Norms

One norm that I think is universally followed, at least within my peers, is the norm of raising one's hand before speaking in class. After close to 20 years of formal education, I find that this norm is strongly ingrained in myself and those around me. The regulative effect of this norm is so strong that it is at the point of being automatic. When I want to speak in class, I raise my hand without thinking about it. Furthermore, when others speak without raising their hands, I am incredibly irked by it, if not personally offended. Although it would be in my own personal interest and to my own advantage in terms of voicing my opinion to simply just speak up whenever I feel like, the thought of doing so within a classroom setting makes me uneasy. I am currently enrolled in a class that is conducted in a group conversational style. Although this set up is quite effective, I sometimes find myself uncomfortable with the potential chaos that I see arising when there is no governing professor to decide who speaks next and when. Maybe this is a psychological trait of mine that is unique to just me, but I think not since I know other students who get as equally annoyed as I when other students are allowed to monopolize the conversation do to the lack of the "hand raising" norm.

My identity of myself as an educated member of the classroom / academic sphere is partially hinged on the fact that I can conduct myself with the proper classroom decorum, which has come to encompass the norm of raising my hand. In other settings, I never feel the need, and would find it incredibly formal and somewhat silly, if others raised their hands before speaking. Could you imagine general grocery store conversations if everyone had to raise their hands before speaking?

3 Kings

This past Monday was the first time I had ever seen the movie "3 Kings" and I have to admit that I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. Whether or not it is an accurate depiction of the situation in the Middle East during the 1st Gulf War is another issue. Leaving that aside, I noticed some glaring violations of IHL.
- The first of these violations was the treatment of POWs. Mark Walhberg (a.k.a. Marky Mark of the infamous funky bunch) was captured by the Iraqis in the film, after which he was attached to electrodes and forced to drink oil. These acts can only be characterized as acts of torture. (Perhaps there are those that would classify them as "aggressive interrogation tactics"...) This is a blatant violation of Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention's requirements for the treatment of prisoners of war.
- A second violation of IHL was the requirement that all combatants be clearly marked or wear a distinctive symbol. Also codified in the Third Geneva Convention, this provision was violated by many of the Iraqi troops in the film.
- Thirdly, chemical and biological weapons were used in the film. This is arguably in violation of Protocol III of the CCW's prohibition against the use of excessive or indiscriminate weapons.

Lt. Watada

After having read this article, I have to say that I commend Lt. Watada for his actions. It has been clearly established that the only "legal" wars or acts of aggression are those that take place with UN Security Council approval or those that are in response to the threat of imminent attack. Despite what some may say, the U.S. is not facing an "imminent" threat, nor did it face such a threat in the spring of 2003. Therefore, the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq, without Security Council approval, was an illegal act of aggression that Lt. Watada rightfully refused to take part in. Critics may assert that Lt. Watada is not courageous for defying the wishes of the current administration but is actually a coward for refusing to answer his country's call. To this I say that Lt. Watada is not a coward. He requested to be posted to other places, including conflict zones such as Afghanistan. He is not shying away from carrying out his country's legal missions in dangerous places. He is only refusing to take part in an illegal war waged for an improper purpose.

Attacks on Peacekeepers in Darfur

Although this news story isn't 100% related to the course, I thought it was an interesting read:
BBC Story

The Sudanese government admits to having attacked members of the UN peacekeeping operation, UNamid, in the Darfur region of the country. The government claims that it was a joint mistake between itself and the UN. Mistake or not, I think that its sad that peacekeepers and humanitarian aid workers have, in some ways, become acceptable targets in conflicts zones. Aid workers are meant to provide relief to victims of conflict and when they are placed in vulnerable positions or seen as viable targets, this inhibits their ability to perform their functions and deprives those in need.

First Post

Test Post!