What war crime (if any) is being committed in this fictional story? There are quite a few people claiming that, according to the Geneva Convention, the Humans in this story are committing a war crime using the alien POWs the way they are. https://www.reddit.com/r/HFY/comments/jjjin9/sorry_but_were_better_at_this_than_you/ Here is the relevant passage, along with some context. (The Humans have just captured 5 alien soldiers as the necessary first step for the raid about to commence): "Bring these guys back with us to the vehicles! And Masgon, tell the artillery to hit this sector in 20 minutes. Fire for effect!" Xentus was not happy with being left on guard duty. He always got the shitty jobs. Plus, his partner was an idiot. &quot;Where is everyone?&quot; Xentus sighed. &quot;Did you not hear? There were reports of human contact along the western side. They took 5 prisoners!&quot; Corbuc scratched his head. &quot;Oh. So why is everyone gone?&quot; Xentus sighed, but louder. &quot;Just take your seat and watch the trees. Nothing's going to happen, anyways.&quot; As if on cue, 5 human APCs suddenly burst through the forest. Xentus scrambled to sit up in his turret, tossing his cup of brey across the room. Shit, I'm gonna have to clean that up later. &quot;CORBUC, YOU BETTER BE AWAKE&quot; He screamed as he hit the alarm. &quot;Why are you so excited?&quot; Corbuc drawled, &quot;They'll never make it past the mines, and if they do, the autoturrets will take care of them. They're all bio-coded to allow only Queztalia.&quot; Xentus sat back, realizing he was right. &quot;Hey, did you just say something smart?&quot; Xentus asked. &quot;I'm always smart&quot; &quot;Yeah right,&quot; Xentus quipped. He sat back in his chair, but kept an eye on the approaching forces as something didn't feel right. Early reports of battle with the humans had been that they were cunning and hardy, and charging into certain death didn't feel like something they would do for no reason. Any moment now they'll hit the mines. The humans kept coming. Any moment now. The humans kept coming. They really should have tripped the mines by now. The humans kept coming. &quot;They definitely should have blow up by now,&quot; Corbuc said. Xentus pushed down his surprise at Corbuc saying 2 smart things within 5 minutes and focused on the incoming APCs. They were within 50 meters of the ship now, definitely within the minefield and the engagement distance of the autocannons. &quot;Fuck it,&quot; he growled, turning his turret onto the APCs and pulling the trigger. But nothing happened. &quot;What the--&quot; He pulled the trigger again, to no avail. A little notification popped up, reading 'Friendly forces detected'. This doesn't make sense! Suddenly, the cannons on all 5 vehicles unleashed a barrage onto the ship, blowing a hole in the side. The human war machines thundered into the ship, leaving an odd sense of calm on the landscape. Xentus keyed the radio. &quot;Humans have breached the hull! Repeat, humans have breached the hull.&quot; &quot;How many of them are there?!&quot; &quot;About 5 vehicles so.. a platoon? Company?&quot; &quot;What are they gonna do to us? We've got 100 times the amount of soldiers as them.&quot; As if on cue, the vehicles suddenly burst back out of the hole they had created. Charging across the landscape, they disappeared as quickly as they had come. &quot;Oh, uh, they left&quot; said Xentus. &quot;Guess they realized their insanity,&quot; came the reply. &quot;Where did they breach us, anyways?&quot; Xentus surveyed the now-quiet landscape. &quot;Not sure... on the aft side, near the thrusters. Right next to the--Oh no&quot; Doll (now called Dolly) watched the trees fly by the window of the APC. She was tied to the seat, but at least it was a comfortable one. Across from her sat the Lieutenant, Adams. According to the detractors, the Humans are using the POWs as Human Shields (or Meat Shields), claiming this is no different from placing POWs around a SAM battery emplacement (and that even forcing a captured enemy combatant to open a bio-metric lock is a war crime). Everything I can find talking about Human Shields only talk about civilians and use examples of placing said civilians next to military assets to stop the enemy from attacking the assets.
According to the detractors, the Humans are using the POWs as Human Shields (or Meat Shields), claiming this is no different from placing POWs around a SAM battery emplacement (and that even forcing a captured enemy combatant to open a bio-metric lock is a war crime). Everything I can find talking about Human Shields only talk about civilians and use examples of placing said civilians next to military assets to stop the enemy from attacking the assets. The question in this case is really an unresolved open question. First of all, there is not moral consensus on whether sentient aliens are entitled to &quot;human rights&quot;. Secondly, the POWs are not really being used as human shields. There is no contemplation that their presence will prevent the opponents from attacking in order to show mercy on their compatriots. Instead, the POWs are being used to deceive the enemy's automated systems that the attacking force is friendly despite the implausibility of that given their actions. It is really more analogous to forcing a prisoner to write a misleading letter or make a misleading phone call, while under duress. While the use of fraud and deception in warfare may be dishonorable, usually actual war crimes involving POWs entail mistreatment of a POW or putting a POW in harm's way (even if presenting only a risk of death or injury). Also, of course, much of the Geneva Convention's requirements regarding the treatment of POWs is a treaty imposed obligation, binding morally because both combatants at one point consented to it, rather than necessarily being a universal and mandatorily applicable component of customary international law. The fact that the Geneva Convention might be violated in some detail, if true, doesn't automatically make it a war crime in this context. In the same vein, the Geneva Conventions make a distinction between the treatment of uniformed and non-uniformed combatants, but this distinction, established by a treaty agreed to by many nations, is not necessarily inherently relevant to determining if something is a war crime in a war with a non-signatory. It is a provision that relies of cultural meaning that is shared by the treaty signatories, but may not make sense vis-a-vis non-human sentient aliens. In the same vein, one wouldn't think that in a war with intelligent dragons, the fact that the dragons were or were not wearing uniforms, when dragons customarily fight naked, was significant, unless the dragon nation agreed to the Geneva Conventions in a duly ratified treaty.
A sufficient explanation would be that the ticketed driver was caught and the unticketed driver was not because the officer was already responding to a situation. Had the officer caught the unticketed driver, he would have ticketed him for the same offense. Courts would accept that it would be impossible for the officer to deal with both offenses at the same time. Selective enforcement is done properly when the prosecutor evaluates the risk verses reward of perusing a criminal prosecution against an individual based on the evidence, the nature of the crime, and the likely-hood of a conviction if it goes to trial. For example, while using illict substances is a crime, the government will usually only prosecute on that charge if they find your use while in possession with intent to sell (or in connection to another crime). In this instant, the high school stoner is not going to be as instrumental in the case as the dealer, who can lead to suppliers if he cooperates OR is removed from distributing in his territory if he does not. If the stoner is picked up on a minor offense and carrying a small amount on his person, the police might arrest him for the crime but agree to not press charges if he gives them information to who the dealer who sold him the substance is. Again, the risk here is putting a small time criminal into jail at cost of society, when society would benefit more if that cell was housing the bigger fish (a criminal record can prevent getting certain jobs, which will more likely turn stoner high schooler into jobless loser, which would be a drain on public welfare in and of itself, and that's not including the possibility that joining in drug trafficking as a seller would fix his lack of income). Conversely, in cases such as espionage, the death penalty is on the books but is rarely pursued in favor of lesser sentences. Here, the pay off is that they dangle the death penalty over the spies head unless he tells them about all his spying activities, which benefits the spy agency in filling in security gaps and potentially finding more spies. The use of lighter charges in exchange for a guilty plea is also favored as trials are costly. If a criminal pleads guilty to a crime that the government has them dead to rights for, the prosecution will reward them with lighter offenses for saving their office the price tag of a full blown trial. All this is on condition that selective enforcement is not used as a basis of discrimination, which is illegal for the prosecutors to do.
The main legal impediment to such action is that nonviolent political actions are not rebellion or insurrection. Interpreting the meaning of these terms arises in litigating insurance claims (where there is often a clause denying coverage in case of insurrection or rebellion), e.g. Younis Bros. v. CIGNA Worldwide Ins. where the matter was the Liberian civil war. Neither "insurrection" nor "rebellion" are defined under the statute, therefore they have their ordinary meanings. The ordinary meaning of "insurrection" does not include Congress overstepping its authority (if that happened), nor, in general, would it include an illegal act by a public official. Reference to 18 USC 2381, 2382, 2383 2384 is common in suits files under sovereign citizen theories of law, which courts deftly dispose of because the plaintiff has no standing in criminal matters. However, various Freedom of Information cases involving FBI investigations such as Shaw v. FBI, Friedman v. FBI, 605 F. Supp. 306 have suggested that the FBI can investigate a possible violation of 18 USC 2383 which does not involve open civil war. Various cases like Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (Scalia dissent), Padilla v. Hanft have supported the proposition that persons engaged in open war against the US can be prosecuted under this section. As far as I can determine, no case has supported the notion that a nonviolent action exceeding legal authority constitutes violation of that law. In US v. Silverman, 248 F.2d 671 the court mentions that "conspiring to overthrow the Government by force and violence" is prohibited by that statute. Furthermore, since the actions in this specific instance involve stuff that happened on the floor of the House, they are constitutionally completely immune. Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution says of Congress They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. So while a Congressman can be arrested for racketeering or breach of the peace traveling to a session, they cannot be tried for what they say in session. I think they could be arrested for assassinating the Speaker while in session, but not for advocating assassination in a speech or debate.
Reading some background on Stefan Molyneux (Wikipedia) would indicate that he is a (Canadian) right-wing provocateur (Merriam-Webster) and there is no legal logic to his claim that anyone involved with the migrant caravan - either as a refugee or a person giving aid - is committing an act of treason. Provocateurs - on the political left or right - seek to incite arguments and/or movements on social or political issues with emotion and not on legal frameworks or logical discussion. Provocateurs use words and phrases that can be identified as Dog-whistles (Wikipedia). Calling out "treason" and accusing one of being a traitor are examples of dog whistles. The legal reasoning against leveling calls of treason against anyone helping the caravan members are many; the migrants are not (from the U.S. Constitution:) levying war against them (the US), or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.... because: • None of the countries of origin of the migrants are currently in armed conflict with the U.S. • None of the migrants - alone or as a whole - are armed to engage the U.S. or are a threat to the U.S. • The refugees are easily identified as economic migrants, political refugees or those fleeing violence (domestic, communal, sectarian). • According to Refugee law (Wikipedia) and US Federal law, migrants have a right to due process at the border. • There is no clear proof of an ulterior motive or funding for the migrants in the the caravans. There could be - now or in the future - Americans or American-based aid groups helping individuals or the group as a whole with necessities with food and safety while they travel or after they arrive at the border. But the fact remains that each migrant - when and if they reach the US border - will be legally assessed individually as a migrant or refugee. The aid they may have received is really no different than what many NGOs provide who help arrange a refugees' processing through legal immigration channels, in some instances in conjunction with a US Government agency or with an arm of the United Nations. Such aid by an American is not treasonous for the legal reasoning above.
The problem with Solution 2 is that government officials in the United States enjoy qualified immunity with respect to actions that they did while acting under color of law. It's not total immunity, but if they do things by the book, they cannot be prosecuted even if something goes wrong (even when doing things by the book, Police deal in very volatile situations and things can still go wrong because of an X factor to specific for the training manual to cover.). In other cases, it may be because multiple officers are working the scene and Office A lied to Officer B about the situation. Consider Officer A pulls over a suspect and realizes it was someone who was suspected of a crime, but couldn't prove it. He calls for back up and Officer B arrives. Upon arriving on scene, Officer A tells B to search the trunk of the car despite the fact that A had not received consent from the suspect nor has a warrant, nor cause to make a search of a trunk of a vehicle. B makes the search and finds [the bloody knife/the stash of drugs/the smoking gun/the match to a child's shoe that was missing from the kidnapping scene/ insert other incriminating evidence]. Under system (2), since it was Officer B who made the illegal search, B would be liable for it, even though Officer A lied about having legal reason for a search of the trunk space. But what's more... if the evidence is gonna be used anyway, what's to stop the cops doing it again? After all, there is very little recourse for those who are illegally searched to contest this in court (If I'm illegally searched and don't have anything on me, I have to take this to civil court, which is a different animal than Criminal Court and exposes me to broader Discovery... aka gives the cops free reign to search my property for a hell of a lot more illegal things.) or just sit back and count my 4th amendment rights (the section of the constitution protecting against unwarranted search and seizures) as worth less than the paper they're printed on. Oh, and by the way... that second word seizure... that means that they will be taking my property (or myself if they arrest me) and will not be giving it back for some time while they process it... if it's a legal to hold item (like my laptop that I do work on) that's going to make it harder for me to do my job which injures me further in lost business and income. In other cases, it could be they have a warrant for a large item (a stolen big screen tv) and while searching for it, open my sugar bowel and find evidence of a crime unrelated to theft of the television (i.e. opening a baggie of weed). This is actually an illegal search because, unless I am a wizard, a Time Lord, or Mary Poppins, there is no reason why a container smaller than a big screen TV should ever be searched when looking for a Big Screen TV and the cops should logically see this as out of bounds of the search warrant. The nature of this is damaging before the legality of the search can be determined, and because the search may have been out of scope of the warrant that was otherwise justified, the rule of making the evidence of a crime inadmissible was held in order to prevent LEOs from doing this because they could. This rule also started to take formation prior to the Revolutionary War. British Law had ruled against compelled confessions being inadmissible as evidence in 1769, a full six years before the Revolutionary war started (1775) and seven years before the publication of the Declaration of Independence (1776). Now there are some exceptions that can get the evidence brought back in, such as plain view (&quot;The suspect's vehicle is a pick up truck with an open bed, the murder weapon was lying in the bed covered in blood&quot;), inevitable discovery (&quot;We have developed evidence by other means that would have lead us to this evidence legally&quot;) and Exigent Circumstances (&quot;We believed someone inside the property was in grave danger if we did not enter the property immediately and that's when we found a cache of stolen Big Screen TVs!) and Good Faith (the Warrant was authorized for the wrong street address of the target but we found the evidence of an unrelated crime in a place the warrant authorized us to search. Everything but the goofed up address was done by the book.).
He would be thanked and sent on his way. We don't generally punish people for preventing murders, even if they are rogue cops or soldiers. If you wanted him to plausibly land in legal peril, he'd probably need to do more than simply save someone's life. The most obvious possibility, I think, would be if he were to continue inflicting harm on the attacker after cuffing him. At that point, there's probably no justification for a continued use of force, so he could face assault charges there. Also possible would be that the way he handled the situation -- the amount of force he used, the failure to de-escalate, failing to call for assistance -- just violates some police or military policy. I don't know if that would jam him up in the way you're looking for, though.
No, it does not follow. Mostly, because that's not what is actually happening with sanctuary cities. First, there is no actual definition of a sanctuary city, neither in the law or, more specifically, in immigration policy. Here's what happens in sanctuary cities. Section 1373(a) of Title 8 of US Code states that local and state governments are prohibited from enacting laws or policies limiting the exchange of info re: citizenship w/Department of Homeland Security. So if you work for the local Department of Human Services, and someone shows up to sign up for public benefits and you find out they are undocumented immigrants, if you wanted to report that person to ICE, no government could forbid you from doing so. Conversely, the federal government can't force you to report that undocumented immigrant. Likewise, the detainers that ICE issues, which are requests to the local government to inform them when a given undocumented immigrant is to be released, are not mandatory. If that action is taken, the jail can hold the undocumented immigrant up to 48 hours for ICE to act. If ICE doesn't act, the person must be let go. A report by the DOJ's inspector general looked at a random sampling of cities that receive federal funding and found that each of them had certain policies in place that limited cooperation with ICE and ICE's detainers. However, the same inspector general found that Section 1373 is not applicable to detainers. In sum, the IG determined that, although there were no explicit policies forbidding state or local employees from cooperating with ICE, non-compliance with detainers in some jurisdictions at the very least were "inconsistent with ... the intent of Section 1373." Legal arguments abound. One argument is that the administration is interpreting Section 1373 too broadly in order to include both types of sanctuary cities. Another is that Section 1373 violates the anti-comandeering doctrine of the 10th Amendment. I guess the real answer is, "stay tuned," but for now, no it does not follow that it is a violation of federal law for a government official to declare a state/city to be a "sanctuary city."
Profit changes everything. There is a tradition of tolerance (mostly) for &quot;fan projects&quot; which are totally not-for-profit. However that goes out the window very quickly once profit enters the picture (if the original publisher is excluded that is; Black Mesa had a happy integration of publisher and fan profit, since they also run the game distribution platform Steam). Because of the profit picture, licensing the game platform is your only viable option. And this is actually quite common; the original Half-Life (on which Black Mesa was built) had licensed the Quake engine.) At the least you would be licensing the client-side engine. I suspect you also aim to license the client-side graphics as well; the publisher may have feelings about that since visual IP tends to dilute the uniqueness of their own game. For instance Half-Life did not reuse Quake monsters or art. Art is a problem, because it also brings in lore In a modern MMO, recreating graphics and art is a considerable task. But if you don't, you may not be able to separate yourself from the conceptuals: If you were licensing a World of Warcraft client and using WoW art, it would be hard to justify purple, pink and green Elves without getting into the lore of the Night Elves and Blood Elves breaking away from the high-elf lineage... it would just be too jarring to use the same art assets yet have totally different lore... So at that point your game would become a &quot;World of Warcraft story&quot;, which not surprisingly, the publisher would be much more reluctant to publish, since they want to retain creative control of their story, integrate it into their continuity, etc. Star Trek and Star Wars have whole staffs of &quot;canon police&quot; who make sure writers don't contradict existing lore, e.g. portray the Ferengi as a warrior race or Gungans in any way whatsoever. If it's just the engine, that's easy So if you are forced to change lore and art, and your plan is already to scratchbuild a new back-end... then really, all you're doing is licensing the game engine. So now the question is, why would you rely on brand X's game engine, when there are plenty of other game engines whose owners are happy to license them cheap, and even ones that are open-source? For instance, a fan project is re-casting Half Life II into the Unreal engine. So if we're not using that publisher's lore... and we're not using that publisher's art... and we're not using that publisher's engine... then we owe them nothing and we have a totally original game. Look at a program like The Guild. It was based on World of Warcraft, but the team tweaked it a little bit so it didn't touch any of Blizzard's IP at all. They did that for a reason.