THE DD AWARDS VOTING BALLOT IS OPEN! PLEASE VOTE FOR WM!
Some legalese exchange here, and some questions from the bench seem to tilt the trial towards well, what was foreseeable anyway.
The Right to Resist and Right to Rebellion is a universal human right which has been established as such in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. Even with today’s watered down approaches to international law, insurgencies and movements of a population against their governance and/or aggressors/occupying forces are to be considered ‘hands off’ (with some quid pro quos).
Since it’s still 1942, it wouldn’t be until 1945 and the Charter of the United Nations of June 26 that the right to resist would be officially attached to the right to self-determination, and of course 1948 where it would be even more directly stated.
However, since as early as Thomas Aquinas, and a lot later Thomas Hobbs and John Locke, and definitely in the Declaration of Independence of 1776, the right to resist and to “civil disobedience” was referred to as a vital failsafe for the establishment and maintenance of a sound, fair, and valid social contract- not only a right, therefore, but an obligation.
Furthermore, the right to resist has been secured as a defense of the Constitution as early as Greece’s first revolutionary constitutions (prior to 1830) and officially in all Greek Constitutions since 1844.
That’s what the judge here is referring to.
The arguments put forth by Kalambouras aren’t recorded anywhere to have been said by him- they are my creative license, as they are of the most frequent arguments put forth by collaborators in people’s as well as official courts post-war, and it has been an argument put forth by the Nazis to justify the war crimes committed against the Greek population as well as the various reprisals (see The German Secret Field Police 1941-1944).
Sometimes, in some contexts, those arguments worked post-war despite the flimsy legal grounding or lack thereof. But not today, for this trial.
DID I MENTION, THE DD AWARDS VOTING BALLOT IS OPEN! VOTE FOR WM!!
Definitely caught him with that detail about getting paid. I'll say it again - I think I'd just give up and accept death. Though if I were really in the actual situation, maybe not. The fetal position seems appropriate at least...
I mean, if you really want to get down in the legal weeds for the fun of it, you could note that the Wiemar constitution was never actually repealed, but possession is 9/10 etc.
But I don't think that's too relevant at the moment.
Clutching at straws here. The right to resist was not recognized in the laws of war as sent up in various conferences before WW2. Non uniformed would be combatants were often deemed as criminals.
Oh, absolutely. Realpolitik and war actions that deviate from the general trajectory of legal intent/framework are not legal precedent though. That said, this entire thing is just legalese, not actual practice (and even today that holds imo, even for things a lot more law-established like no picking civilian targets for bombing, etc).
Peninsula War, Vendee in France early 19th C. For 1870-1 and 1914 Germans were notorious before WW2 for their reprisals. The history of the American Revolution has been considerably cleaned up.
The right to resist's grounding in international law existed even before the official recognition post WW2 (I've already covered the reasoning in the A/N) but absolutely, insurgents/resistance are always deemed criminal by those it's resisting, even with the laws in place. ;)
cdmalcolm1 at 4:17AM, Dec. 21, 2020
You should have thrown away the receipt buddy.
Tantz_Aerine at 6:40AM, Dec. 21, 2020
Yep. This line of defense is not very clever, but he doesn't have options..
Banes at 9:03AM, July 16, 2020
Definitely caught him with that detail about getting paid. I'll say it again - I think I'd just give up and accept death. Though if I were really in the actual situation, maybe not. The fetal position seems appropriate at least...
Tantz_Aerine at 12:01AM, July 17, 2020
I'd agree. :(
The doodler at 6:46PM, July 14, 2020
I mean, if you really want to get down in the legal weeds for the fun of it, you could note that the Wiemar constitution was never actually repealed, but possession is 9/10 etc. But I don't think that's too relevant at the moment.
Tantz_Aerine at 11:18PM, July 14, 2020
I suppose it'd depend on whether you can prove it's yours :P
PIT_FACE at 5:10AM, July 13, 2020
Not a happy scene but a good one.
Tantz_Aerine at 6:02AM, July 13, 2020
Thank you!
usedbooks at 3:59AM, July 13, 2020
When you're good at something, never do it for free. XD
Tantz_Aerine at 6:02AM, July 13, 2020
Word. XD
bravo1102 at 1:10AM, July 13, 2020
Clutching at straws here. The right to resist was not recognized in the laws of war as sent up in various conferences before WW2. Non uniformed would be combatants were often deemed as criminals.
Tantz_Aerine at 6:21AM, July 13, 2020
Oh, absolutely. Realpolitik and war actions that deviate from the general trajectory of legal intent/framework are not legal precedent though. That said, this entire thing is just legalese, not actual practice (and even today that holds imo, even for things a lot more law-established like no picking civilian targets for bombing, etc).
bravo1102 at 4:18AM, July 13, 2020
Peninsula War, Vendee in France early 19th C. For 1870-1 and 1914 Germans were notorious before WW2 for their reprisals. The history of the American Revolution has been considerably cleaned up.
Tantz_Aerine at 1:49AM, July 13, 2020
The right to resist's grounding in international law existed even before the official recognition post WW2 (I've already covered the reasoning in the A/N) but absolutely, insurgents/resistance are always deemed criminal by those it's resisting, even with the laws in place. ;)
Ozoneocean at 12:46AM, July 13, 2020
If only he didn't accept payment...? He probably wouldn't have done it then.
Tantz_Aerine at 12:53AM, July 13, 2020
Probably not. :(