| OCR Text |
Show $bc Salt nkc Sfilmnr Page 12 Section A Letters Tribune Editorials Sunday Morning, August 8, 1982 Common Carrier Two Times Ought to be Enough For Judge Law Change Tries However the Utah Supreme Court rules on the states present judge appointment law, theres reason to hope the matter will be left alone for awhile. Its been dragged through the courts often and long enough. So far, two recent attempts by the Republican-controlle- d Legislature to increase its participation in state judgeship nominations have gone directly to court. The latest decision, by Third District Judge Bryant H. Croft, is that the law enacted early this year is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is expected to have the final say on appeal. If the ultimate decision is that this years judge appointment law is, indeed, void, then matters revert to a situation allowing the Legislature some role It would sti!l name two members to commissions which recommend judge appointees to the governor. And those members can be legislators. However, if the Supreme Court finds the 1982 act valid, the recurrent legal squabble can be considered at an end. So, either way this repetitious ordeal could be halted. But that was possible two laws ago. Previously, the Supreme Court agreed that a statute giving the State Senate confirmation-o- f judges power, in addition to involvement with the judge nominating commissions, excessively unbalanced the constitu-- tional separation of legislative, executive and judiciary. Legislators then passed the second attempt, excusing, as a sweetener, its branch from the nominating commissions. Gov. Scott Matheson, claiming the 82 act was as constitutionally wrong as its predecessor, has now won that point in Judge Crofts courtroom. If this latest holding survives on appeal, will the legislative tinkering, in fact, stop? It should, but other possible statute revisions suggest themselves. Prompting this contest is the Republican conviction that 18 years of Democrat governorships have denied Republicans adequate access to state court vacancies even while the GOP has held substantial legislative majorities during many of those years. But it ought to be clear now that a very slim chance exists for a legislative remedy, if one is really Occasionally something happens common sense will, in the long term, prevail. The latest occasioh is a decision in the U.S. District Court of Washington, D.C. on July 1. Judge Oliver Gasch overturned a jury verdict that had awarded $2,038,000 in damages to the family of man who was murdered on a Washington street corner. The man was shot to death with a semiautomatic pistol that had been stolen three days earlier from the annex building of the National Rifle Association. In awarding the damages the jury found the NRA was six-memb- er negligent. In vacating the jurys verdict Judge Gasch said that no reasonable juror could reach a verdict of negligence in this case. Further, he found that based on the evidence presented, no reasonable person could conclude that the NRA knew or should have known of the overnight storage of an operable firearm in the NRA annex (building). The burglary and subsequent murder were too attenuated and remote to permit the jury to conclude that the NRA is legally responsible for this tragic death. often as legislators try to the at expand, governor's expense, their part in judge selecting, the courts declare the move invalid. So, abandoning the effort is the more As sensible option. Confusion and delays caused by this have stalled five district court appointments, currently on hold until the legal questions are once more answered. Enough is enough. When the Supreme Court rules this time, let it be the last time on this mostly politically-inspire- d tug-of-w- ar rearranging of governmental To steal the pistol the thieves had to remove a metal grill covering an open window, discover a key in a desk drawer that opened a locked closet where the pistol was stored together with 130 rounds of ammunition and then escape from the building. Three days later Orlando Gonzales Angel was fatally shot during a holdup and, subsequently, Joseph Nix and John H. Hart were convicted of his murder. Eventually relatives of Mr. Angel filed suit against the NRA; the result of which was the negligence verdict and the $2 million judgement. Had not Judge Gasch vacated tha jurys verdict the implications of it were dismaying. Using the same standard as the Angel jury did the owner of an automobile stolen from a locked garage might be found liable if the car later was involved in a fatal traffic accident. More certainly, the owner of a gun shop or sporting goods store who was victimized by gun thieves could be held accountable for any death resulting from use of any gun stolen from his shop or store. Judge Gasch has removed that Once again reason and reasonableness have triumphed. threat. Random Shots Sharing the Bounty Two signs in a yard on 3rd Ave. offered free plums last week to anyone willing to pick them at their own risk. It was a neighborly gesture, this willingness to share the harvest bounty, and we have no desire to discourage it. But why is it almost always plums, or apricots or zucchini that people are willing to give away? How often, for example, does anyone invite the neighbors or even special friends to rummage in the tomato patch or help themselves to cherries or raspberries or even good, worm-fre- e apples? There is nothing wrong with plums or apricots (if you like them) and zucchini the e can be delicious favorite gift properly prepared for the table. But plums and apricots are, shall we say, out of fashion in these days when fewer people make jams and jellies at home. They are given away, we suspect, more to aid the giver than the receiver. And people who cant even raise dandelions can produce a bumper crop of zucchini merely by by draping a few seeds in a hill of dirt. Its either give them away come summer or be overwhelmed by the monsterous green tubes ere autumn freezes end the threat. all-tim- Tailored Troopers Years ago, at a point unrecorded in easily recalled history, cities around the United States popularized a special compliment for their policemen, as in New York's or Chicago's or Pittspburgh's "finest. The distinction was k Py Martin Feinrider r Newspapers Knight-Ridde- needed. Reason Triumphs that reassures us that logic and Israel Violating Laws of War life-lon- follow. During the siege of Beirut, many facilities were destroyed. Even non-milita- sup- porters of Israel acknowledge that civilian hospitals have been shelled and even destroyed by Israeli armed forces. Supporters of Israel admit this is regrettable, but contend that the intentional presence of PLO military forces in close proximity to hospitals automatically voids the immunity provided to hospitals and other locations by the Laws of War. They are wrong. Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of Martin Felnrlder is an assistant professor of law at Nova University Center for the Study of Law In Fort Lauderdale, Fla. His specialty Is international law and the protection of human rights. Felnrlder has studied the Laws of War with members of the staff of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the organization charged with the supervision. foodstuffs to the civilian population of Beirut has been part of the Israeli strategy of holding the civilian population hostage until a resolution of the dispute with the PLO is reached. It has rightfully been the focus of international criticism, even by the United States, Israels staunchest ally. The interdiction of food supplies and consequent starvation of the entire civilian population is absolutely forbidden by Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Israeli conduct, in this regard, is illegal. Protocol I of 1977 is the most recent articulation of rules of war designed to protect civilian populations. It represents both an authoritative elaboration of the 1949 conventions and a progressive development of the Laws of War, taking into account the conditions of modern warfare. Though only recently opened for signature, not yet widely ratified and not yet upon Israel, Protocol I was adopted at a conference in which 109 nations participated and is the best statement of the global consensus as to what behavior during time of war shall be considered inhumane and unlawful. Israel is clearly in law-bindi- arguable, notably when corruption or rising crime statistics blurred the image. Now, however, according to an official declaration by the National Association of Uniform Manufacturers, the Utah State Highway Patrol is the "best uniformed state police department in the nation. Technically speaking, the patrol is not a police department in every sense of the term, but if it is referred to, for a while anyway, as "the nations best, in one particular respect there can be no disputing the claim. Emerging Skyline As workmen dismantled and removed the name sign which stood for so long atop midtown Salt Lake City's Walker Bank Building, it could be said that an era had ended. But it s a time that belongs to the past. Modem cities no longer feature heavy lattice-frame- s sprouting from roof-topproclaiming the commercial enterprise of the tenants below. The Walker Banks beacon did make a valid subsidiary claim to usefulness. Its changing night-timcolors forecast weather conditions. But with the banks name changed to Interstate and an eventual move to a building under construction across the street, removing the tower and affixed lettering became a practical as well as aesthetic necessity. A similar roof-toanamoloy will disappear when the condemned Newhouse Hotel is eventually razed. If the one or two remaining dirfer-wornameplates perched on downtown buildings were also to be voluntarily consigned to the discard, Salt Lake City would finally attain a first-ratcontemporary skyline. e p out-date- for hii!tisn of tjvAgg conduct during war. Protocol I requires that parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives. No such distinctions are made apparent by Israeli conduct of the siege of Beirut. Additionally, Article 51 of the Protocol provides that "the civilian population . . . shall not be the subject of attack, and in furtherance of this humanitarian objective absolutely prohibits "indiscriminate attacks. The Protocol specifically prohibits attacks which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited . . . and, consequently, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians . . . without discrimination. The Protocol goes on to make clear that even if the enemy uses civilians to screen military objectives, parties to the conflict are not relieved of their obligation to respect and protect the rights and safety of civilians. Again, using the Laws of War as a standard, Israel must be found, beyond all reasonable doubt, to be in violation of international law. The indiscriminate shelling of a civilian population center such as Beirut in order to attack isolated military objectives therein is clearly illegal. This is not merely a technicality, but a matter of law that goes to the very heart of Israeli strategy. War, it is true, is a time during which necessity causes civilized peoples to engage in conduct that would otherwise be unacceptable. During the World War I German invasion of neutral Belgium, Kaiser Wilhelms chancellor vainly sought to justify his nations conduct by arguing that the invasion was a case of military necessity and necessity knows no law. viol As any lawyer will immediately recognize, the chancellor was wrong. Necessity is a principle of law, defined and limited by law. In the case of war, these limits are imposed by the Laws of War. Israel has violated the limits agreed upon by the family of nations and has consequently violated the Laws of War. Even an ardent supporter of Israel must face this bitter truth. In the end, indiscriminate killing of civilians during time of war will have consequences as devastating for the perpetrators as the victims. (Copyright) Third Worlds Guide U.S. Cant Relax on Nonproliferation By John H. Glenn Special to The Washington Post WASHINGTON There is no more important challenge in the world today than achieving the twin goals of reducing existing nuclear weapons stockpiles while simultaneously preventing the spread of nuclear weapons capability to even more nations around the world. I was the principal author, along with Sen. Charles Percy, of the Nilclear Nonproliferation a law that for the first time Act of 1978 required all nations receiving nuclear exports e from the United States to adopt safeguards that is, to agree to place all their nuclear facilities under international inspection. Passage of the NNPA was inspired in part by Indias use of American heavy water to produce the plutonium that was used in what India described as a nuclear peaceful explosion in 1974. Peaceful or not, the detonation violated American understandings about the legal uses to which our nuclear exports could be put. As a result of Indias refusal to adopt safeguards (indeed, most of its program is currently unsafeguarded), the NNPA requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to prohibit the licensing of nuclear exports to that country. President Carter overruled the NRC in connection with two fuel shipments for the Tarapur reactors in 1980. Although I led a Senate floor fight to overturn the president's decision, the fuel shipments were approved by a vote of 6. In seeking to build a more constructive relationship with India, the Reagan administration has now reportedly worked out an arrangement whereby we will not object to the French supplying fuel for the Tarapur reactors. In return, India will agree not to carry out the threat to remove safeguards in Tarapur. On the question of reprocessing, however, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi has told The Washington Post that, in her view, India does not require U.S. consent to reprocess any spent fuel at Tarapur. Thus, a possible ma jor point of contention between the U.S. and India regarding Tarapur remains. obtaining assurances against additional Indian will not be realized under this nuclear tests agreement. While we may have achieved a gain in U.S. Indian relations, we must await further developments to see if it is also a gain for nuclear nonproliferation. -- 48-4- full-scop- full-scop- John H. Glenn, a Democratic senator from Ohio, is a member of the ForetOKLRaiatkm Committoa. full-sco- In addition, our broader objectives of gaining e Indian acceptance of safeguards and the even more fundamental goal of safeguards would be required for nuclear exports to plants other than Tarapur. e Significantly, American insistence on safeguards has not resulted in a breach of safeguards on fuel previously shipped to India as so direly predicted by the proponents of the 1980 Tarapur sale. That should prove to the Reagan administration that steadfastness of purpose on nuclear nonprolif-- . eration is the sine qua non of successful policy. Building effective, long-ternonproliferation arrangements ultimately requires the cooperation of all nations, particularly nuclear suppliers. India and other countries have argued that no one especially a nation can already possessing nuclear arms interfere with their right to pursue advanced nuclear technology, and, of course, they are m full-scop- often k Discussion of the ongoing Middle East war has been generally viewed as a continuation of front. Such discusthe war on a sion has been, for the most part, conclusory in nature, shaped by the political sympathies of the debaters. Thus, for example, those who support Israel contend that it has not violated the Laws of War; opponents of Israel regularly contend that it has. Such demagoguery serves neither the interests of Israel nor the interests of humankind that the Laws of War have been designed to protect. The Laws of War have evolved over the last 120 years as a branch of international law designed to ensure protection of combatants and alike during episodes of mans greatest inhumanity to fellow man. Even in its most advanced form, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the two Protocols Additional of 1973, the Laws of War provide only the barest minimum protection for humanity. Thus, any violation of these stardards of international law must be viewed as all the more grievous. The behavior of Israel and its armed forces during the recent invasion of Lebanon and siege of Beirut has, unhappily, forced me, as an international lawyer, as a Jew and as a g supporter of the right of Israel to exist in peace and security as a homeland for Jews, to conclude that Israel has violated the Laws of War. This conclusion is particularly painful for me to reach as I am fully aware that much of the Law of War was written in reaction to Nazi brutalization of the Jewish people during World War II. Some examples of Israeli illegality VO ifyQ nrcvid52 ttst hospitals wgv CIRCUMSTANCES be the object of attack. The same article goes on to state that "it is RECOMMENDED that such hospitals be situated as far as possible from military objectives, but also makes clear this in no way is a condition for the protection of hospitals from attack nor an acceptable excuse for such attack. The shelling of hospitals and other medical facilities is inhumane and illegal. I am ashamed of such behavior on the part of Israel and even more ashamed of those who attempt to defend or excuse it. During the siege of Beirut, Israel has regularly interrupted the supply of food to civilians caught in between the warring enemies. The denial of flour and other basic In any case, it is extremely important that our cooperation in obtaining an alternative supplier for India under the special circumstances surrounding Tarapur not be considered a precedent for moving us away from the provisions of the NNPA in the future. In particular, there must be no retreat from the principle of not supplying nuclear materials to fuel, technology and equipment e those countries refusing to accept safeguards. That principle could be strengthened in the present context if the full-scop- Franco-India- n agreement regarding Tarapur fuel included an understanding that supplies would cease in the event of a nuclear detonation by (lie Indians, and that technically correct. A right? Yes. Common sense? No. While we try to get control of existing nuclear weapons stockpiles, its just common sense that we do everything within our power to prevent the additional spread of nuclear weaponry. That is to the worlds ultimate benefit, including India. At issue, however, is not a vacuous philosophical debate over the right to develop destructive force. Rather, the point is that promoting world peace and reducing the threat of annihilation will not be served by wrapping even more fingers around the nuclear trigger. India is already highly respected among Third World nations; I hope it will use that leadership role by helping to halt the global .spread of nuclear weapons. I welcome the improvement in relations between our coun- tries. I hope we can also look forward to the day when India, Pakistan and other nations join the 114 states that have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That one act would do more than anything else to build a true, worldwide nonproliferation ethic one that our country, India and, indeed, all mankind share a common interest in full-sco- ( V |
