Dick Cheney should really stop playing the blame game.

[Vast LWC]

Completely false. They are not covered as LAWFUL combatants, but that does not make them mere criminals. It makes them UNlawful combatants. (Note: Repeating yourself, as you do, when you were wrong the first time, as you were, doesn't help correct you.)

The consequence of being an UNlawful combatant is that one is properly denied the protections granted to LAWFUL combatants. These scumbag vermin are more properly deemed to be enemy sabateurs or properly viewed more lie "spies" who may be summarily executed. We don't do that, but they have no cause for complaint that they don't get the benefits of the status of LAWFUL combatants.

And they absolutely don't have ANY right to be heard to argue that they deserve the even GREATER protection accorded to mere criminals.

If that were true, then the Geneva Conventions would have rules to cover "unlawful combatants, and the Bush administration and the Republican Congress wouldn't have had to define the term themselves in the 2006 Legislation pointed out by in that recent post.

 

[Vast LWC]

If you haven't read the provisions of the Geneva Accords, and it looks like you haven't, then why are you spouting off?

Are you actually seeking to be heard to argue that the GC doesn't define its own terms? And if you acknowledge that it does, then you tell US what it says about recognizable uniforms and insignia or badges. I mean, you ARE familiar with those provisions, right?

Don't feign ignorance. It's bad enough if you really are ignorant and saying the utterly silly shit you've been spewing here.

I didn't say I haven't read them, I'm asking you to show me where it differentiates "Unlawful Combatants" from criminals.

 

[Vast LWC]

S.3930
Title: A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] (introduced 9/22/2006) Cosponsors (2)
Related Bills: H.RES.1054, H.R.6054, H.R.6166, S.3861, S.3886, S.3901, S.3929
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-366 [GPO: Text, PDF]

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

A bill that the Bush administration and it's flunkies in the Republican congress MADE UP to cover their own unconstitutional actions, on September 28th 2006, just days before the November elections.

And it's utter Bullshit.

The Supreme Courts rulings since that legislation have overturned most of it.

However, that being said, thank you for showing me where you all are getting your definition from.

I honestly was not aware that an actual definition of "Unlawful Combatant" was included in that legislation.

 

[Liability]

Let's see if any of this rings a bell for our Vastly Ignorant:

Article 4 prisoners of war include:

Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

• that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
• that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
• that of carrying arms openly;
• that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

 

[CMike]

Completely false. They are not covered as LAWFUL combatants, but that does not make them mere criminals. It makes them UNlawful combatants. (Note: Repeating yourself, as you do, when you were wrong the first time, as you were, doesn't help correct you.)

The consequence of being an UNlawful combatant is that one is properly denied the protections granted to LAWFUL combatants. These scumbag vermin are more properly deemed to be enemy sabateurs or properly viewed more lie "spies" who may be summarily executed. We don't do that, but they have no cause for complaint that they don't get the benefits of the status of LAWFUL combatants.

And they absolutely don't have ANY right to be heard to argue that they deserve the even GREATER protection accorded to mere criminals.

If that were true, then the Geneva Conventions would have rules to cover "unlawful combatants, and the Bush administration and the Republican Congress wouldn't have had to define the term themselves in the 2006 Legislation pointed out by in that recent post.

And here I thought the US is a soverign nation. Go figure

 

[Liability]

If you haven't read the provisions of the Geneva Accords, and it looks like you haven't, then why are you spouting off?

Are you actually seeking to be heard to argue that the GC doesn't define its own terms? And if you acknowledge that it does, then you tell US what it says about recognizable uniforms and insignia or badges. I mean, you ARE familiar with those provisions, right?

Don't feign ignorance. It's bad enough if you really are ignorant and saying the utterly silly shit you've been spewing here.

I didn't say I haven't read them, I'm asking you to show me where it differentiates "Unlawful Combatants" from criminals.

I know you didn't SAY you hadn't read them. But you seem awfully ignorant.

Why DO you suppose they make the distinctions about WHO is covered by the benefits of the GC and who is not?

Seriously. That's not rhetorical. Answer that one.

 

[Intense]

S.3930
Title: A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] (introduced 9/22/2006) Cosponsors (2)
Related Bills: H.RES.1054, H.R.6054, H.R.6166, S.3861, S.3886, S.3901, S.3929
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-366 [GPO: Text, PDF]

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

A bill that the Bush administration and it's flunkies in the Republican congress MADE UP to cover their own unconstitutional actions, on September 28th 2006, just days before the November elections.

And it's utter Bullshit.

The Supreme Courts rulings since that legislation have overturned most of it.

By what right do you term people as flunkies? Righteousness is clearly not on your side. You have the numbers for now, to back your claims, but I don't see that holding in the end.
There are Lawful Combatants, Unlawful Combatants, and Criminals. It is you that uses the misapplication of Law and the Rule of Law to obstruct Justice. It is you that obstructs necessary action that addresses the real threat to Civil Society and Liberty. The construction and implementation of Necessary Laws to Safeguard are obstructed by you in defense of The Rights of those that have already crossed over to dark side, that makes you more of an Accomplice to Terrorism, than an Agent for Liberty and Justice. Controlling the Masses through misinformation may work for now. Your days are numbered and I will enjoy counting every one of them. The Bullshit is you treating the True Enemy as a Criminal, with nothing but unearned Privilege and the likes of you on their side. There is nothing ethical about what you do. You have Power on your side, not Justice. The Jihadist's are just laughing at you for different reasons than us.

 

[Intense]

Completely false. They are not covered as LAWFUL combatants, but that does not make them mere criminals. It makes them UNlawful combatants. (Note: Repeating yourself, as you do, when you were wrong the first time, as you were, doesn't help correct you.)

The consequence of being an UNlawful combatant is that one is properly denied the protections granted to LAWFUL combatants. These scumbag vermin are more properly deemed to be enemy sabateurs or properly viewed more lie "spies" who may be summarily executed. We don't do that, but they have no cause for complaint that they don't get the benefits of the status of LAWFUL combatants.

And they absolutely don't have ANY right to be heard to argue that they deserve the even GREATER protection accorded to mere criminals.

If that were true, then the Geneva Conventions would have rules to cover "unlawful combatants, and the Bush administration and the Republican Congress wouldn't have had to define the term themselves in the 2006 Legislation pointed out by in that recent post.

And here I thought the US is a soverign nation. Go figure

We are sovereign. It is just that we are currently under Siege by The Executive, and Legislative Branches of our own Government.

 

[Vast LWC]

Let's see if any of this rings a bell for our Vastly Ignorant:

Article 4 prisoners of war include:

Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

• that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
• that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
• that of carrying arms openly;
• that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Umm, that still only defines what constitutes Lawful Combatants. Not what constitutes "Unlawful Combatants",a dn what differentiates "Unlawful Combatants" from criminals, in this case murderers.

 

[Vast LWC]

By what right do you term people as flunkies? Righteousness is clearly not on your side. You have the numbers for now, to back your claims, but I don't see that holding in the end.
There are Lawful Combatants, Unlawful Combatants, and Criminals. It is you that uses the misapplication of Law and the Rule of Law to obstruct Justice. It is you that obstructs necessary action that addresses the real threat to Civil Society and Liberty. The construction and implementation of Necessary Laws to Safeguard are obstructed by you in defense of The Rights of those that have already crossed over to dark side, that makes you more of an Accomplice to Terrorism, than an Agent for Liberty and Justice. Controlling the Masses through misinformation may work for now. Your days are numbered and I will enjoy counting every one of them. The Bullshit is you treating the True Enemy as a Criminal, with nothing but unearned Privilege and the likes of you on their side. There is nothing ethical about what you do. You have Power on your side, not Justice. The Jihadist's are just laughing at you for different reasons than us.

Flunkies are people who subvert their own honor, dignity and integrity to serve another person, in a way that furthers their own self interest.

The Republican Congress specifically drafted this legislation, at the behest of the Bush administration, after the torturing of the terrorist suspects had come to light, so that they could cover the collective asses of the various members of their party from the President on down.

And the term "Unlawful Combatant" as separate from "Criminal", didn't exist until this legislation tried to make it so.

 

[Vast LWC]

WAIT, WAIT, I found it:

An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.

In other words they are a criminal.

Unlawful combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And wait, there's more:

The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more states. Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal." Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial."

Wow. So, any Combatant that is not a "Lawful Combatant" and is from a foreign nation must first have their status determined by a tribunal, and be treated as a POW until that point.

After that, if they are found to not be POW's, they will be treated like any criminal, as I said, and have the right to a fair trial, just like Mr Obama wants.

See now, you learn something new every day.

So, that means that Bush and Cheney are in fact guilty of war crimes for torturing people who were supposed to be accorded the status of POW's until a military tribunal decided their status.

 

[Vast LWC]

Note this line:

The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII).

and this line:

The term "unlawful combatant" has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals, and case law. However, unlike the terms "combatant", "prisoner of war", and "civilian", the term "unlawful combatant" is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not.

from the same link, however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

 

[Annie]

Note this line:

The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII).

and this line:

The term "unlawful combatant" has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals, and case law. However, unlike the terms "combatant", "prisoner of war", and "civilian", the term "unlawful combatant" is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not.

from the same link, however.

Unlawful combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While not one to say that wikipedia doesn't qualify as a reasonable source, seems the Council of Foreign Relations disagrees, while not necessarily agreeing with Bush at the time:

Findings Report: Enemy Combatants and the Geneva Conventions - Council on Foreign Relations

So in fact to the conventions, though language changed:

International Humanitarian Law - Additional Protocol I 1977

Part III : Methods and means of warfare -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status #Section II -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status
Article 44 -- Combatants and prisoners of war
1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an
armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
...

Carrying explosives in the crotch is NOT openly displaying arms...

 

[Vast LWC]

While not one to say that wikipedia doesn't qualify as a reasonable source, seems the Council of Foreign Relations disagrees, while not necessarily agreeing with Bush at the time:

Findings Report: Enemy Combatants and the Geneva Conventions - Council on Foreign Relations

So in fact to the conventions, though language changed:

International Humanitarian Law - Additional Protocol I 1977

Part III : Methods and means of warfare -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status #Section II -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status
Article 44 -- Combatants and prisoners of war
1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an
armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
...

Carrying explosives in the crotch is NOT openly displaying arms...

I see your point, however the underwear bomber committed his crime in US airspace and was taken prisoner within US territory. Therefore he is not considered any kind of "combatant" at all, but just a criminal.

Prisoners taken as combatants from the warzone presumably carried their arms openly, making them "Lawful Combatants" until proven otherwise by a tribunal, and then tried as criminals if found to be "unlawful".

 

[Annie]

While not one to say that wikipedia doesn't qualify as a reasonable source, seems the Council of Foreign Relations disagrees, while not necessarily agreeing with Bush at the time:

Findings Report: Enemy Combatants and the Geneva Conventions - Council on Foreign Relations

So in fact to the conventions, though language changed:

International Humanitarian Law - Additional Protocol I 1977

Part III : Methods and means of warfare -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status #Section II -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status
Article 44 -- Combatants and prisoners of war
1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an
armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
...

Carrying explosives in the crotch is NOT openly displaying arms...

I see your point, however the underwear bomber committed his crime in US airspace and was taken prisoner within US territory. Therefore he is not considered any kind of "combatant" at all, but just a criminal.

Prisoners taken as combatants from the warzone presumably carried their arms openly, making them "Lawful Combatants" until proven otherwise by a tribunal, and then tried as criminals if found to be "unlawful".

Only by the administration, see CNN reports for today. Actually see lots of news reports for today:

al qaeda threat - Google News

 

[Intense]

By what right do you term people as flunkies? Righteousness is clearly not on your side. You have the numbers for now, to back your claims, but I don't see that holding in the end.
There are Lawful Combatants, Unlawful Combatants, and Criminals. It is you that uses the misapplication of Law and the Rule of Law to obstruct Justice. It is you that obstructs necessary action that addresses the real threat to Civil Society and Liberty. The construction and implementation of Necessary Laws to Safeguard are obstructed by you in defense of The Rights of those that have already crossed over to dark side, that makes you more of an Accomplice to Terrorism, than an Agent for Liberty and Justice. Controlling the Masses through misinformation may work for now. Your days are numbered and I will enjoy counting every one of them. The Bullshit is you treating the True Enemy as a Criminal, with nothing but unearned Privilege and the likes of you on their side. There is nothing ethical about what you do. You have Power on your side, not Justice. The Jihadist's are just laughing at you for different reasons than us.

Flunkies are people who subvert their own honor, dignity and integrity to serve another person, in a way that furthers their own self interest.

The Republican Congress specifically drafted this legislation, at the behest of the Bush administration, after the torturing of the terrorist suspects had come to light, so that they could cover the collective asses of the various members of their party from the President on down.

And the term "Unlawful Combatant" as separate from "Criminal", didn't exist until this legislation tried to make it so.

Flunkies are people who subvert their own honor, dignity and integrity to serve another person, in a way that furthers their own self interest.

Funny... That is my argument against Unions and the damage they do to the Republic.



The Republican Congress specifically drafted this legislation, at the behest of the Bush administration, after the torturing of the terrorist suspects had come to light, so that they could cover the collective asses of the various members of their party from the President on down.

What is suspect here is your redefinition of the word torture. There are different levels of interrogation, the worst of ours, compare to the least of theirs. The subject is worthy of honest debate, and it is within the authorities of Government to weigh and compare and evaluate what we live with, considering both Sovereignty and Treaty. I think the Administration was trying to accomplish just that and that your like obstructed the process, rather than be a part of it.




And the term "Unlawful Combatant" as separate from "Criminal", didn't exist until this legislation tried to make it so.


Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Art 6. In addition to the agreements expressly provided for in Articles 10, 23, 28, 33, 60, 65, 66, 67, 72, 73, 75, 109, 110, 118, 119, 122 and 132, the High Contracting Parties may conclude other special agreements for all matters concerning which they may deem it suitable to make separate provision. No special agreement shall adversely affect the situation of prisoners of war, as defined by the present Convention, nor restrict the rights which it confers upon them.

Prisoners of war shall continue to have the benefit of such agreements as long as the Convention is applicable to them, except where express provisions to the contrary are contained in the aforesaid or in subsequent agreements, or where more favourable measures have been taken with regard to them by one or other of the Parties to the conflict.

International Humanitarian Law - Third 1949 Geneva Convention


Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.........


.....Art. 70. Protected persons shall not be arrested, prosecuted or convicted by the Occupying Power for acts committed or for opinions expressed before the occupation, or during a temporary interruption thereof, with the exception of breaches of the laws and customs of war.


International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

Just some thoughts on the matter.

 

[Vast LWC]

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Meaning a tribunal shall be called to determine the status of the prisoner only. Whether they are a POW or a criminal. After which the subject will be afforded the right of trial by the captors.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.........

Concerning rights of COMMUNICATION, as a spy would of course not be allowed to communicate with their nation of origin for fear of information leaks. I am actually quite familiar with this passage, as I was in Military Intelligence in the Army.

.....Art. 70. Protected persons shall not be arrested, prosecuted or convicted by the Occupying Power for acts committed or for opinions expressed before the occupation, or during a temporary interruption thereof, with the exception of breaches of the laws and customs of war.

So if a person committed murder outside the the "laws and customs of war", then they would be eligible to be "arrested, prosecuted or convicted by the Occupying Power", as a criminal.

 

[Vast LWC]

Only by the administration, see CNN reports for today. Actually see lots of news reports for today:

al qaeda threat - Google News

Organized Crime, but crime nonetheless. The Mafia is not an enemy state.

Unless of course you think we should declare war on Yemen, in which case they would become combatants.

 

[Intense]

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Meaning a tribunal shall be called to determine the status of the prisoner only. Whether they are a POW or a criminal. After which the subject will be afforded the right of trial by the captors.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.........

Concerning rights of COMMUNICATION, as a spy would of course not be allowed to communicate with their nation of origin for fear of information leaks.

.....Art. 70. Protected persons shall not be arrested, prosecuted or convicted by the Occupying Power for acts committed or for opinions expressed before the occupation, or during a temporary interruption thereof, with the exception of breaches of the laws and customs of war.

So if a person committed murder outside the the "laws and customs of war", then they would be eligible to be "arrested, prosecuted or convicted by the Occupying Power", as a criminal.

Tried by Domestic Law. Ours includes the classification of Unlawful or Illegal Combatant.

 

[Vast LWC]

Tried by Domestic Law. Ours includes the classification of Unlawful or Illegal Combatant.

But only because of the aforementioned BS law, most facets of which were invalidated by the supreme court.