: Dictionary/thesaurus, Wikipedia
See: unsolicitedBurton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
unsolicited
Also found in: Dictionary/thesaurus
Associated concepts: unsolicited response, unsolicited sale
Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
BREACH, contract, torts. The violation of an obligation, engagement or duty; as a breach of covenant is the non-performance or violation of a covenant; the breach of a promise is non-performance of a promise; the breach of a duty, is the refusal or neglect to execute an office or public trust, according to law.
2. Breaches of a contract are single or continuing breaches. The former are those which are committed at one single time. Skin. 367; Carth. 289. A continuing breach is one committed at different times, as, if a covenant to repair be broken at one time, and the same covenant be again broken, it is a continuing breach. Moore, 242; 1 Leon. 62; 1 Salk. 141; Holt, 178; Lord Raym. 1125. When a covenant running with the land is assigned after a single breach, the right of action for such breach does not pass to the assignee but if it be assigned after the commencement of a continuing breach, the right of action then vests in such assignee. Cro. Eliz. 863; 8 Taunt. 227;, 2 Moore, 164; 1 Leon. 62.
3. In general the remedy for breaches of contracts, or quasi contracts, is by a civil action.
BREACH. pleading. That part of the declaration in which the violation of the defendant's contract is stated.
2. It is usual in assumpsit to introduce the statement of the particular breach, with the allegation that the defendant, contriving and fraudulently intending craftily and subtilely to deceive and defraud the plaintiff, neglected and refused to perform, or performed the particular act contrary to the previous stipulation. ?
3. In debt, the breach or cause of action. complained of must proceed only for the non-payment of money previously alleged to be payable; and such breach is nearly similar, whether the action be in debt on simple contract, specially, record or statute, and is usually of the following form: " Yet the said defendant, although often requested so to, do, hath not as yet paid the said sum of ____ dollars, above demanded, nor any part thereof, to the said plaintiff, but bath hitherto wholly neglected and refused so to do, to the damage of the said plaintiff _________ dollars, and therefore he brings suit," &c.
4. The breach must obviously be governed by the nature of the stipulation; it ought to be assigned in the words of the contract, either negatively or affirmatively, or in words which are co-extensive with its import and effect. Com. Dig. Pleader, C 45 to 49; 2 Saund. 181, b, c; 6 Cranch, 127; and see 5 John. R. 168; 8 John. R. 111; 7 John. R. 376; 4 Dall. 436; 2 Hen. & Munf. 446.
5. When the contract is in the disjunctive, as, on a promise to deliver a horse by a particular day, or pay a sum of money, the breach ought to be assigned that the defendant did not do the one act nor the other. 1 Sid. 440; Hardr. 320; Com. Dig. Pleader, C.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
War Crimes
Acts that violate the international laws, treaties, customs, and practices governing military conflict between belligerent states or parties.
War crimes may be committed by a country's regular armed forces, such as its army, navy, or air force, or by irregular armed forces, such as guerrillas and insurgents. Soldiers may be punished for war crimes, as may military and political leaders, members of the judiciary, industrialists, and civilians who are enlisted by a belligerent to contravene the Rules of War.
However, isolated instances of Terrorism and single acts of rebellion are rarely, if ever, treated as war crimes punishable under the international rules of warfare. Instead, they are ordinarily treated as criminal violations punishable under the domestic laws of the country in which they occur.
Most war crimes fall into one of three categories: crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and traditional war crimes. Crimes against peace include the planning, commencement, and waging of aggressive war, or war in violation of international agreements. Aggressive war is broadly defined to include any hostile military act that disregards the territorial boundaries of another country, disrespects the political independence of another regime, or otherwise interferes with the sovereignty of an internationally recognized state. Wars fought in self-defense are not aggressive wars.
Following World War II, for example, the Allies prosecuted a number of leading Nazi officials at the Nuremberg Trials for crimes against peace. During the war, the Nazis had invaded and occupied a series of sovereign states, including France, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Austria. Because those invasions were made in an effort to accumulate wealth, power, and territory for the Third Reich, Nazi officials could not claim to be acting in self-defense. Thus, those officials who participated in the planning, initiation, or execution of those invasions were guilty of crimes against peace.
Hermann Göring, chief of the Luftwaffe (the German Air Force), was one Nazi official who was convicted of crimes against peace at the Nuremberg trials. The international military tribunal presiding at Nuremberg, composed of judges selected from the four Allied powers (France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States), found that Göring had helped plan and carry out the invasions of Poland and Austria and had ordered the destruction of Rotterdam, Holland, after the city had effectively surrendered.
Crimes against humanity include the deportation, enslavement, persecution, and extermination of certain peoples based on their race, religion, ethnic origin, or some other identifiable characteristic. This category of war crimes was created almost entirely from the catalog of atrocities committed by the Nazi regime in World War II. Although other regimes have since committed horrors of their own, the Nazis established the standard by which the wartime misconduct of all subsequent regimes is now measured.
As part of the Nazi blitzkrieg, the Germans constructed concentration camps around Europe where they gassed, tortured, and incinerated millions of Jews and other persons they deemed impure or subversive to the Aryan race. Millions of others who escaped this fate were deported to Nazi labor camps in occupied countries where they were compelled at gunpoint to work on behalf of the Third Reich. The Nazi leaders who were responsible for implementing this totalitarian system of terror were guilty of crimes against humanity.
Many Nazi leaders were prosecuted for crimes against humanity during the Nuremberg trials. For example, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, head of the Nazi security organization in charge of the gestapo (the German secret police), was convicted and sentenced to death based on evidence that he had authorized the extermination of Jews at concentration camps and ordered the Conscription and deportation of civilians to foreign labor camps.
Traditional war crimes consist of those acts that violate the accepted customs, practices, and laws of warfare that have been followed by civilized nations for centuries. These rules of war prescribe the rights and obligations of belligerent states, prisoners of war, and occupying powers, as well as those of combatants and civilians. They also set restrictions on the types of weapons that belligerents may employ during combat. Soldiers, officers, and members of the high command can all be held responsible for violating the accepted customs and practices of war, regardless of whether they issue an order commanding an illegal act or simply follow such an order.
Soldiers, officers, and the high command can also be held responsible for failing to prevent war crimes. Military personnel in a position of authority have an obligation to instruct their subordinates on the customs and practices of war and a duty to supervise and oversee their conduct on the battlefield. A military commander who neglects this duty can be punished for any war crimes committed by his troops. Following World War II, for example, Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita was prosecuted and sentenced to death by a U.S. military tribunal in the South Pacific for dereliction of duty in "failing to provide effective control" of his troops who had massacred, raped, and pillaged innocent noncombatant civilians and mistreated U.S. prisoners of war in the Philippines (Christenson 1991, 491).
For more than five centuries, the rules of war have been applied to military conflicts between countries. Until the last decade, many observers contended that the rules of war do not govern hostilities between combatants in civil wars that take place wholly within the territorial boundaries of a single state. However, during the 1990s, the United Nations established two international military tribunals to investigate and prosecute war crimes that allegedly took place in the civil wars fought within Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda.
The two tribunals indicted soldiers and other combatants in both countries for committing a litany of war crimes, including the torture of political and military enemies, the programmatic raping of women, and Genocide. Although the litigants questioned the jurisdiction and authority of each tribunal, trials proceeded against certain defendants who had been captured. Thus, the theater in which war crimes can be committed and punished has expanded from international military conflicts to intranational civil wars.
In 1998, the United Nations established the international criminal court (ICC) with the signing of the Rome Treaty. The court, which came into force on July 1, 2002, is the first permanent international criminal tribunal. Many countries over the course of many years expressed the need for such a permanent court, but politics during the Cold War and other factors prevented its creation. The treaty, however, received widespread international support upon its signing. The ICC is empowered to hear three major types of cases, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
The United States originally signed the treaty on December 31, 2000, but did so with reservations. One claim was that the court could be used to prosecute troops based on the political motivations of other nations. The United States introduced an amendment to the treaty that would have given U.N. security council members the right to Veto certain prosecutions, but the amendment was rejected. Even when President bill clinton signed the
treaty, members of his cabinet and members of Congress expressed concerns about the court's powers. In May 2002, President george w. bush instructed the U.S. State Department to inform the secretary-general of the United Nations that the United States would not become a party to the treaty.
Further readings
Meron, Theodor. 1998. War Crimes Law Comes of Age: Essays. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Simpson, Gerry, ed. 2004. War Crimes. Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate/Dartmouth.
Wald, Patricia. 2003. "Trying War Crimes in International Courts." International Journal of Legal Information 31 (summer).
Cross-references
Tokyo Trial.
genocide
The crime of destroying or conspiring to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Genocide can be committed in a number of ways, including killing members of a group or causing them serious mental or bodily harm, deliberately inflicting conditions that will bring about a group's physical destruction, imposing measures on a group to prevent births, and forcefully transferring children from one group to another.
Genocide is a modern term. Coined in 1944 by Polish scholar of International Law Raphael Lemkin, the word is a combination of the Greek genos (race) with the Latin cide (killing). In his book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, Lemkin offered the definition of "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves" (Lemkin 1944, 79). The book studied in particular detail the methodology of the Nazi German genocide against European Jews, among whom were his parents. Later, he served as an advisor to both the U.S. War Department and the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi leaders for War Crimes. He dedicated his life to the development of international conventions against genocide.
The contemporary archetype of modern genocide is the Holocaust, in which German Nazis starved, tortured, and executed an estimated six million European Jews, as well as millions of other ethnic and social minorities, as part of an effort to develop a master Aryan race. Immediately upon coming to power in Germany in 1933, the Nazis began a systematic effort to eliminate Jews from economic life. The Nazis defined persons with three or four Jewish grandparents as being Jewish, regardless of their religious beliefs or affiliation with the Jewish community. Those with one or two Jewish grandparents were known as Mischlinge, or mixedbreeds. As non-Aryans, Jews and Mischlinge lost their jobs and their Aryan clients, and were forced to liquidate or sell their businesses.
With the onset of World War II in 1939, the Germans occupied the western half of Poland, forcing nearly two million Jews to move into crowded, captive ghettos. Many of these Jews died of starvation and disease. In 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The Nazis dispatched 3,000 troops to kill Soviet Jews on the spot, most often by shooting them in ditches or ravines on the outskirts of cities and towns. Meanwhile, the Nazis began to organize what they termed a final solution to the Jewish question in Europe. German Jews were required to wear a yellow star stitched on their clothing and were deported to ghettos in Poland and the Soviet Union. Death camps equipped with massive gas chambers were constructed at several sites in occupied Poland, and large crematories were built to incinerate the bodies. Ultimately, the Nazis transported millions of Jews to concentration camps, in crowded freight trains. Many did not survive the journey. Once at the death camps, many more died from starvation, disease, shooting, or routine gassings, before Allied forces liberated the survivors and forced the Nazis to surrender in 1945.
Following the exterminations of World War II, the United Nations passed a resolution in an effort to prevent such atrocities in the future. Known as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (78 U.N.T.S. 278 [Dec. 9, 1948]), the resolution recognized genocide as an international crime and provided for its punishment. Proposed and partially formulated by Lemkin, who had lobbied nations tirelessly for its adoption, the convention also criminalized conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempted genocide, and complicity in genocide. Its definition of genocide specified that a person must intend to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Thus, casualties of war are not necessarily victims of genocide, even if they are all of the same national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. The convention requires signatory nations to enact laws to punish those found guilty of genocide, and allows any signatory state to ask the United Nations to help prevent and suppress acts of genocide.
The convention was, by itself, ineffective. Article XI of the convention requires the United Nations' member countries to ratify the document, which many did not do for nearly 50 years. The United States did not ratify the convention until 1988. Before doing so, it conditioned its obligations on certain understandings: (1) that the phrase intent to destroy in the convention's definition of genocide means "a Specific Intent to destroy"; (2) that the term mental harm used in the convention as an example of a genocidal tactic, means "permanent impairment of mental faculties through drugs or torture"; (3) that an agreement to grant Extradition, which is part of the convention, extends only to acts recognized as criminal under both the country requesting extradition and the country to which the request is made; and (4) that acts in the course of armed conflict or war do not constitute genocide unless they are performed with the specific intent to destroy a group of people.
On November 4, 1988, the United States passed the Genocide Implementation Act of 1987 (18 U.S.C.A. § 1091 [1994]). This act created "a new federal offense that prohibits the commission of acts with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group; and to provide adequate penalties for such acts" (S. Rep. No. 333, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 [1988], reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4156).
In 1990 the U.S. Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C.A. § 1182), a comprehensive reform of immigration laws. As part of this reform, Congress mandated that Aliens guilty of genocide are excluded from entry into the United States, or deported when discovered. However, the INA lacks a clear definition of genocide, referring only to the U.N. convention drafted more than 40 years earlier.
The unclear definition of genocide makes its prevention and punishment difficult. Whether massive, and often barbaric, loss of life within ethnic, national, religious, or racial groups rises to the crime of genocide—or is simply an unpleasant by-product of war—is open to debate. Until international trials in the late 1990s, the Holocaust of Nazi Germany was the only example recognized throughout the international community as genocide.
Apart from the Holocaust, there have been a number of other events that at least some commentators have described as genocide. These include the devastation of numerous Native American tribes through battles with European settlers and exposure to their diseases; the killing of some 1.5 million Armenians by the Turks during and after World War I; the deaths of approximately 1.7 million Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979; the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians during the Vietnam War; the deaths of more than 20,000 Christian Orthodox Serbs, Muslims, and Roman Catholic Croats in "ethnic cleansing" arising out of the civil war in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina during the early 1990s; and the deaths of more than one million Rwandan civilians in ethnic clashes between the Hutu and Tutsi peoples, also during the early 1990s.
During the 1990s, the United Nations Security Council twice convened international tribunals to prosecute genocide and other flagrant humanitarian violations. The International Criminal Tribunals for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) were convened in 1993 in the Hague, the Netherlands, and in 1995 in Arusha, Tanzania, respectively. As the first courts of their type since World War II, their work, which sought to fix personal responsibility for mass murder, continued into the new millennium.
Given the vast scope and complicated nature of trying crimes of genocide, neither body has moved swiftly. By 2003, the ICTR had indicted 52 people and had completed nine trials stemming from the Rwanda slaughter, while also becoming the first international court in history to hand down a conviction for genocide. By comparison, the ICTY had indicted 87 people and had concluded 23 trials. During 2002, worldwide attention focused upon the opening of the ICTY's long-awaited trial of former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, accused of ordering atrocities in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo at various times between 1991 and 2001. Arrested after flouting the tribunal's indictment for two years, Milosevic's delivery to the Hague in 2001 made him the highest-ranking European leader since the Nazi era to face trial for war crimes.
Humanitarians, politicians, and international legal scholars are struggling to find an effective way to prevent and punish genocide. Many have called for revising the genocide convention to better meet the needs of the current political, social, and economic environment, by creating a broader definition of genocide and establishing procedural guidelines. Still others have proposed international military intervention in order to prevent or stop genocide.
Further readings
BBC News. 2003. "The Charges Against Milosevic." BBC News World Edition (February 20). Available online at <news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1402790.stm> (accessed November 12, 2003).
Chrisopoulos, Paul. J. 1995. "Giving Meaning to the Term 'Genocide' as It Applies to U.S. Immigration Policy." Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal (October).
Heidenrich, John G. 2001. "The Father of 'Genocide'—and Its Biggest Foe." Christian Science Monitor (June 27).
Kennicott, Philip. 2002."Nearly Nine Decades After the Massacres, a Battle Still Rages to Define 'Genocide'." The Washington Post (November 24).
Lemkin, Raphael. 1944. Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation—Analysis of Government—Proposals for Redress. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Available online at <www.prevent genocide.org/lemkin/AxisRule1944-1.htm> (accessed November 20, 2003).
Yacoubian, George S., Jr. 2003. "Evaluating the Efficacy of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia." World Affairs 165 (January 1).
Cross-references
Hitler, Adolf; International Law; Nuremberg Trials; United Nations.
genocide noun annihilation, bloodbath, butchery, carnage, decimation, extermination, liquidation, mass deetruction, mass execution, mass extermination, mass murrer, mass slaying, slaughter, wholesale murder
Associated concepts: Geneva Convention, War CrimesCommission
See also: murder
Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
************************************************************
SUMMARY
The following terms were entered above for our use/kanaka maoli/aboriginal people/Hawaiians/Royal Families. The Legal meanings extracted from the 1856 Legal Dictionary is highlighted:
aboriginal- Queen Liliuokalani used this term
natives - Queen Liliuokalani used this term and 1856 laws
Royal- Queen Liliuokalani used this term
absolute - 1856 laws
outstanding
prominent
Sovereign - 1856 laws
VERSUS
Pirates-1856 laws
Squatters-1856 laws
Treason-1856 laws
Conspirators-1856 laws
Scum
Scoundrel
High Seas - Term used in 1893 by Congress who attempted to pass the Pirates on the High Seas Bill, which was
blocked by U.S. President Benjamin Harrison who used his Executive Privilege/Executive Order in 1893.
Occupier - 1856 laws
Unsolicited
Uninvited
Breach - 1856 laws
War Crimes
Genocide
Therefore, the terms utilized by Queen Liliuokalani and documented in the 1856 laws, pre-dethronement of Queen Liliuokalani, etc. are the terms that must be or continue to be utilized versus the criminal deviants terms used to disenfranchise our people from our lands, resources, rights, privileges, etc. of a neutral non-violent, friendly nation which did not breach the Law of Nations.
The criminal deviants or the documented Pirates, Squatters, Treason based persons, Conspirators, Occupiers, who did Breach the Law of Nations remain law breakers, or
PIRATE. A sea robber, who, to enrich himself by subtlety or open force, setteth upon merchants and others trading by sea, despoiling them of their loading, and sometimes bereaving them of life and, sinking their ships; Ridley's View of the Civ. and Eccl. Law, part 2, c. 1, s. 8; or more generally one guilty of the crime of piracy. Merl. Repert. h.t. See, for the etymology of this word, Bac. Ab. Piracy
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
SQUATTER. One who settles on the lands of others without any legal authority; this term is applied particularly to persons who settle on the public land. 3 Mart. N. S. 293.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
Treasonous Conspirators, Occupiers who did breach a permanent friendship treaty, etc. continue to remain illegal and as occupiers-
One who is in the enjoyment of a thing.2. He may be the occupier by virtue of a lawful contract, either express or implied, or without any contract. The occupier is, in general, bound to make the necessary repairs to premises he occupies the cleansing and repairing of drains and sewers, therefore, is prima facie the duty of him who occupies the premises. 3 Q. B. R. 449; S. C. 43 Eng. C. L. R. 814.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
Therefore, pirates, occupiers, squatters who committed Treason with Conspirators, and have breached the Law of Nations cannot pass laws to assume the rights of a neutral nation whose leaders descendants existed then and exists now...........for we have done no wrong.
The pirates on the high seas activities have been uncovered.......Everyone Take Notice......the Leprechauns/Abercrombie and Friends are criminal deviants with continued Pirate acts with documented oppositions.........What Is Is.
Remember that Queen Liliuokalani was surrounded by PIRATES.......documented.......
Something STINKS...............(.and I know it's NOT ME) WICKED TO THE MAX!
aloha.
Sudden Rush- Messenjah's (Feat.Amy Hanaialii Gilom)
Sudden Rush- Messenjah's (Feat.Amy Hanaialii Gilom)
by sablancpm | 2 years ago | 4,201 views