Report from Greater Tokyo

Dear John:

I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart. I can forever be happy--will you let me be yours?

Harriet

Dear John:

I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men, I yearn. For you, I have no feelings whatsoever. When we're apart, I can forever be happy. Will you let me be?

Yours,

Harriet

I once saw a man in the forest. He was wearing loose green clothes; some kind of throw over smock and darker trousers. They had a kind of weird design, as if they were made from leaves, treated in some unknown fashion. It was of course hard top tell in the twilight. but there were glossy patches, as of fresh leaves, mixed with darker patches, some of them brown or red.

I, of course, was walking on the ground. He was in the trees. Who knows? I might have just imagined the whole episode. Perhaps it was just a bird. Certainly no ordinary man could have fled through the branches as he did when he saw me. Those branches would never have taken the weight of a normal man.

Today marks the 20th different JHS I have taught at in this city this school year. That's not counting the elementary schools, eikaiwas, and private/business lessons. Which is quite ridiculous. the curious thing about this one was that one female teacher was wearing stockings and a suspender belt under skirt that was slightly above the knee. Not what I would have considered appropriate clothing for a teacher on duty, but each to their own I guess.

As you may recall, last month my landlady thoughtfully threw away my shoes because she thought they were rubbish. Our friendship has since deteriorated.

So today I paid my rent, minus the cost of the shoes.

Needless to say, she was annoyed at that. She said she'd take it as part payment, and I said as far as I was considered, it was full payment and resolution for her throwing away my things. She then suggested I take it to court. I said that since I felt the money side of things was resolved, there was no need for me to do so, but should she feel the need to do so, she could do so herself.

Her parting shot was that it would come out of my deposit. Like I was expecting it all back anyway. This is a Japanese landlord we're talking about after all.

Saddam is on trial. This is no surprise to anyone.

There is one big reason why I am concerned about his rights. The destruction of the rule of law anywhere is a challenge to the rule of law everywhere. Paraphrased, I believe those are the words of one of the USA's founding fathers, although I can't be bothered to look it up. Even if they didn't say that, it would not change the truth of that statement. I defend his rights to proper legal procedure because in doing so, I defend everyone's right to the same.

First, I have no doubt that he had people killed, tortured, and so on. That isn't a question in my mind. The question is whether there is any jurisdiction with legal authority to try him for these actions. fwiw, I said a long time ago that the intelligent thing for the USA to do would be for him to be 'accidentally' killed in the raid that attempts to capture him.

So, there are a few possibilities I can see here. The trial is either under jurisdiction of domestic Iraqi law, war crimes law, 'common law/customary' International Law, International Court of Human Rights, or US "we won the war - hooah" law.

Domestic Iraqi law. As a dictatorial government, I found it hard to believe there wouldn't be a law somewhere saying something on the lines of the head of state is above the law. I don't know this for certain but I would not be surprised. Saddam seems to be an intelligent (but foolish) man, and as the sole authority from which Iraqi law had been made for decades prior to the actions he is accused of, I can't imagine he would have intentionally made himself open to accusation from his own laws.

War Crimes Law. At the time the actions were committed, Iraq was not at war with any nation, and so nothing he did could truly be classed as a war crime, there not being an actual war you see. And if war crimes law is going to be used, then invading Iraq by the USA is the most obvious violation of this. Saddam can of course be accused of the same wrt Kuwait, but I believe appropriate reparations were imposed and paid as part of the aftermath of that.

'common/customary' international law. I actually regard this as an extremely dubious law set to try anyone under. Analogously, though obviously at a far different level, it isn't much different from the common/customary contract vagueness that so many ALTs rage against. Unwritten rules are after all the hardest to fight either way. But under these rules, the USA is at least as guilty. Abu Ghraib, Camp X, renditions for torture, and that's just the stuff that's come to light.

Formal International Law, aka International COurt of Human Rights. Sorry, but neither Iraq nor the USA, the two main parties involved, seem to be signatories. No jurisdiiction at all here.

US "we won the war - hooah" law. That is what it looks like at present to me.

Let's see...

The Americans would have you believe they are rebels against the Iraqi government at best, terrorists at worst. I am well aware that these guys effectively declared war against the US forces in Iraq, which certainly qualifies them for the freedom fighter label. I am also aware aware that certain members of these groups did terrible things to civilians, which makes those individuals into criminals. But rebels? I am not aware that they ever rebelled against the government imposed on Iraq. That would imply that at some point they accepted it.

Next, the legality of WP as a weapon. It is certainly legal as an illumination device, but no one is pretending that that is what it was used as anymore; it was used as a chemical weapon. And the law on chemical weapons states that they not be used on civilians, or in places where civilians are expected to be, which certainly applies here. Note that this law is not completely idiotic for attackers; it does not ban conventional AP or HE weapons.

However, I think the USA (in common with certain rogue and failed nations) is one of the countries which has not signed/ratified the international law on chemical weapons. Which makes the whole debate on the legality and trials for the perps irrelevant; The USA isn't party to any law which makes this act illegal, and as much as I would like to see the perps suffer for this, doing so would defeat the rule of law.

The only real punishment that can be used is moral outrage, although I believe a few nations which practice global jurisdiction could legitimately arrest the leaders responsible if they engage in foreign travel.

I believe Saddam Hussein also has a similar defence for his alleged use of chemical weapons ten years earlier; there was no relevant law that was effective at the time to which Iraq was a signatory.

Yep, yesterday afternoon, 5 on the Richter scale. The house shook a bit, but nothing too serious, although it lasted a long time for such a low level quake.