Israel's Lies

OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,519
Reaction score
2,559
Points
1,815
RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Professor Susan M. Akram is a product of Georgetown. I inherently did trust those groomed two blocks away from the State Department. They tend to adopt the concepts held by their mentors and seldom are a source of any original thought.

I have posted this before. You must have missed it.
(COMMENT)

No, I did not miss it. I've even attended her lectures. But I am of the opinion that International Law mutates in both interpretation and application.

Much of what she has said here has not yet been ruled upon. It is opinion that is spread around... And when you look for the original source, it is often the same → even though it is repeated many times by different people. One professor teaches a concept to many students, interests, fellowships, and practitioners → and they in turn go out and repeat the one view. That is still only one source; just repeated many times over.

And like some others, especially some who wrote Amici Curiae and the accepted Supplementals → under the extension → have expressed similar opinions. It will be interesting to see what opinion the court holds.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Susan M. Akram
Clinical Professor of Law

BA with honors, University of Michigan Ann Arbor
JD, Georgetown University
Diplome in International Human Rights,
Institut International des Droits de l’Homme, Strasbourg (France)
Masters of Studies, International Human Rights Law, University of Oxford

Areas of Interest

Immigration Law & Policy, International & Comparative Law
Biography

Professor Susan Akram directs BU Law’s International Human Rights Clinic, in which she supervises students engaged in international advocacy in domestic, international, regional, and UN fora. Her research and publications focus on immigration, asylum, refugee, forced migration, and human and civil rights issues, with an interest in the Middle East, the Arab, and Muslim world.


Akram’s distinguished research was recognized with a Fulbright Senior Scholar Teaching and Research Award for the 1999–2000 academic year. She has lectured on Palestinian refugees to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments. Since September 11, 2001, she has presented widely on the USA Patriot Act and immigration-related laws and policies as well as on her work challenging standard interpretations of women’s asylum claims from the Arab/Muslim world.


With her clinic students as well as in collaboration with other legal organizations, Akram has worked on resettlement and refugee claims of Guantanamo detainees, and has been co-counsel on a number of high profile cases, including the 20+-year litigation of a case of first impression on the interpretation of one of the exclusion bars to asylum, In Re A-H-. She has taught at the American University in Cairo, Egypt and at Al-Quds and Birzeit Universities in Palestine. She regularly teaches in the summer institute on forced migration at the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University, and in various venues in the Middle East on refugee law.

Read Full Bio
It is interesting to note that in my limited studies, I have drawn similar conclusions. It is nice to know that there is an agreement with someone of this stature.

So, what do you have that says different?
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. It's not an argument and just takes up bandwidth.
The truth will set you free.

Dr. Akram is a credible source.
I'm not convinced you recognize any truths. I suspect you will any activist as credible if the rhetoric aligns with your biases and hatreds.
Don's simply criticize, refute.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
61,582
Reaction score
10,784
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Professor Susan M. Akram is a product of Georgetown. I inherently did trust those groomed two blocks away from the State Department. They tend to adopt the concepts held by their mentors and seldom are a source of any original thought.

I have posted this before. You must have missed it.
(COMMENT)

No, I did not miss it. I've even attended her lectures. But I am of the opinion that International Law mutates in both interpretation and application.

Much of what she has said here has not yet been ruled upon. It is opinion that is spread around... And when you look for the original source, it is often the same → even though it is repeated many times by different people. One professor teaches a concept to many students, interests, fellowships, and practitioners → and they in turn go out and repeat the one view. That is still only one source; just repeated many times over.

And like some others, especially some who wrote Amici Curiae and the accepted Supplementals → under the extension → have expressed similar opinions. It will be interesting to see what opinion the court holds.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Susan M. Akram
Clinical Professor of Law

BA with honors, University of Michigan Ann Arbor
JD, Georgetown University
Diplome in International Human Rights,
Institut International des Droits de l’Homme, Strasbourg (France)
Masters of Studies, International Human Rights Law, University of Oxford

Areas of Interest

Immigration Law & Policy, International & Comparative Law
Biography

Professor Susan Akram directs BU Law’s International Human Rights Clinic, in which she supervises students engaged in international advocacy in domestic, international, regional, and UN fora. Her research and publications focus on immigration, asylum, refugee, forced migration, and human and civil rights issues, with an interest in the Middle East, the Arab, and Muslim world.


Akram’s distinguished research was recognized with a Fulbright Senior Scholar Teaching and Research Award for the 1999–2000 academic year. She has lectured on Palestinian refugees to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments. Since September 11, 2001, she has presented widely on the USA Patriot Act and immigration-related laws and policies as well as on her work challenging standard interpretations of women’s asylum claims from the Arab/Muslim world.


With her clinic students as well as in collaboration with other legal organizations, Akram has worked on resettlement and refugee claims of Guantanamo detainees, and has been co-counsel on a number of high profile cases, including the 20+-year litigation of a case of first impression on the interpretation of one of the exclusion bars to asylum, In Re A-H-. She has taught at the American University in Cairo, Egypt and at Al-Quds and Birzeit Universities in Palestine. She regularly teaches in the summer institute on forced migration at the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University, and in various venues in the Middle East on refugee law.

Read Full Bio
It is interesting to note that in my limited studies, I have drawn similar conclusions. It is nice to know that there is an agreement with someone of this stature.

So, what do you have that says different?

She has lectured on Palestinian refugees to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments.

That is AWESOME!!!!

Has she ever lectured on Palestinian terrorism to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments?
I don't recall her having any studies in juvenile name calling.
She minored in whining.
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,229
Reaction score
2,680
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The Professor's commentary is an opinion NOT under and opposing view. It is made without criticism.

Don's simply criticize, refute.
(COMMENT)

The Professor makes so many points in this short oratory that I could NOT mount an opposing view as a "layman." But I will tackle a couple of remarks.

At the outset, I would like to say that the Professor's entire oratory has little to do with the current questions concerning that which stands before judgment now. AND The
leadership decisions made pre-1948 and the application of the Rules of Law’ then (not now) are relevant. There is no time machine that can set the clock backward and afford an opportunity to apply early 21st Century Law over events that happened in the early to mid-20th Century. (No instant replay. Let the decisions of the past stand as law of that day either in explicit or tacit perspectives.)

First, you cannot use "Nationality" in the case of Palestine. At the time of the Treaty of Lausanne (1924-1925), "Palestine was defined by the Palestine Order in Council of 1922; NOT the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire use a system of Vilayets divided into Sanjaks. No single Vilayet of Sanjak corresponds to the defined boundaries of the Territory under the Mandate for Palestine.

I have no argument with the issue of the nationality being assumed in the case of a change in sovereign rule. But that does not establish a claim to the territory by the people. The Self-Determination, while granted to ALL people, is not actually defined and is not restricted. It applies equally to those people with pink toes, as we as, red toes. The Principle of Self-Determination is made binding by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR). And the CCPR grants :

◈ Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. This are the "inalienable" rights binding under international law.​
◈ Free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights, binding under international law.​
◈ The most important of the binding Articles is that: All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​

And the last one mention is the most important relative to the Professor's oratory. She made a specific point to the effect that the Jewish People were not recognized as a nationality and therefore not entitled to self-determination on the same order as the territorial inhabitants. THAT is simply wrong.

When the Professor says that the inhabitants became citizens of Palestine under the 1925 Citizenship Law, what she failed to mention was that the inhabitants became citizens of the Government of Palestine (ie unique to the British Administration). When the British terminated the Mandate, not only did the Brith leave, the mechanism for the issuance of Passports terminated with them. She made a big deal of citing that some 70,000 Passports were issued. And that would be true. But those passports were issued by the British Administration and NOT any Palestinian Authority.

Nationality is tied to the land. Citizenship is tied to "domestic law." She makes a point of this, explains it twice. BUT, the nuance escapes most people. There was NO single authority that administered "domestic law" over the entire territory other than the British Administration.

I could go on, but I'm pressed for time.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 
Last edited:
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,519
Reaction score
2,559
Points
1,815
RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Professor Susan M. Akram is a product of Georgetown. I inherently did trust those groomed two blocks away from the State Department. They tend to adopt the concepts held by their mentors and seldom are a source of any original thought.

I have posted this before. You must have missed it.
(COMMENT)

No, I did not miss it. I've even attended her lectures. But I am of the opinion that International Law mutates in both interpretation and application.

Much of what she has said here has not yet been ruled upon. It is opinion that is spread around... And when you look for the original source, it is often the same → even though it is repeated many times by different people. One professor teaches a concept to many students, interests, fellowships, and practitioners → and they in turn go out and repeat the one view. That is still only one source; just repeated many times over.

And like some others, especially some who wrote Amici Curiae and the accepted Supplementals → under the extension → have expressed similar opinions. It will be interesting to see what opinion the court holds.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Susan M. Akram
Clinical Professor of Law

BA with honors, University of Michigan Ann Arbor
JD, Georgetown University
Diplome in International Human Rights,
Institut International des Droits de l’Homme, Strasbourg (France)
Masters of Studies, International Human Rights Law, University of Oxford

Areas of Interest

Immigration Law & Policy, International & Comparative Law
Biography

Professor Susan Akram directs BU Law’s International Human Rights Clinic, in which she supervises students engaged in international advocacy in domestic, international, regional, and UN fora. Her research and publications focus on immigration, asylum, refugee, forced migration, and human and civil rights issues, with an interest in the Middle East, the Arab, and Muslim world.


Akram’s distinguished research was recognized with a Fulbright Senior Scholar Teaching and Research Award for the 1999–2000 academic year. She has lectured on Palestinian refugees to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments. Since September 11, 2001, she has presented widely on the USA Patriot Act and immigration-related laws and policies as well as on her work challenging standard interpretations of women’s asylum claims from the Arab/Muslim world.


With her clinic students as well as in collaboration with other legal organizations, Akram has worked on resettlement and refugee claims of Guantanamo detainees, and has been co-counsel on a number of high profile cases, including the 20+-year litigation of a case of first impression on the interpretation of one of the exclusion bars to asylum, In Re A-H-. She has taught at the American University in Cairo, Egypt and at Al-Quds and Birzeit Universities in Palestine. She regularly teaches in the summer institute on forced migration at the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University, and in various venues in the Middle East on refugee law.

Read Full Bio
It is interesting to note that in my limited studies, I have drawn similar conclusions. It is nice to know that there is an agreement with someone of this stature.

So, what do you have that says different?

She has lectured on Palestinian refugees to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments.

That is AWESOME!!!!

Has she ever lectured on Palestinian terrorism to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments?
I don't recall her having any studies in juvenile name calling.
She minored in whining.
She is addressing another one of Israel's lies/
There is no time machine that can set the clock backward and afford an opportunity to apply early 21st Century Law over events that happened in the early to mid-20th Century.
Has she ever lectured on Palestinian terrorism to general audiences around the world
Rights and sovereignty do not expire. there is no end date. Exercising these rights can be violated by occupation and colonization, but that does not negate those rights.

Subsequently, the UN has stated the continuing right for Palestinians in Palestine to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, the right to territorial integrity, and the right to return to their homes.

The violation of those rights do not negate those rights.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
61,582
Reaction score
10,784
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Professor Susan M. Akram is a product of Georgetown. I inherently did trust those groomed two blocks away from the State Department. They tend to adopt the concepts held by their mentors and seldom are a source of any original thought.

I have posted this before. You must have missed it.
(COMMENT)

No, I did not miss it. I've even attended her lectures. But I am of the opinion that International Law mutates in both interpretation and application.

Much of what she has said here has not yet been ruled upon. It is opinion that is spread around... And when you look for the original source, it is often the same → even though it is repeated many times by different people. One professor teaches a concept to many students, interests, fellowships, and practitioners → and they in turn go out and repeat the one view. That is still only one source; just repeated many times over.

And like some others, especially some who wrote Amici Curiae and the accepted Supplementals → under the extension → have expressed similar opinions. It will be interesting to see what opinion the court holds.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Susan M. Akram
Clinical Professor of Law

BA with honors, University of Michigan Ann Arbor
JD, Georgetown University
Diplome in International Human Rights,
Institut International des Droits de l’Homme, Strasbourg (France)
Masters of Studies, International Human Rights Law, University of Oxford

Areas of Interest

Immigration Law & Policy, International & Comparative Law
Biography

Professor Susan Akram directs BU Law’s International Human Rights Clinic, in which she supervises students engaged in international advocacy in domestic, international, regional, and UN fora. Her research and publications focus on immigration, asylum, refugee, forced migration, and human and civil rights issues, with an interest in the Middle East, the Arab, and Muslim world.


Akram’s distinguished research was recognized with a Fulbright Senior Scholar Teaching and Research Award for the 1999–2000 academic year. She has lectured on Palestinian refugees to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments. Since September 11, 2001, she has presented widely on the USA Patriot Act and immigration-related laws and policies as well as on her work challenging standard interpretations of women’s asylum claims from the Arab/Muslim world.


With her clinic students as well as in collaboration with other legal organizations, Akram has worked on resettlement and refugee claims of Guantanamo detainees, and has been co-counsel on a number of high profile cases, including the 20+-year litigation of a case of first impression on the interpretation of one of the exclusion bars to asylum, In Re A-H-. She has taught at the American University in Cairo, Egypt and at Al-Quds and Birzeit Universities in Palestine. She regularly teaches in the summer institute on forced migration at the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University, and in various venues in the Middle East on refugee law.

Read Full Bio
It is interesting to note that in my limited studies, I have drawn similar conclusions. It is nice to know that there is an agreement with someone of this stature.

So, what do you have that says different?

She has lectured on Palestinian refugees to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments.

That is AWESOME!!!!

Has she ever lectured on Palestinian terrorism to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments?
I don't recall her having any studies in juvenile name calling.
She minored in whining.
She is addressing another one of Israel's lies/
There is no time machine that can set the clock backward and afford an opportunity to apply early 21st Century Law over events that happened in the early to mid-20th Century.
Has she ever lectured on Palestinian terrorism to general audiences around the world
Rights and sovereignty do not expire. there is no end date. Exercising these rights can be violated by occupation and colonization, but that does not negate those rights.

Subsequently, the UN has stated the continuing right for Palestinians in Palestine to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, the right to territorial integrity, and the right to return to their homes.

The violation of those rights do not negate those rights.
the UN has stated the continuing right for Palestinians in Palestine to self determination without external interference

They'd better hurry up and get their shit together.
Palestine is getting smaller.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,222
Reaction score
3,999
Points
1,130
RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Professor Susan M. Akram is a product of Georgetown. I inherently did trust those groomed two blocks away from the State Department. They tend to adopt the concepts held by their mentors and seldom are a source of any original thought.

I have posted this before. You must have missed it.
(COMMENT)

No, I did not miss it. I've even attended her lectures. But I am of the opinion that International Law mutates in both interpretation and application.

Much of what she has said here has not yet been ruled upon. It is opinion that is spread around... And when you look for the original source, it is often the same → even though it is repeated many times by different people. One professor teaches a concept to many students, interests, fellowships, and practitioners → and they in turn go out and repeat the one view. That is still only one source; just repeated many times over.

And like some others, especially some who wrote Amici Curiae and the accepted Supplementals → under the extension → have expressed similar opinions. It will be interesting to see what opinion the court holds.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Susan M. Akram
Clinical Professor of Law

BA with honors, University of Michigan Ann Arbor
JD, Georgetown University
Diplome in International Human Rights,
Institut International des Droits de l’Homme, Strasbourg (France)
Masters of Studies, International Human Rights Law, University of Oxford

Areas of Interest

Immigration Law & Policy, International & Comparative Law
Biography

Professor Susan Akram directs BU Law’s International Human Rights Clinic, in which she supervises students engaged in international advocacy in domestic, international, regional, and UN fora. Her research and publications focus on immigration, asylum, refugee, forced migration, and human and civil rights issues, with an interest in the Middle East, the Arab, and Muslim world.


Akram’s distinguished research was recognized with a Fulbright Senior Scholar Teaching and Research Award for the 1999–2000 academic year. She has lectured on Palestinian refugees to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments. Since September 11, 2001, she has presented widely on the USA Patriot Act and immigration-related laws and policies as well as on her work challenging standard interpretations of women’s asylum claims from the Arab/Muslim world.


With her clinic students as well as in collaboration with other legal organizations, Akram has worked on resettlement and refugee claims of Guantanamo detainees, and has been co-counsel on a number of high profile cases, including the 20+-year litigation of a case of first impression on the interpretation of one of the exclusion bars to asylum, In Re A-H-. She has taught at the American University in Cairo, Egypt and at Al-Quds and Birzeit Universities in Palestine. She regularly teaches in the summer institute on forced migration at the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University, and in various venues in the Middle East on refugee law.

Read Full Bio
It is interesting to note that in my limited studies, I have drawn similar conclusions. It is nice to know that there is an agreement with someone of this stature.

So, what do you have that says different?
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. It's not an argument and just takes up bandwidth.
The truth will set you free.

Dr. Akram is a credible source.
I'm not convinced you recognize any truths. I suspect you will any activist as credible if the rhetoric aligns with your biases and hatreds.
Don's simply criticize, refute.
I’ll need to find a YouTube video.
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,229
Reaction score
2,680
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF:


Rights and sovereignty do not expire. there is no end date. Exercising these rights can be violated by occupation and colonization, but that does not negate those rights.
(COMMENT)

Well, that is not entirely true.

I'll give a couple of examples:

First from Professor Akram: Citizenship is NOT a right. It is a matter of domestic law. The citizenship if the people of Ramallah today, is not the same as the citizenship under Jordanian Rule, and that was not the same as that under the Mandate.​
Then My example: Sovereignty over the People of Ramallah Ottoman Empire ended with WWI. Ramallah was under the sovereignty of The Hashemite Kingdom from 1950 to 1988. In 1988 the PLO declared Independence over the West Bank and the Palestinians claim it as their territory. Then, came Fatah and after Dec 2012, The Chairman of the PLO declared the State of Palestine.​
As you can see, both citizenship and sovereignty can change. There is no First Principle of Tinmore.

Subsequently, the UN has stated the continuing right for Palestinians in Palestine to self-determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, the right to territorial integrity, and the right to return to their homes.

The violation of those rights do not negate those rights.
(COMMENT)

And there is no such thing as a unique Right of Self-Determination to the Arab Palestinians that is not as equally as applicable to the Israelis and the Jewish National Home.

And the violation of the Israeli Rights does not negate them. Remember, (one more time write this on your hand so you don't forget it):

[iondent]
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) said:
PART I Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,​
R​
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,519
Reaction score
2,559
Points
1,815
Then My example: Sovereignty over the People of Ramallah Ottoman Empire ended with WWI.
You have your head on up side down. The people are the sovereigns. Sovereignty flows up not down.
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,229
Reaction score
2,680
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yes, we are certainly talking on different levels of understanding. So, given you and I don't speak at comparable levels I will define the terms I am using, and what I believe Professor Susan M. Akram is using; relative to the context of her oration.

Internation Encyclopedia of Political Science said:
Modern theories of sovereignty frequently distinguish between the internal and external aspects of sovereignty. Internal sovereignty is attributed to the governmental institutions of a state by virtue of fulfilling some or all of the above criteria, while external sovereignty is attributed to the state as a whole by virtue of being recognized as such by other states. Since the terms of recognition are dependent on the internal attributes of sovereignty, the requirements of external sovereignty have varied considerably over time. Recognition has been granted on different grounds, ranging from principles of dynastic succession, via national self-determination and territorial integrity, to the more recent requirement that states should be governed according to democratic principles to merit international recognition.

The first step toward the articulation of a recognizably modern conception of sovereignty was taken when claims to supreme authority were territorialized.
SOURCE: Internation Encyclopedia of Political Science - Sovereignty, 8:2469–2472 Copyright © 2011 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Dictionary of Politics said:
Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world. It has, nowadays, nothing to do with monarchy, which might seem to be implied by the connotation of sovereign, but entirely refers to the idea of independent rule by a country or institution over a certain territory or set of political concerns.
SOURCE: The Routledge of Politics, 3d Ed, pg 454, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004.


Then My example: Sovereignty over the People of Ramallah Ottoman Empire ended with WWI.
You have your head on up side down. The people are the sovereigns. Sovereignty flows up not down.
(COMMENT)

I have seen you mix up the meaning of sovereignty, in terms of the derivative source of legitimacy. This is that vertical rise (flows up from the people). Most of the time, when in the contemporary context, we are talking about the power of the government to exercise authority, not sharing it with any other higher authority. OR

American Dictionary said:
sov-er-eign-ty /'sav(a)rante/ /!. (pi. -ties) supreme power or authority: how can we hope to wrest sovereignty away rom the oligarchy and back to the people the authority of a state to govern itself or another state: national sovereignty. a self-governing state.
t>late Middle English: from Old French sovereinete, from soverain.
SOURCE: The Concise Oxford American Dictionary pg 866, Copyright © 2006 Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.
198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, 10016
When considering the current political climate of the Regional Area immediately surrounding Israel and the territories in dispute, you will find that no two have the same type of government.
◈ Lebanon is a parliamentary republic.​
◈ Syria is a presidential republic; a highly authoritarian regime.​
◈ Jordan is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy.​
◈ Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy.​
◈ Egypt is a semi-presidential republic.​
And none of those countries match the type of government of the US (constitutional federal republic).
SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 

toastman

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
16,244
Reaction score
2,059
Points
245
RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Professor Susan M. Akram is a product of Georgetown. I inherently did trust those groomed two blocks away from the State Department. They tend to adopt the concepts held by their mentors and seldom are a source of any original thought.

I have posted this before. You must have missed it.
(COMMENT)

No, I did not miss it. I've even attended her lectures. But I am of the opinion that International Law mutates in both interpretation and application.

Much of what she has said here has not yet been ruled upon. It is opinion that is spread around... And when you look for the original source, it is often the same → even though it is repeated many times by different people. One professor teaches a concept to many students, interests, fellowships, and practitioners → and they in turn go out and repeat the one view. That is still only one source; just repeated many times over.

And like some others, especially some who wrote Amici Curiae and the accepted Supplementals → under the extension → have expressed similar opinions. It will be interesting to see what opinion the court holds.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Susan M. Akram
Clinical Professor of Law

BA with honors, University of Michigan Ann Arbor
JD, Georgetown University
Diplome in International Human Rights,
Institut International des Droits de l’Homme, Strasbourg (France)
Masters of Studies, International Human Rights Law, University of Oxford

Areas of Interest

Immigration Law & Policy, International & Comparative Law
Biography

Professor Susan Akram directs BU Law’s International Human Rights Clinic, in which she supervises students engaged in international advocacy in domestic, international, regional, and UN fora. Her research and publications focus on immigration, asylum, refugee, forced migration, and human and civil rights issues, with an interest in the Middle East, the Arab, and Muslim world.


Akram’s distinguished research was recognized with a Fulbright Senior Scholar Teaching and Research Award for the 1999–2000 academic year. She has lectured on Palestinian refugees to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments. Since September 11, 2001, she has presented widely on the USA Patriot Act and immigration-related laws and policies as well as on her work challenging standard interpretations of women’s asylum claims from the Arab/Muslim world.


With her clinic students as well as in collaboration with other legal organizations, Akram has worked on resettlement and refugee claims of Guantanamo detainees, and has been co-counsel on a number of high profile cases, including the 20+-year litigation of a case of first impression on the interpretation of one of the exclusion bars to asylum, In Re A-H-. She has taught at the American University in Cairo, Egypt and at Al-Quds and Birzeit Universities in Palestine. She regularly teaches in the summer institute on forced migration at the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University, and in various venues in the Middle East on refugee law.

Read Full Bio
It is interesting to note that in my limited studies, I have drawn similar conclusions. It is nice to know that there is an agreement with someone of this stature.

So, what do you have that says different?
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. It's not an argument and just takes up bandwidth.
The truth will set you free.

Dr. Akram is a credible source.
I'm not convinced you recognize any truths. I suspect you will any activist as credible if the rhetoric aligns with your biases and hatreds.
Don's simply criticize, refute.
Every single one of your posts is refuted . You simply cannot handle that you are wrong. ALWAYS wrong for that matter .

Why you post here when you are so clueless about the I-P conflict is beyond me.
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,519
Reaction score
2,559
Points
1,815
RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yes, we are certainly talking on different levels of understanding. So, given you and I don't speak at comparable levels I will define the terms I am using, and what I believe Professor Susan M. Akram is using; relative to the context of her oration.


Internation Encyclopedia of Political Science said:
Modern theories of sovereignty frequently distinguish between the internal and external aspects of sovereignty. Internal sovereignty is attributed to the governmental institutions of a state by virtue of fulfilling some or all of the above criteria, while external sovereignty is attributed to the state as a whole by virtue of being recognized as such by other states. Since the terms of recognition are dependent on the internal attributes of sovereignty, the requirements of external sovereignty have varied considerably over time. Recognition has been granted on different grounds, ranging from principles of dynastic succession, via national self-determination and territorial integrity, to the more recent requirement that states should be governed according to democratic principles to merit international recognition.


The first step toward the articulation of a recognizably modern conception of sovereignty was taken when claims to supreme authority were territorialized.

SOURCE: Internation Encyclopedia of Political Science - Sovereignty, 8:2469–2472 Copyright © 2011 by SAGE Publications, Inc.


Dictionary of Politics said:
Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world. It has, nowadays, nothing to do with monarchy, which might seem to be implied by the connotation of sovereign, but entirely refers to the idea of independent rule by a country or institution over a certain territory or set of political concerns.​
SOURCE: The Routledge of Politics, 3d Ed, pg 454, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004.​


Then My example: Sovereignty over the People of Ramallah Ottoman Empire ended with WWI.
You have your head on up side down. The people are the sovereigns. Sovereignty flows up not down.
(COMMENT)

I have seen you mix up the meaning of sovereignty, in terms of the derivative source of legitimacy. This is that vertical rise (flows up from the people). Most of the time, when in the contemporary context, we are talking about the power of the government to exercise authority, not sharing it with any other higher authority. OR

American Dictionary said:
sov-er-eign-ty /'sav(a)rante/ /!. (pi. -ties) supreme power or authority: how can we hope to wrest sovereignty away rom the oligarchy and back to the people the authority of a state to govern itself or another state: national sovereignty. a self-governing state.​
t>late Middle English: from Old French sovereinete, from soverain.​
SOURCE: The Concise Oxford American Dictionary pg 866, Copyright © 2006 Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.​
198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, 10016​
When considering the current political climate of the Regional Area immediately surrounding Israel and the territories in dispute, you will find that no two have the same type of government.
◈ Lebanon is a parliamentary republic.​
◈ Syria is a presidential republic; a highly authoritarian regime.​
◈ Jordan is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy.​
◈ Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy.​
◈ Egypt is a semi-presidential republic.​
And none of those countries match the type of government of the US (constitutional federal republic).
SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
American Dictionary said:
sov-er-eign-ty /'sav(a)rante/ /!. (pi. -ties) supreme power or authority: how can we hope to wrest sovereignty away from the oligarchy and back to the people the authority of a state to govern itself or another state: national sovereignty. a self-governing state.
t>late Middle English: from Old French sovereinete, from soverain.
SOURCE: The Concise Oxford American Dictionary pg 866, Copyright © 2006 Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.
198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, 10016
Like I said, sovereignty lies with the people of a defined territory. External interference violates that sovereignty. Coups, conquests, colonialism, and occupations do not acquire the sovereignty of the people. The Palestinians still hold the sovereignty inside their defined territory.

Who had the sovereignty to create the US Government?

We the People.
 

toastman

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
16,244
Reaction score
2,059
Points
245
The Palestinians hold nothing . Keep dreaming Tinnie .
BTW , this is one of your more pathetic posts .
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,229
Reaction score
2,680
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is not totally correct.


Like I said, sovereignty lies with the people of a defined territory. External interference violates that sovereignty. Coups, conquests, colonialism, and occupations do not acquire the sovereignty of the people. The Palestinians still hold the sovereignty inside their defined territory.

Who had the sovereignty to create the US Government?

We the People.
(COMMENT)

While sovereignty may, in certain governments, rest with the people it is not a requirement for a sovereign authority over territory. It is certainly not true in the case of Saudi Arabia.

"An emirate is a political territory that is ruled by a dynastic Arabic or Islamic monarch-styled emir."

"Constitutional monarchy - a system of government in which a monarch is guided by a constitution whereby his/her rights, duties, and responsibilities are spelled out in written law or by custom."

BTW: "We the People" is the opening line to the American Constitution. It does not set sovereignty. We are not discussing "Popular Sovereignty."

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,222
Reaction score
3,999
Points
1,130
RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yes, we are certainly talking on different levels of understanding. So, given you and I don't speak at comparable levels I will define the terms I am using, and what I believe Professor Susan M. Akram is using; relative to the context of her oration.


Internation Encyclopedia of Political Science said:
Modern theories of sovereignty frequently distinguish between the internal and external aspects of sovereignty. Internal sovereignty is attributed to the governmental institutions of a state by virtue of fulfilling some or all of the above criteria, while external sovereignty is attributed to the state as a whole by virtue of being recognized as such by other states. Since the terms of recognition are dependent on the internal attributes of sovereignty, the requirements of external sovereignty have varied considerably over time. Recognition has been granted on different grounds, ranging from principles of dynastic succession, via national self-determination and territorial integrity, to the more recent requirement that states should be governed according to democratic principles to merit international recognition.


The first step toward the articulation of a recognizably modern conception of sovereignty was taken when claims to supreme authority were territorialized.

SOURCE: Internation Encyclopedia of Political Science - Sovereignty, 8:2469–2472 Copyright © 2011 by SAGE Publications, Inc.


Dictionary of Politics said:
Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world. It has, nowadays, nothing to do with monarchy, which might seem to be implied by the connotation of sovereign, but entirely refers to the idea of independent rule by a country or institution over a certain territory or set of political concerns.​
SOURCE: The Routledge of Politics, 3d Ed, pg 454, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004.​


Then My example: Sovereignty over the People of Ramallah Ottoman Empire ended with WWI.
You have your head on up side down. The people are the sovereigns. Sovereignty flows up not down.
(COMMENT)

I have seen you mix up the meaning of sovereignty, in terms of the derivative source of legitimacy. This is that vertical rise (flows up from the people). Most of the time, when in the contemporary context, we are talking about the power of the government to exercise authority, not sharing it with any other higher authority. OR

American Dictionary said:
sov-er-eign-ty /'sav(a)rante/ /!. (pi. -ties) supreme power or authority: how can we hope to wrest sovereignty away rom the oligarchy and back to the people the authority of a state to govern itself or another state: national sovereignty. a self-governing state.​
t>late Middle English: from Old French sovereinete, from soverain.​
SOURCE: The Concise Oxford American Dictionary pg 866, Copyright © 2006 Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.​
198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, 10016​
When considering the current political climate of the Regional Area immediately surrounding Israel and the territories in dispute, you will find that no two have the same type of government.
◈ Lebanon is a parliamentary republic.​
◈ Syria is a presidential republic; a highly authoritarian regime.​
◈ Jordan is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy.​
◈ Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy.​
◈ Egypt is a semi-presidential republic.​
And none of those countries match the type of government of the US (constitutional federal republic).
SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
American Dictionary said:
sov-er-eign-ty /'sav(a)rante/ /!. (pi. -ties) supreme power or authority: how can we hope to wrest sovereignty away from the oligarchy and back to the people the authority of a state to govern itself or another state: national sovereignty. a self-governing state.
t>late Middle English: from Old French sovereinete, from soverain.
SOURCE: The Concise Oxford American Dictionary pg 866, Copyright © 2006 Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.
198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, 10016
Like I said, sovereignty lies with the people of a defined territory. External interference violates that sovereignty. Coups, conquests, colonialism, and occupations do not acquire the sovereignty of the people. The Palestinians still hold the sovereignty inside their defined territory.

Who had the sovereignty to create the US Government?

We the People.
We the Islamic Supremacists

Snappy!
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top