The Noahide Laws

Page 6 of 13 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 11, 12, 13  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Hoffman Mentions Noahide Laws

Post by zone on Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:07 am

(Don't forget Jewish Born Hoffman is Christian, and is the world's foremost English Scholar of the Talmud.....his sites are invaluable resources...z)

Judaism's unscriptural "Passover" text: the Haggadah

We are being inundated in the media with pious tales of the supposed Biblical foundation of Judaism's "Passover" holy days, the yom tov of the People of the Book — but which book — the Pentateuch or the Talmud? The claim that Judaism commemorates the Passover of the Old Testament is as nonsensical as the one that asserts that Judaism's "Noahide Laws" are based on Noah, the Biblical patriarch who is mocked and degraded in Orthodox Judaism. Like the ersatz Talmudic Noah, the bogus rite in Judaism misnamed “Passover" is derived from the Talmud — using the Bible as a prop. Here below is information on Judaism's foundational Passover text. Surprise, surprise, it's not the Old Testament but rather the Haggadah, a thoroughly Talmudic work.


—Michael Hoffman, author of the 1100 page textbook, Judaism Discovered.

***


Passed Over
By Richard Poplak | Walrus magazine (funded by the government of Canada) | May 2011

..."Haggadah" means "telling." Reading it fulfills the scriptural commandment in Exodus to "tell your son" about the Israelites' liberation from slavery in Egypt, and its recitation kicks off the week-long festival of Passover. In the Diaspora, the Seder takes place on the first two nights of the festival, and the Haggadah serves as the manual...

The Haggadah doesn't tell the story of Exodus so much as it depicts five rabbinical sages exegetically parsing it via Deuteronomy. Rabbis Eliezer, Yehoshua, Elazar ben Azariah, Akiva, and Tarphon spice up the biblical tale of the flight from Egypt by arguing over the minutiae of the Passover rites, which were originally compiled in the Talmud, the Jewish book of religious laws. We'll avoid the scholarly bickering about when this occurred (very roughly, 200 CE), but one thing remains certain: the Talmud, and the Haggadah along with it, was a response to a catastrophe so great it threatened to destroy a people.

In 66 CE, when the Roman general Vespasian swept into Jerusalem, Judaism was a cultic, oral religion, with Herod's massive temple as its lodestar. Everything happened in the temple complex. Four years later, Vespasian's son Titus razed it to the ground. "Where was God under the rubble?" wondered the Rabbis. "How to praise him now that the temple was gone?" The sages agreed: Jews would have to become a people of the book, or they would disappear.

In a dazzling feat of spiritual and scholarly bravura, they compiled the Talmud, the text that has defined Jewish life for almost eighteen centuries. It meticulously redacts generations of oral religious injunctions, explains them, justifies them... The Talmud's first compilers, the early rabbinical scholars (were) called the Tannaim...

The first extant version of the Haggadah was ... unearthed in a manuscript of a siddur (prayer book) compiled by Saadia Goan in the tenth century. Before this, the liturgy came to us from the Talmud.

...No doubt about it, the Haggadah is a problematic text. It tells Jews that they are exceptional, and it puts a premium on Jewish life over the lives of others...

(Emphasis supplied)


***

Posted by Michael Hoffman at 4/11/2011 09:55:00 AM 2 comments Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Google Buzz

Labels: Babylonian Talmud, Haggadah, Passover, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, Saadia Goan, seder, Siddur, unscriptural

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/

avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by Adstar on Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:56 pm

I read this but am confused. Is he saying that
the Passover is not right because?

It is celebrated on the wrong day?

It is celebrated in the wrong way?

It should not be celebrated?

He made a definite statement about being against it. But to me he seems to have
made no points as to why he is against it?


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Adstar

Posts : 114
Join date : 2011-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by zone on Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:40 pm

Adstar wrote:I read this but am confused. Is he saying that
the Passover is not right because?

It is celebrated on the wrong day?

It is celebrated in the wrong way?

It should not be celebrated?

He made a definite statement about being against it. But to me he seems to have
made no points as to why he is against it?


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

hi adstar.
no, he's saying the religion of Talmudism (Judaism today) is a TOTAL counterfeit.

when you see things"celebrated" by talmudists, it has NOTHING to do with Jesus (or Moses for that matter): the entire system is a fraud and corruption.

we celebrate the Death & Ressurection of our Lord just like we always do.

if the talmudists ruined the reality of Pascha that's their problem.

if Rome ruined the reality of Pascha by calling it Herod's Easter, big deal.

only the evil guys at the top of either system know they are deliberately blaspheming.

Hoffman's issue with the EO guy was that the EO should STOP looking at Judaism for ANY guidance or truth since it isn't Moses and the prophets anyhow.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by Strangelove on Sun Apr 24, 2011 2:39 pm

I'm currently reading Hoffmans book 'Judaism discovered'.

Crackin read.

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3144
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by Strangelove on Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:26 am

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

- Thomas Jefferson

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3144
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by Strangelove on Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:26 am

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

- First Amendment

"... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

- Free exercise clause

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3144
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by zone on Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:28 pm

Doc
if you feel comfortable posting links to Noahide Forums you may find informative please do so.
these guys implicate themselves openly.
remember Bud it wasn't that long ago you and i had to do serious digging to find them: now they're right out there in the open.

pretty serious signal of how confident they are.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by Strangelove on Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:35 pm

zone wrote:Doc
if you feel comfortable posting links to Noahide Forums you may find informative please do so.
these guys implicate themselves openly.
remember Bud it wasn't that long ago you and i had to do serious digging to find them: now they're right out there in the open.

pretty serious signal of how confident they are.

Ask Noah Forums

Self implicate central.

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3144
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by zone on Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:34 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Ask Noah Forums

Self implicate central.

PERF.
thx Doc.
excellent work btw: they just keep exposing themselves (pun intended)
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by zone on Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:43 pm

Strangelove wrote:Final War for Judaism

As the world plunges headlong toward the imminent revelation of Moshiach while the last walls of the exile disintegrate, the number of confused gentiles ready to change is rising exponentially. If the Jewish people immediately begin preparing adequate structures for the Noachide movement, this tide will be channeled directly into a glorious revelation of Truth.

HOW MUCH MORE PROOF DO WE NEED???????

yet you try to tell a christian this stuff? forget it.
there are a very scant few who have any clue whatsoever.

THE THIRD WAVE PROPHECIES BY JOYNER (CFR/KNIGHT OF MALTA) AND "RABBI" COHEN:

http://www.seekgod.ca/cohenjoyner.htm

~

but, The Lord knows them that are His, He will not leave them in darkness.
thank you Jesus Lord and Saviour.

~

BABY GIRL ROME WAS THEIR MASTER-STROKE.

Revelation 13
1And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. 2And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. 3And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. 4And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? 5And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. 6And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

7And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. 8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 9If any man have an ear, let him hear. 10He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

11And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 16And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by Strangelove on Mon May 02, 2011 9:04 pm

"The Noachides & Rome's Chief Rabbi, Riccardo Di Segni"

"In Rome, on January 17, 2002, in the Lecture hall of the Major Roman Pontifical Seminary, a meeting was organized by the Diocese of Rome, part of the Day of Jewish-Christian dialogue. Present on the Catholic side were Cardinal Jorge Maria Mejia and Msgr. Rino Fisichella, and on the Jewish side, Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni, who replaced Rabbi Elio Toaff as Chief Rabbi of Rome...

"Rabbi Di Segni...explains [the seven precepts that all noachides must respect]:

"These rules are: interdiction of all worship except monotheism, interdiction on blasphemy, the obligation to form tribunals, the interdiction on homicide, theft, adultery, and incest, and the interdiction on eating food torn from living animals.

"...The Rabbi's attention is completely fixed on the first precept, that of monotheism: 'As to the monotheist cult, apparently, it poses no doubt for the major religions.' Aren't Judaism, Christianity and Islam defined, in post-conciliar language that has become colloquial today, as 'the three major monotheist religions? In fact, Di Segni sees no difficulty in defining Muslims as strict and even circumcised monotheists. But, as to Christians, he has some doubts....

christians: monotheists or idolators?

"This is where Di Segni---who is the author of the re-publication of the Toledoths Jehsu, under the new title, Il Vangelo del Ghetto [The Gospel of the Ghetto], with the Toledoths Jehsu being the most inflammatory Jewish legends against Jesus (1)---'speaks clearly' to the prelates who heard him:

"At the point we have now reached, it is necessary to make a clarification on Jewish theology, which, on the subject of monotheism and how it is lived by Christianity, gives rise to a debate that is essentially a dilemma. The point in question is in view of establishing whether Jesus' divinity can be compatible, for a non-Jew (because for a Jew it is absolutely not) with the monotheistic concept.

"In other words: The Jew who would become a Christian, thus then believing in the divinity of Jesus, would cease to be a monotheist in order to become an idolater. Must one say the same thing of a non-Jew? Is believing in Jesus' divinity a sin of idolatry, a violation of the first precept of the Noachide law? Rabbi Di Segni advises:

"'As to be expected, in Jewish theology, the answer to this question is not unanimous: some firmly deny it, others place certain conditions on it. The consequence is that, according to the literal opinion, the Christian would not be on the path of salvation' since he is guilty of idolatry...

"Di Segni concludes: 'If one must literally apply the Noachide system of laws, it [the punishment of death] would be applied to all, so that the Noachides might observe it. Likewise, the punishment of death would apply to what treats forbidding the worship of strange gods,' in view of monotheism."

Source: "The Noachides and Rome's Chief Rabbi, Riccardo Di Segni," Father Francesco Ricossa, Sodalitium, French Edition, No. 53, July, 2002, translated by Suzanne M. Rini, Trans Et Alia, Vol. 3, No. 3, Sept. 2002.

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3144
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by Strangelove on Tue May 03, 2011 12:26 pm

Even if Noahides wanna claim that putting gentiles to death in modern times has anything to do with Gods Word, what about this:

(Deuteronomy 17:6) At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

And noahide code says one witness is enough?

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3144
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by zone on Tue May 03, 2011 4:46 pm

Strangelove wrote:Even if Noahides wanna claim that putting gentiles to death in modern times has anything to do with Gods Word, what about this:

(Deuteronomy 17:6) At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

And noahide code says one witness is enough?

oh but we don't care what MOSES said....we prefer the Pharisees.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by Strangelove on Mon May 09, 2011 5:00 pm

Question:

Dear rabbi.
I have been studying the noahide laws since a couple years ago and tried to keep these holy mitzvot as good as possible. This year there arose a question since my child begun his first year in a secular kindergarten where xmas is celebrated. We however do not celebrate it at home at all. Do you think I am doing right? Instead of xmas, I think Hanuka would be a better alternative, but my question is: are we allowed to celebrate it? And can we even say directly that xmas is forbidden for Torah observant Noahides?

Answer:

You are allowed to celebrate chanukka by rejoicing in the preservation of the Torah achieved by the victory G-d gave the Maccabees. Adopt customs that express for you a sense of joy. Since Christmas celebrates the birth of someone many gentiles have accepted as a god, ideally you should not participate in this as idolatry is one of the seven Noachide laws.

General Questions - Yeshiva.org

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3144
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by Strangelove on Fri May 13, 2011 9:03 am

The Torah maintains that the righteous Gentiles of all nations (those observing the Seven Laws of Noah, listed below) have a place in the World to Come. But not all religious Gentiles earn eternal life by virtue of observing their religion:

While it is recognized that Moslems worship the same God that we do (though calling him Allah, He is the same God of Israel), even those who follow the tenets of their religion cannot be considered righteous in the eyes of God, because they do not accept that the Written Torah in the hands of the Jews today is the original Torah handed down by God and they do not accept the Seven Laws of Noah as binding on them.

While the Christians do generally accept the Hebrew Bible as truly from God, many of them (those who accept the so-called divinity of Jesus) are idolaters according to the Torah, punishable by death, and certainly will not enjoy the World to Come. But it is not just being a member of a denomination in which the majority are believers in the Trinity that is idolatry, but personal idolatrous practice, whatever the individual's affiliation.


http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/gentiles.htm

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3144
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by Strangelove on Mon May 16, 2011 1:17 pm

If they do not agree to a peaceful settlement, or if they agree to a peaceful settlement, but refuse to accept the seven mitzvot, war should be waged against them.

All males past majority should be killed. Their money and their children should be taken as spoil, but neither women or children should be killed, as Deuteronomy 20:14 states: 'But the women and the children... take as spoil." 'The children' refer to males below the age of majority.


- Mishneh Torah » Sefer Shofetim » Melachim uMilchamot » Chapter 6, Halacha 4

Mishneh Torah at Chabad.org

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3144
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by Strangelove on Mon May 16, 2011 1:38 pm

~Gospel Break~

(Zechariah 4:6) .....Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.

(Matthew 26:52) Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

(2 Corinthians 10:4) (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)

(Matthew 13:28) He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

(Matthew 13:29) But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3144
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by Strangelove on Mon May 16, 2011 2:12 pm

15. The statutory punishment for transgressing any one of the Seven Laws of Noah is capital punishment. [15] According to some, punishment is the same whether one transgresses with knowledge of the law or is ignorant of the law. [16] According to others, a transgressor of the Noahide Law who is ignorant of the law receives the death penalty only in the case of murder.

'Ignorant of the law' meaning....?....?...Never heard of them? Great. The UN is spreading the false gospel to all its member states so not much chance of being ignorant of them.

16. If the courts cannot punish an individual for lack of witnesses or any other reason (see the chapter on Courts of Law), the transgressor will be punished by Divine Decree. [18]

Whats divine decree?

20. If one of the Children of Noah arises and performs a miracle and says that God sent him, then instructs others to add to or subtract from any of the Seven Universal Laws or explains them in a way not heard at Mount Sinai, or claims that the 613 Commandments given to the Jews are not eternal, but limited to a fixed period of time, this person is deemed a false prophet and incurs the death penalty.

I wonder which individual thats directed at.

SOURCE: The Path of the Righteous Gentile

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3144
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by Strangelove on Mon May 16, 2011 2:20 pm

Halacha 2
A gentile who worships false gods is liable provided he worships them in an accepted manner.

A gentile is executed for every type of foreign worship which a Jewish court would consider worthy of capital punishment. However, a gentile is not executed for a type of foreign worship which a Jewish court would not deem worthy of capital punishment. Nevertheless, even though a gentile will not be executed for these forms of worship, he is forbidden to engage in all of them.

We should not allow them to erect a monument, or to plant an Asherah, or to make images and the like even though they are only for the sake of beauty.

Halacha 3
A gentile who curses God's Name, whether he uses God's unique name or one of His other names, in any language, is liable. This law does not apply with regard to Jews.

Halacha 4
A gentile who slays any soul, even a fetus in its mother's womb, should be executed in retribution for its death. Similarly, if he slew a person who would have otherwise died in the near future, placed a person before a lion, or starved a person to death, he should be executed for through one manner or other, he killed.

Similarly, one should be executed if he killed a pursuer when he could have saved the latter's potential victim by maiming one of the pursuer's limbs. These laws do not apply with regard to Jews.


Mishneh Torah » Sefer Shofetim » Melachim uMilchamot » Chapter 9

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3144
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

OH YA???

Post by zone on Mon May 16, 2011 3:38 pm

avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

UH OH

Post by zone on Mon May 16, 2011 3:40 pm

avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by Strangelove on Mon May 16, 2011 7:00 pm

A heathen who keeps a day of rest, deserves death, for it is written, And a day and a night they shall not rest, and a master has said: Their prohibition is their death sentence. Rabina said: Even if he rested on a Monday. Now why is this not included in the seven Noachian laws? — Only negative injunctions are enumerated, not positive ones. 38

Footnote #38: The seven Noachian laws deal with things which a heathen must abstain from doing. But when we say that a heathen must not observe a day of rest, we bid him to do a positive action, viz., work. cyclops

BT Sanhedrin 58b

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3144
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by Strangelove on Tue May 24, 2011 6:40 am

The 17th Conference on
Talmud & Contemporary Law

Wednesday, June 1, 2011
12:45 pm – 5:15 pm
The Center of Clayton
50 Gay Ave., Clayton, Missouri (directions below)

The Conference on Talmud & Contemporary Law provides a forum for the comparative analysis of legal, ethical and public policy issues under Jewish and secular law. It offers modern legal minds the opportunity to explore age-old Jewish legal principles and their relevance to current law and public policy.

~SNIP~

THE BIN LADEN KILLING: EXTRA JUDICIAL EXECUTION, INCARCERATION AND OTHER SANCTIONS IN JUDAIC LAW - What are the factors distinguishing between the prosecution of warfare and the need for legal procedure? We will examine the highly developed sense for the role of the extra judicial in Talmudic law, and compare this with contemporary American and International Law.

EXAMINING AMERICAN CODES OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY THROUGH THE PERSPECTIVE OF JEWISH LAW AND ETHICS - A critique of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, arguing that the rules leave too many ethical decisions to the discretion of the legal professional. We will highlight principles in Jewish law which impose defined ethical obligations that are mandatory rather than optional.

showmechabadcom

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3144
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by zone on Tue May 24, 2011 12:50 pm

Strangelove wrote:A heathen who keeps a day of rest, deserves death, for it is written, And a day and a night they shall not rest, and a master has said: Their prohibition is their death sentence. Rabina said: Even if he rested on a Monday. Now why is this not included in the seven Noachian laws? — Only negative injunctions are enumerated, not positive ones. 38

Footnote #38: The seven Noachian laws deal with things which a heathen must abstain from doing. But when we say that a heathen must not observe a day of rest, we bid him to do a positive action, viz., work. cyclops

BT Sanhedrin 58b

ya....no rest for the slaves.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Holy Temple and the non-Jew

Post by zone on Tue May 24, 2011 1:06 pm

Audio: The Holy Temple and the non-Jew

7/14/2009 8:25:00 PM

A7 Radio's "Noahide Nations" with Noahide Nations
Listen Now!

There is much debate as to what the Holy Temple truly represents to the non-Jewish world. The debate ranges from ‘the Temple is only for the Jews’ to ‘the Temple benefits the entire world’. All of humanity hungers for answers to these questions.

Join Ray and Adam this week as they search for answers to the many questions encompassing the relationship of the Gentile people to the Holy Temple. You will learn a great deal on the subject from this weeks honored guest, Rabbi Chaim Richman. Rabbi Richman is the International Director of the Temple Institute in Jerusalem and he shares many profound teachings on what the Temple means for all people, especially the Gentile.

This interview with Rabbi Richman is sure to get your attention. You can visit their web site at www.TempleInstitute.org and listen to the interview with Rabbi Richman. You will come away with a greater understanding of what the Temple is and what it means for you.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/News.aspx/1179
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

the Treaty of Tripoli recognizing America is not a Christian, but a Noahide nation.

Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 2:50 am

We believe Sharia law is not religious theology per se in the sense of the first amendment, both as a historical fact and in light of In Re Ross excoriation and vilifying of Sharia law practices and precepts as inherently uncivilized as recognized in treaties of the US back to the Treaty of Tripoli recognizing America is not a Christian, but a Noahide nation.

http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=vatican+approves+noahide+laws&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=vatican+approves+noahide+laws&d=4946462491806025&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=ad13dc3,da872d87&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=g_qQbvYvmCz1J89HFNKf6w--

(ADMIN---Link goes to empty yahoo search----Please fix)
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

SCRIB'D DOCUMENT

Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 2:53 am

HELP ME SORT THROUGH THIS DOCUMENT: ITS A PDF, SO ALL I CAN DO IS COPY THE HTML HERE!!

ALERT!!!

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA United States of America ex rel Dr. Paul Maas Risenhoover, JD, Pro Se and or Prochein Amie for all non-Jewish persons in Oklahoma and American Formosa and as Relator for the United States, Petitioner, and as Guardian and Trustee of Zion (“YAIR”) and the Jewish people, (per Jobson v Henne and Whitmore v Arkies, non compos), Al-Aulaki et al v. Obama, Gates and Panetta, et al And Civ A. No. 10-cv-1469 (JDB) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT In Re United States of America ex rel Dr. Paul Maas Risenhoover, JD, Pro Se and or Prochein Amie for all non-Jewish persons in Oklahoma and American Formosa and as Relator for the United States, Petitioner, and as Guardian and Trustee of Zion (“YAIR”) and the Jewish people, (per Jobson v Henne and Whitmore v Arkies, non compos), pursuant to 18 USC 3771, 18 USC 3771(e) for the writ of mandamus In Re UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civ A. No. 10-cv-1469 (JDB) Al-Aulaki et al v. Obama, Gates and Panetta, et al ACLU, CCR, Putative Traitor and Hostis Human Generis Expatriate Human Al-Aulaki and his daddy, and the USA, Obama, Gates, Panetta, et al, Real Parties in Interest Petition for the Writ of Mandamus under 18 USC 3771 and 18 USC 3771(e) for leave to appear Pro Se, intervene, or as amicus prochein amie, Exhibit and Affidavit on the Law of Nations, International Law status of the terrorist or unlawful combatant as a pirate and hostis humani generi Federal Indian Law perspective on the national duty of the State of Israel to the protection of her law of war unlawful combatant belligerent Palestinian “Indian” captives, captures, or pirates 1. Al-Aulaki et al v. Obama, Gates and Panetta, et al, Civ A. No. 10-cv-1469 (JDB), on motion for leave to appear as amicus to argue that US Indian law examples and diplomatic correspondence in regard to incidents in Cuba or with Mexico regarding Cochise or with Canada regarding Chief Sitting Bull evince the proper understanding of the unlawful combatant as an enemy common to mankind, hostis humani generis. 2. Awad v Ziriax et al, No. 10-1186-M, WDOK, and In Re Risenhoover appeals therefrom to the Tenth Circuit Nos. 10-6216 and 10-6256 arguing that the Tenth Circuit ought not apply an arbitrary and capricious docketing fee for victims, for example widowed wives of American servicemen such as US Marines killed incident to terrorist activities abroad, chas vesholom, lo aleinu, heaven forfend, not again and not for ours, seeking mandamus to compel the lower court respect their right to attend court under 18 USC 3771, even remotely, since the Judicial Conference did not specifically provide that victims mandamus would require such fees, and Congress could not have intended such fees to be applied for the special emergency ex parte mandamus they provided (in one circuit, the US has to reply to such petitions within 24 hours of docketing, and must notify all other known victims) and which the Supreme Court at least incidentally seems to consider as being intended for proceeding without prepayment of costs by virtue of the statute's inclusion within Title 18 and as part of the congressional review of indigent's access to counsel etcetera, but substantively to move the Court below and the Circuit in respect of Oklahoma State Questions 751 and 755, interdicting use of other than English in official proceedings other than where required by federal law and interdicting state court consideration or use of international law or Sharia law. We believe Sharia law is not religious theology per se in the sense of the first amendment, both as a historical fact and in light of In Re Ross excoriation and vilifying of Sharia law practices and precepts as inherently uncivilized as recognized in treaties of the US back to the Treaty of Tripoli recognizing America is not a Christian, but a Noahide nation. We believe SQ751 is interdicted by the Supremacy Clause in light of the Trust relations between the US and Indians in Oklahoma under Article One, US Constitution, and Article VI as to treaties. We believe the Court's relief, which interdicts the State from declaring the already completed vote approving the initiatives from becoming part of the State Constitution, is relief which is interdicted by the plain meaning of Article VI Supremacy Clause mandates to State court Judges to obey the Constitution and treaties as superior in force to contrary state constitutions and statutes, thus the Article presupposes there shall be state constitutional texts which are indeed contrary to the US Constitution and treaty duties, a fact evinced by the Article III alienage diversity jurisdiction reposed in the federal courts consonant the national duty of protection of aliens enjoying our national hospitality in sojourn, and the sixth and seventh amendment constitutional rights to an impartial trial by a jury de medietate linguae, which Michigan and Wisconsin provided to Creole Indians and Canadians in the US, and which Chief Justice John Marshall approved of for an alien pirate defendant Manuel Cartacho in US v Cartacho in the Circuit sitting at Roanoke, and accord Respublica v Mesca, recognizing the common law right of a Jew in England to such an impartial trial recognizing what Rabbi Bleich of YU Cardozo has taught was the Indian like separate status of Jews in medieval Europe (a condition, contrary to that equality promised by the French Revolution, and cherished by American Jews as incident to liberty and American citizenship, but widely and rightly feared by the Orthodox Rabbinate as destroying the proper bounds of distinctness of the am segula, as a people who should maintain a requisite social distance from the customs of the nations so as to ensure the valid mesorah of their light to the nations. 3. In Re US v Rubashkin, 10-2487 (and U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA, EASTERN/DES MOINE DIVISION, (Case 2:08-cr-01324-LRR)) in the 8th Circuit, to argue that the US remains Trustee of the FAS Palau, as evinced by the Ninth Circuit decision in Bowoon Sangsa, and the COFA, and the Covenant establishing the CNMI Section 302 regarding choosing noncitizen nationality instead of full US citizenship, and the covenant section providing that land title may be held by the CNMI for 25 years in trust for exclusive benefit of persons deemed to be "of northern Marianas islands descent", an attitude which would violate equal protection if the Chamorros were not Indians (see USDOJ opinion on similar language as to the US Virgin Islands as unconstitutional, Jonathan Cedarbaum's opinion). Thus, when the US knew we were sending 200+ religious worker non-Jews from Palau to Postville, after the UN Ambassador of Palau, a Jew, Stuart Beck JD, Yale law grad, Clinton classmate, visited the factory and area with the Vice President (former US commander of the Strategic Missile Command Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll) and Minister of State of Palau, yet the US failed to apprise Palau of the impending indictment, the US breached the duties owed the Palauan non-Jewish religious workers including their first amendment right as aliens to work in religious occupations in the US (Rector v US opines Congress has NO authority to regulate foreign religious worker contracts at all). This advocacy shows that the ICE enforcement action was ab initio ultra vires, because they knew the slaughterhouse was a kosher religious facility with a religious seminary Bes Midrash, Minyan Shul, on site and the entire conduct of the operations was religiously motivated and religiously governed in its entirety as a religious activity. Since the raid was unconstitutional, all evidence obtained in consequence was tainted and should have been excluded, and Rabbi Rubashkin shlita should be restored his liberty a freeman with his family continuing full fidelity to the Torah way, so may it be, ken yehi ratzon, amen v'amen, mamash, HKBH matir asurim! 4. In Re Risenhoover v Clinton, habeas and declaratory relief for twenty million native Formosan Indians, including my daughter Elizabeth Rebecca Hsuanyin Chen Risenhoover, to US noncitizen national status under the Treaty of Peace with Japan pursuant to the travaux preparatoires as evinced by the Aide Memoire of October 25, 1950 by Dulles evoking UN Charter Article 73 to Formosa and declaring the US and allies had assumed therefor duties of protection to Formosa, etcetera. 5. In Re Roger CS Lin v US, DC Circuit Court of Appeals, same as item 4 above, but by Writ of Error, Coram Nobis, showing affirmative fraud on the Court by Melissa Patterson for USDOJ, when she denied the US was Principal Occupying Force of Formosa in fact or in law, etcetera. 6. In Re US v Orian et al, US District of Hawaii, in re indictment for involuntary servitude of Thai H-2A farmworkers brought to the US in conditions completely similar to those prevailing for a half million Southeast Asia workers on Formosa the US has never lifted a finger to claim were due any relief, invoking Shackney v US from the Second Circuit as showing the US ought not be able to use the T/U visa scheme to coerce alien workers to claim involuntary servitude so as to secure ultimate USCIS adjudication approval predicated on their "cooperation" with "reasonable requests" of law enforcement, especially where the US cherry picks 3 victims (who absconded, and took airplane flights to LA from Hawaii, had cellphones, and soon after found restaurant jobs making over US$30,000 per year) among a putative class of 1,000 persons, whom the US has not actually tried to repatriate from Thailand or otherwise directly provide relief as Freedmen under the 13th amendment which ought apply motu proprio for relief of any victim of trafficking consonant with the relief the habeas remedy provided in the Amistad libel action. 7. An original writ of mandamus in SCUS or the USDC-DC or USCA-DC Cir. Risenhoover v Roberts Jr. CJUS, seeking declaration that the Chief Justice, acting solely as an administrator through the rulemaking function of the Judicial Conference of the US, and thus under the doctrines elucidated in Edlund v Montgomery (where the Chief Judge 8th Circuit sat as a District Judge in his own Circuit, which the CJUS can do when he is functioning as Circuit Justide), acted ultra vires and arbitrarily and capriciously, if the Tenth Circuit is correct in In Re Risenhoover Nos. 10-6261 or 10-6256, requiring a docketing fee for victims mandamus actions lodged under 18 USC 3771, as Congress did not provide the Judicial Conference any reasonable basis or authority from which to infer that such a fee was permissible, thus such act was ultra vires, and in any event the imposition of the fee so impedes the relief and access to the courts to seek such relief, for victims, as to be wholly arbitrary and capricious given the urgent remediation and vincidation of victims rights the Congress intended 18 USC 3771 to provide and secure. To the extent the fee chills superior judicial review of lower court denials of victims rights, the fee actually encourages misbehavior by the lower courts contrary to the congressional intent. Why would aliens have a right to an independent state in their State of Israel? The US has never believed that Indians had a right to achieve an independent state in the US. The Supreme Court of the US in Worcester v Georgia, Cherokee v Georgia, held the Indians were domestic dependent nations, even though the law of war holds them to be occupied or captivenations (perhaps the terms are synonymous). The US advised the UK that Indians under Sitting Bull who had become refugees outside the US were subject to recapture by the US as belligerents if they used their asylum in Canada (British America) as the basis for further attacks on America. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS 1922v01.p0388&id=FRUS.FRUS1922v01&isize=M&q1=civilized&q2=indian&q3=warf are http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS187 980v01&entity=FRUS.FRUS187980v01.p0592&q1=savage&q2=indian&q3=warfare No. 222. Mr. Evarts to Sir Edward Thornton. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, May 27, 1879. SIra: Referring to the correspondence which has been exchanged between us in relation to the movements of the lately hostile Indians under the lead of Sitting Bull, I have now the honor to bring to your attention the substance of recent intormation received through the responsible agents of the Department of the Interior, and to invite earnest consideration of the important points thereby suggested. This government has been informed that companies of hostile Indians from Sitting Bull's camp have been and are scattered about, in groups of lodges of varying numbers, througIhout the entire northern part of the Indian reservation having Fort Peck, on the Poplar River, in Montana Territory, for its headquarters and agency. The peaceable resident Indians of the reservation have daily come into the agency with bitter complaints of the encroachments of Sitting Bull's men on their special hunting grounds. They say that they find Uncapapas from Sitting Bull's camp everywhere, driving and scattering the buffalo and other game, and stealing their horses and running them over the boundary line, thus in every way diminishing the ability and opportunity of the agency Indians to maintain themselves. There is every reason to believe that Sitting Bull himself was, so late as the 19th ultimo, within the territory of the UTnited States, and had been camped south of the boundary line since February last, and that practically all his Indians had crossed to the southward of our northern boundary, there being, as they claimed, no game for their subsistence on the Canadian side. This state of things naturally gives rise to disquietude, notwithstanding the later information communicated to me by you in a recent conference, that Sitting Bull and his chief lodges of warriors were at last advices again on British territory. It is true that these wandering movements of an irreconcilable and declaredly unfriendly Indian force from one side to the other of the frontier, do not indicate any determinate purpose, or any disposition even, on their part to abandon a residence under British protection, or to renew the state of warfare with the Government of the United States, whose active hostilities were only arrested by-the refuge sought and afforded on the soil of a neighboring state. Yet the situation now existing on both sides of the border cannot but be regarded as one requiring the most urgent and careful attention of both governments, lest by uncertainty as to the precise scope and definition of their obligations towards each other, and indecision in their treatment of the Indians domiciled within their jurisdiction, undue and unnecessary difficulties may grow out of the present attitude of these tribes which have, in the most formal manner possible to their savage state, renounced their rights in the one country and rejected terms of security, subsistence, and peace to seek and receive asylum and residence in the other. Should these erratic movements continue, this government may at any moment bc brought face to face with the necessity of suppressing the marauding operations of the hostile Indians under Sitting Bull's lead, or even of resorting to active military operations to repel opun attacks upon the lives and property of its own people. It has, as it conceives, a perfect right to regard as a menace to domes- tic peace and tranquility the presence within its borders of a warlike -------------------------------------------------------------------------------body of disaffected Indians, who have explicitly defied its jurisdiction and by their own act embraced the protection of another power. It may be that, in the interest of the security and well being of both friendly Indians and white natives in the border-land, this government may feel constrained to enforce submission upon those who, after openly denying its laws and power, and withdrawing themselves therefrom, may return within its jurisdiction, with or without apparent hostile intent. Should this government decide to compel a submission of any of these Indians appearing on the southern side of the frontier line, it would look upon a new recourse for asylum across the line as calling for prompt and efficient action by the British Government to repulse them, or to disarm, disable, and sequestrate them under a due responsibility for them as a component part of the territorial population of the BritishAmerican dominion. The importance of a distinct understanding on this point is apparent. It is impossible to give countenance to any line of argument or assumption by which these savages may quit and resume allegiance and protection at will, by the mere circumstance of passing to the one side or the other of a conventional line traced through the wilderness. Before the era of hostilities began they were ufndoubtedly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as much as the land they then occupied, and even though their migrations in peaceable search of food might, at times, carry them temporarily across the frontier, they were, therefore, none the lass a part of the population of the United States, and alien to British rule. But when hostilities began, and the armed force of the United States was summoned to enforce their submission, they sought and received asylum and protection across the border. The significance of their acts of submission to British protection, as they themselves understood and intended them, admits of no doubt as to the extent of their intention to assume fhe character of inhabitants of British domain, and their belief that they had done so; and no act of Her Majesty7s authorities in the North American possessions of Great Britain has looked toward denial of this rudely asserted right to British protection, and still less toward enforcement upon them of submission to the authority of the United States, or of subjecting them to the treatment usually observed toward revolted aliens on the territory of a friendly power. In this aspect of their relations to. the British Government, this government conceives that it is bound now to regard the Indians of Sitting Bull's command as British Indians. Should they therefore make ineursions of a hostile character, and should their movements threaten the property, the domain, or the means of subsistence of the friendly Indian tribes of the United States, dwelling peaceably on their assigned reservations, or should active military operations on the part of the United States against them become for any cause inevitable, I beg to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the gravity of the situation which may thus be produced, and to express a confident hope that Her Majesty's Government will recognize the importance of being prepared on the frontier with a sufficient force either to compel their surrender to our forces as prisoners of war, or to disarm and disable them from further hostilities, and subject them to such constraints of surveillance and subjection as will preclude any further disturbance of the peace on the frontier. I have, &c., WM. M. EVARTS. 32 F R 497 international law right to capture or interdict pirates http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS188 586&entity=FRUS.FRUS188586.p0402&q1=hostis&q2=generis law of nations http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS 188586.p0403&id=FRUS.FRUS188586&isize=M&q1=hostis&q2=generis Management of Indian affairs.—" I commend the recommendation of the Secretary for the extension of the homestead-laws to the Indians, and for some sort of territorial government for the Indian Territory. A great majority of the Indians occupying this Territory are believed yet to be incapable of maintaining their rights against the more civilized and enlightened white man. Any territorial form of government given them, therefore, should protect them iii their homes and property fir a period of at least twenty years, and before its final adoption should be ratified by a majority of those affected." http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS188 586&entity=FRUS.FRUS188586.p0943&q1=indians&q2=civilized&q3=ottoman Mexico claimed that “international law” declares unlawful combatants to be pirates, as enemies of mankind. The standard or measure of the degree of civilized life of an Indian (25 USC 185, Protection of Indians desiring civilized life) or Indian nation or tribes , was their adherence to “international law” precepts of the civilized rules and conduct of warfare. Any person who did not abide by these dictates of universal conscience, giving their allegiance to none, was deemed a pirate and hostis humani generis, common enemy of mankind susceptible to universal jurisdiction anywhere reduced to custody. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS187 6&entity=FRUS.FRUS1876.p0560&q1=pirate&q2=cuba&q3=hostis http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS188 182v01&entity=FRUS.FRUS188182v01.p0696&q1=warfare&q2=indian&q3=total http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS187 475&entity=FRUS.FRUS187475.p0870&q1=indians&q2=warfare&q3=savage FOREIGN RELATIONS. HOSTILE APACHES DRIVEN FROM SONORA. Among the papers sent you is a record of the murders committed by the savagesw and also a file of numbers of the Estrella de Occidente, official organ of the government of this State. From the beginning of last year the gbovernment of Sonora being unable to submit longer to the barbarity and cruelty of these savages, and notwithstanding the part taken by the people of this State in the restoration of legal order, disturbed by the last insurrection, resolved at great sacrifices to keep the Apaches within bounds, and, thanks to the parties of national guards which traversed the country in every direction, these enemies, who had done so much damage to Sonora, were entirely expelled. In consequence of this steady and persistent pursuit, which did not even allow them time to prepare their mescal, which is their chief food, they retired to the neighboring territory. Although some of them solicited peace in Sonora it was denied them, on account of our long and bitter experience that these savages have no respect for their promises. This policy explains the causes why there are no Apaches living in Sonora or Chihuahua, and the fact is attested by the national guards, who frequently and periodically examine the mountains and places in which the Apaches might seek shelter. HOWARD S TREATY. Sonora, had commenced to breath freely and trusted that this condition of affairs would be durable, by the co-operation of the vast forces of your great republic with the forces of our State, in continuing the same system of attack adopted here sucessfully, until the Apaches should learn the necessity of abstaining from their crimes. This is no doubt the object of the enlightened Government at Washington, in spending large sums annually in Arizona; but General Howard did not understand the method of gaining it, for he granted peace to the Apaches, with privileges which a conquered power might grant, because of inability to help itself. With reference to the treaty of peace made by General Howard with the celebrated Cochise, I do not know whether he granted to the latter the privilege of making war on Sonora, but from some of the documents inclosed to you, I infer that he did not, although the arrogant savage has claimed that he did. But if there was a prohibition, it is illusory and without effect, since Cochise and his tribe were placed beyond the jurisdiction of the forces of the United States, as you will see in the communication of General Crook, and thus they were exempted from the only method of enforcing a pact to keep peace with Sonora. Besides, they were placed on a reservation which borders on our country. SAVAGE AUXILIARIES IN WAR. It was certainly not the intention of the Government at Washington to give the Apaches facilities for making hostile incursions into Mexico, but it is certain that its agent did so. The laws of modern warfare do not justify the employment of savages who are regarded by the laws of nations as enemies of the human race. What, then, shall we say when the settlements of a friendly nation are exposed to the cruelties as horrid as any that can be practiced in war? It is not strange that your conscience should have been aroused against Howard's course, and tha.t the American people, jealous of their national honor, should demand, when the truth is known, that this most grand crime should end soon and forever. REFERENCE TO THE DOCUMENTS. From the papers which I inclose with this you will see the number of the victims known to the government of this State. You will also see from various private and official documents that no Apache or hostile Indians live in either Sonora or Chihuahua, and this fact may be proved, not only by the national guards but by many other persons. Consequently, all the Apaches who have lately murdered Mexicans have come from Arizona, needing only three hours to reach some of our settlements from the line. Various articles of personal property of Mexicans murdered by Apaches have been found in the possession of Cochise's Indians, and parties of the national guards have repeatedly followed the Apache raiders beyond the line, in the direction of their homes, as you will see from the accompanying file of the Estrella. I have thus answered your inquiry, and hoping that you will not cease in your labors in this matter, I am your servant, I. PESQUEIRA. [Inclosure 2.] CAMP GRANT, Januaryj 9, 1873. To His Excellency Ignacio Pesquiera, Governor of Sonora : DEAR SIRn: I have the honor to inform you that after the 20th instant I will compel the Indians in the southern part of this Territory, known as the tribe of Cochise, to Apparently the US State Department did not avail itself of its usual practice of providing the state court with the official position of the US by a statement of interest apprising the Arkansas Court of Appeals about the views of the executive branch treating Jerusalem as if it were the island of Formosa, held in trust, cestqui est, pending its ultimate disposition: (http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS195 0v06&entity=FRUS.FRUS1950v06.p1340&q1=formosa&q2=article%2073 ), yet to be ultimately disposed of and remaining subject to claims held in trust, cestqui est, with claims thereto maintained by the US. www.state.gov/documents/organization/138496.pdf see American-British Palestine Mandate Convention of December 3, 1924, Treaty of Lausanne, Treaty of Versailles... http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS193 9v04&entity=FRUS.FRUS1939v04.p0768&q1=convention&q2=homeland&q3=jewish http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS194 8v05p2&entity=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2.p0780&q1=jerusalem&q2=international%20st atus&q3=sovereignty http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS194 9v06&entity=FRUS.FRUS1949v06.p0699&q1=jerusalem&q2=international%20status &q3=sovereignty http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS194 9v06&entity=FRUS.FRUS1949v06.p0726&q1=jerusalem&q2=international%20status &q3=sovereignty http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS194 9v06&entity=FRUS.FRUS1949v06.p1514&q1=jerusalem&q2=international%20status &q3=sovereignty a second amendment right to bear arms case in Lod, Israel... US State Dept holds second amendment right to bear arms applies in Palestine/Jerusalem, pursuant to the extraterritorial capitulatory rights of the US for the protection (Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)) of her nationals in the Holy Land as if legally deemed to be within the United States http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS192 1v02&entity=FRUS.FRUS1921v02.p0218&q1=jerusalem&q2=capitulatory&q3=treaty http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS 1921v02.p0219&id=FRUS.FRUS1921v02&isize=M&q1=jerusalem&q2=capitulatory&q 3=treaty http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS192 3v02&entity=FRUS.FRUS1923v02.p0342&q1=jerusalem&q2=capitulatory&q3=treaty http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS192 4v02&entity=FRUS.FRUS1924v02.p0291&q1=jerusalem&q2=capitulatory&q3=treaty http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS192 4v02&entity=FRUS.FRUS1924v02.p0295&q1=jerusalem&q2=capitulatory&q3=treaty http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS188 485&entity=FRUS.FRUS188485.p0643&q1=jerusalem&q2=first%20papers&q3=prote ction http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS191 6Supp&entity=FRUS.FRUS1916Supp.p1212&q1=jerusalem&q2=consulate&q3=accre dited http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS195 1v05&entity=FRUS.FRUS1951v05.p0620&q1=jerusalem&q2=consulate&q3=sovereig nty The Secretary of State to the Embassy in Israel' CONFIDENTIAL WASHINGTON, February 14, 1951-3 p. m. 340. Re Embtel 466, Feb. 7.2 Emb Tel Aviv and ConGen Jerusalem shld be guided by fol: 1. US does not recognize sovereignty of Israel or Jordan in Jerusalem. UN is still seized of Jerusalem problem, and US attitude toward status of City will continue to be framed in light UN situation. 2. US continues support principle internationalization Jerusalem along lines modified internatl regime since full internationalization impracticable. 3. Without prejudice final UN decision on status Jerusalem, Amb and Emb personnel auth proceed Jerusalem as necessary carry on official business with Israel Govt officials. 4. In discretion Amb, personnel Emb may visit Jerusalem for unofficial purposes often as desired. 5. Officers ConGen Jerusalem may deal with Israel Ministries in Jerusalem on dipl business as well as routine Consular affairs, but shld be guided in this by wishes of Amb. Inform friendly colleagues foregoing position.3 ACHESON The Department in telegram 114 to Jerusalem, April 26, answered this question in the affirmative and added: -"Does not conflict Deptel 91 Feb 14, setting forth polit relation Israel, Jordan, Jerusalem. Until status Jerusalem resolved, no administrative jurisdiction Amman over any part of Jerusalem being authorized at this time." (784A.5/4-2351)
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 2:54 am

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS192 5v02&entity=FRUS.FRUS1925v02.p0299&q1=convention&q2=mandate&q3=palestin e When Ulysses S. Grant visited the Ottoman Empire, he announced his support for what Okies would later declare through SQ755, indeed the entire discussion of extraterritoriality was framed in the international law relations of conquest of Indian peoples: http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS188 788&entity=FRUS.FRUS188788.p1205&q1=grant&q2=ottoman&q3=new%20york http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS188 788&entity=FRUS.FRUS188788.p1206&q1=grant&q2=ottoman&q3=new%20york In the words of the late President Grant, uttered while in Constantinople, one may ask the question, as he had to ask himself while President of the United States: "How should we Americans like to see the Turks and other nations having their courts, their own systems of laws, and their own judges, administering the laws of the country to which they belong in New York ?" The General had felt that there was an apparent injustice to Turkey. But he was careful to add that while these doubts had once troubled him, now that he had trav- ersed the Ottoman Empire from Egypt to Const~antluople, he had come fully to un-derstand why capitulations were necessary, and he entirely recognized that neither Americans nor the citizens of any other civilized power would consent to live in Tur-key if they were not under the shelter and p~rotection of such treaties. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS189 394v01&entity=FRUS.FRUS189394v01.p0819&q1=indians&q2=ottoman&q3=new%2 0york http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS188 788&entity=FRUS.FRUS188788.p1189&q1=indians&q2=ottoman This, demarkation of jurisdictions will no t appear trange when it is recollected that atb asimilar policy and practice are. adoptqedin this country by the dominanti race oWard the oorth American indians, We can scarcely rate the incapacity of these Indians toAadopt an d apply our institutions as grear than the Ot'toman conquerors regarded the inca!pacity of the Christian nationalities in Turkey at the conquest 'to aOp t and apply Ottoman institutitns, nor regard the POitical capacity of these Indians as ofa less grade than the Ottoman conquerors regarded thaot of their new Christian subjects. Andn we continue to do. for the Indians what the Otoman conquerors of Turkey did for the Christian races ,who at theo conquiest were found there., Just as the Ottomans professed themselves unable to understand the laws Of those Christian races, Or to establish over them ildosleni law, therefore-leaving them to their own courts, so we, delining to absorb Indian law into our own, or even to apply to Indians our own municipal jurisprudence',leave the adjudication of questions rising in indian tribes to the determination of their tribal law. This renunciation by the Porte of legislative and judicial control over Christian nationalities, which was Worked into the traditions of the Empire, acquired no only greater municipal force but more, fully recognized international validity, http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS188 788&entity=FRUS.FRUS188788.p1189&isize=text&q1=indians&q2=ottoman So the US maintains that it has a right to exclude as aliens persons born within the US by deeming them without the jurisdiction of the US, such as Chinese before Wong Kim Ark, or Indians even today (since the Secretary of State does not actually adjudicate any Indian claims or maintain records relating to American nationality protection in passport applications under 8 USC 1401(b), as all such applications are processed only under the jus soli statutory provisions of 8 USC 1401(a)), or children of accredited diplomats (though deemed lawful permanent residents at birth in the US). The US does not admit that Indians were noncitizen nonalien American nationals before their naturalization by statute. The US does not admit that forcing Indians to relocate to the Indian territory, removing them from without the US and deporting them to what is now called Oklahoma, was unconstitutional, even though the US admits those persons were born within the US. Yet Muneer believes it unconstitutional for the people of Oklahoma to say in their Constitution that the consideration or use of foreign Sharia law is to be disfavored. What if the people of Oklahoma, relying on the Chief Justice of the US in Flores-Villar, and Dred Scott, and Elk v Wilkins, declare that Indians, naturalized under the INA from the natural blood allegiance to their tribe becoming equal citizens of the US shall be protected in all their natural rights as Indians by the State of Oklahoma including to their freedom of religion within the state, without prejudice to their rights in any Indian or on tribal land. Doesn’t this in essence declare Indians to be aliens to the US, foreigners to the US and Oklahoma, and evince an attitude of superiority and inhospitality? Yet has not the US and Supreme Court of the US declared just that? So Muneer objects to Oklahoma not welcoming Sharia law, but Muneer does not object to the Congress or State Department doing the same thing? Could Secretary Clinton by rule declare that adherents of the Islamic Caliphate (http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS191 9Parisv01&entity=FRUS.FRUS1919Parisv01.p0140&q1=pan&q2=caliphate&q3=depri ving THE PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE, 1919, VOLUME I , VIII. PAN-TURANIANISM AND PAN-ISLAMISM , E) The Pan-Islamic question. 1) Pan-Islamism and the British and French colonies. 2) The Arabian countermovement. 3) The question of depriving Turkey of the caliphate as a defensive measure against Pan-Islamism.) or confessors of Islam, owing their allegiance to Islam or any foreign state professing official Islam, shall be deemed as if an Indian (People v. Hall 4 Cal. 399 (California Supreme Court 1854)), and held to be born even if within the US, not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, for purposes of declining recognition of 8 USC 1401(a) statutory naturalization, or fourteenth amendment constitutional nationality? Is the Treaty of Versailles unconstitutional because it deprives the Ottoman’s of Palestine, Jerusalem, and the Islamic Caliphate? For his injury, Muneer claims the words “Sharia law”, may not appear in the Constitution of Oklahoma in a negative connotation, because he is of some natural right (completely unrelated to nationality or allegiance, unfettered and unbounded by any reciprocal duty of any kind) under the first amendment, US Constitution, to enjoy no public imprecatory statement of disinclination to his faith. In the federal court Muneer has not alleged he is a citizen of the United States, nor other than temporarily present in Oklahoma. He does not claim to be a citizen of Oklahoma entitled to vote on referenda which may become Oklahoma law. He alleges merely that the temporary allegiance of his actual presence confers the duty of protection on the US to ensure his faith is not maligned publicly by the state’s officers through certifying the election results. He does not attack the conduct of the election as unconstitutional ab initio, only the unfavorable result, ex post facto. The will which Muneer claims to be an Islamic will, under Arkansas law would be perhaps an Israeli will if memorialized in the eternal capitol of the Jewish people in their Holy Land of Israel at Jerusalem, but which in any case under Oklahoma probate law can only be deemed by this Court to be an Oklahoma will. When the INA declared only whites could be naturalized, the Supreme Court of the US held that natural born Indian Hindus were not white enough to naturalize to American citizenship. Their faith in essence served as justification in the eyes of Congress to exclude them from equal participation as a citizen of the United States, because they were born aliens, of an alien faith to the US, and excludable at the whim of the United States even precisely because of their faith. The Congress could declare that Hindus are Indians, and that being born a Hindu makes one an alien at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Congress can also declare Hindus unwelcome, and deny entry to all Hindus, or order the removal of all Hindu aliens back to India. The exclusionary power, being federal, belongs to Congress to exercise (Turkmen v US, Second Circuit), though Solicitor General Kneedler in Flores-Villar opined the US could not “arbitrarily” exclude (http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/09-5801.pdf p29 if Congress is just arbitrarily choosing between men and women or people of a different race, I think given this Court's tradition it could conclude that those would be impermissible bases under the well-established test,) from nationality on the basis of “race” (and see http://www.justice.gov/olc/2010/usvi-doj-view-ltr100223.pdf The third prong of this definition appears circular insofar as it defines “Ancestral Native Virgin Islander” in terms of descendants of “Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders” (a category of people already encompassed by the definition’s second prong), and it is also grammatically ambiguous with respect to whether the qualifying terms modify the “descendants” or the “Ancestral Native Virgin Islander” from whom they are descended. We think it clear that these classifications could not be considered tribal within the meaning of the Indian Commerce Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3, that is, as falling within the established body of law defining the special relationship between aboriginal peoples of the United States and the Federal Government. In any event, that Clause empowers Congress, not the government of the Virgin Islands). In other words, the US can exclude from nationality, on the basis of customs evincing a foreign allegiance to the majority white American way of life. The rights of American nationality do not include the right to be an Indian, for example, because to be an Indian is naturally to be a member of that foreign nation. So too Muslims are deemed naturally members of their foreign allegiance to whichever foreign state adopts their Sharia law as the official religion or law. Persons born in the US who wish to give true faith and allegiance to Saudi Wahabi Sharia law, may voluntarily expatriate themselves from the US, and become Saud. Being an American does not include the right to also be a dual national, other than as involuntarily imposed at birth and by jus sanguinis bonds (such as among Indians), to another nation concomitant with the allegiance demanded by Article III, US Constitution, of Americans. There is thus no constitutional right to “Sharia law” in the formation or probate of a will, nor any recourse to the courts of Oklahoma to compel recognition of “Sharia law” as essentially American or Oklahoma law, rather than the foreign law that Sharia law really always has been to the US. The first amendment cannot intend or support its own demographic destruction, for to interpret it so, is to render its protection meaningless. Moreover the US courts have held that Shariah law may be foreign law:‚We find wholly unavailing Ali's attempt to dismiss the relevance of Saudi regulations by merely reciting passages from the Qu'ran that refer to a generalized notion of "ibaha," or freedom of contract. Regulations promulgated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to govern a multi-faceted, modern society in no way displace the importance of the Qu'ran as the center of religious life in the Islamic world. Contrary to the position espoused by Ali, however, it is possible for Saudi Arabia to remain faithful to the principle of ibaha, yet develop regulations that define the parameters within which parties are able to contract with one another‛. The Court held that Shariah law does not prevent the freedom to contract with non-Muslims. The Court also defined what is Shariah law. The Court also distinguished a general Shariah law from the Shariah foreign law of Saudi Arabia. The Court also showed comity to the foreign law. The Court also held there is an ‚Islamic world‛. Implicitly or explicitly it seems, the Court held the ‚Islamic world‛ is not inclusive of the United States, though alternate readings are not impossible either. The Court holds that Saudi law is an alter ego of Shariah law, or at least it would not sit and judge that Saudi law is contrary to some generalized Quranic Shariah law. The Muslim tried to get the US court to argue Saudi law does not conform to his personal Shariah law, the Court declined finding that it could not be the intention of Sauds to do so. The Court gives comity to the foreign sovereign intent that there law should be Shariah law compliant, and declines to engage in religious inquiry that would tend to compel a contrary result. Ali v Al-Faisal and McDonald’s (Halal version), 73 F.3d 356. and contrary to Val Monte v INS, the US State Department once held the 14th amendment does extend to territories: http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS191 4&entity=FRUS.FRUS1914.p0132&isize=text&q1=indian&q2=passports CITIZENSHIP OP PERSONS WHOSE AMERICAN FATHERS HAVE NEVER RESIDED IN THE UNITED STATES.1 File No. 130/508a. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Was hfngton, July ~7, 1914. To the Diplomatic and Consular Officers of the United States in China and Turkey. GENTLEMEN: The Department's attention has been drawn of late, through applications~ for passports and registration in consulates, to the question of the citizenship of persons born in China and Turkey, whose fathers were also born therein and claimed American citizenship under the provision of Section 1~93 of the Revised Statutes of the United States but had never resided in the United States. Sections 1992 and 1993 of the Revised Statutes of th~ United States read as follows: SEc. 1992. All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign $ power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. SEC. 1993. All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be, at the tM'ne of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States. The provision of section 1992 is similar to the following provision of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, so far as it applies to native citizens: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. It is obvious that persons of the class mentioned can not claim American citizenship under the provision of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes, since their fathers had never resided in the United United States Department of State / Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States with the address of the president to Congress December 8, 1914 (1914) Circulars, pp. 3-20 PDF (6.8 MB) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page 16 16 FOREIGN RELATIONS.Not printed, States when such persons were born. Moreover, the DGpartment considers that these persons were not born citizens of the United States under the provision of section 1992 of the Revised Statutes or the provision of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution just quoted, which, in the Department's opinion, are applicable only to cases of persons actually born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States. Consequently the Department holds that persons of the class mentioned are not citizens of the United States, e'~en though their fathers may have resided in American communities and submitted themselves to the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the United States. Therefore, such persons are not entitled to the protection of this Government. It is iipportant to obserye that this ruling is contrary to the ruling of the Department set forth in the instruction No. 22, of August 9, 1887, to the Consul at Smyrna, Turkey, (Foreign Relations of the United States for 1887, page 1125: Moore's International Law Digest vol. 3, pp. 287—288), and to the similar ruling contained in the Department's instruction No. 28, of January 6, 1888, to the Consul-General at Apia, Samoa, (Moore's International Law Digest, vol. 3, pp. 288—289). A copy of the opinion of the Solicitor, dated June 22, 1914, in the case of Ben Zion Lilienthal is appended hereto.9 I am [etc.] W. J.BRYAN. When Nehemiah sought to return to build settlements in Judea, he too required saif conduit protected persons noncitizen nonalien passport, as a Jew, subject to the jurisdiction of the Jewish people (see common law right of a Jew in England to a jury de medietate linguae, Respublica v Mesca 1 US 73, US v Cartacho, www.yu.edu/faculty/emayer/riets_notes/notes_pages/holzercontemp.doc ). The Temple "Pilgrim's" Passport, Neh 2:7-9, to build settlements in Judea and Samaria! http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1138&context=annl survey 4. See id. The …Bible… holds the earliest known reference to a document that embodied the nature of a passport under customary international law. See Nehemiah 2:7-9. During the time of the Persian Empire in about 450 B.C., Nehmiah, cupbearer at the court of King Artaxerxes, said, “If it pleases the king, let letters be given me to the governors beyond the river, that they may let me pass through until I come into Judah.” Nehemiah 2:7. King Artaxerxes granted him leave and gave him “letters” “to the governors beyond the river” requesting safe passage for Nehemiah as he traveled through their lands on his way to Judea. Id. at 2:7-9. Those letters eventually became diplomatic passports that permitted enemy subjects or others safe travel in a belligerent’s territory or enemy territory occupied by him. ‫ד‬ , - ; , . 4 Then the king said unto me: 'For what dost thou make request?' So I prayed to the God of heaven. - , : - ‫ , ד‬-. 5 And I said unto the king: 'If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it.' -,‫ ד‬-; , . 6 And the king said unto me, the queen also sitting by him: 'For how long shall thy journey be? and when wilt thou return?' So it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time. -- - , : , ,‫ד‬ , - ‫ 7 . ד‬Moreover I said unto the king: 'If it please the king, let letters be given me to the governors beyond the River, that they may let me pass through till I come unto Judah; , , , ; ,‫ ד‬. 8 and a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king's park, that he may give me timber to , make beams for the gates of the castle which appertaineth to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall enter into.' And the king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me. , , ; , . { } 9 Then I came to the governors beyond the River, and gave them the king's letters. Now the king had sent with me captains of the army and horsemen. {P} http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS189 5p2&entity=FRUS.FRUS1895p2.p0716&q1=civilized&q2=indian&q3=war Mr. Wallace writes, speaking of Minnehassa in Celebes: The missionaries have a right to be proud of this place. They have helped the Government in a remarkably short time to convert savage tribes into a civilized people. To the testimony of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe to the value of the missionary work in Turkey I need not allude, for it is known to the whole civilized world. Is the average of risk in missionary enterprises any greater than in the ordinary enterprises of war, of traffic, or of discovery ? Were these missionaries peaceful traders plying their vocations in the Turkish Empire, would there be the slightest hesitation on the part of' our Government to demand in the most emphatic manner protection for their persons? To evangelize is, with Christianity, the necessary outcome of her spirit. It can never cease as long as Christianity is a living religion. , Missionary work can only perish with the death of the Christian faith. For the missionaries to withdraw from their posts in the Turkish Empire, centers of humanizing and Christianizing influence, is to abandon those rights and privileges which they have hitherto enjoyed under existing treaty between Turkey and the United States and sanctioned by the unbroken usage of well-nigh seventy years. Nay, more. It is to surrender those principles of civil and religious liberty guaranteed by the hatti sherif of Gul Hane in 1839, confirmed by the pledge of the Ottoman Porte in 1844 in these words: "1Henceforth neither shall Christianity be insulted in my dominions, nor shall Christians be in 1450 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------any way persecuted for their religion;" reaffirmed by the firmans of 1850-1853, and finally "1confirmed and consolidated," to use the words of the act, by the celebrated Charter of Civil and Religious Liberty in the Hatti of Humayounn of 1856, pledging that "No subject of my Empire shall be hindered in the exercise of the religion that he professes, nor shall he be in any way annoyed on this account." For these reasons, I ask, sir, that the missionaries remaining in the Turkish Empire be protected to the fullest extent. Their missions are addressed, not to the Turks themselves, but to the Christian subjects, whose rights have been guaranteed in the most absolute manner by the charters above named. I am, etc., HENRY IH. GOODELL. [Inclosure 2 in No. 776.] Mr. Olney to Mr. Goodell. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 8, 1896. SIR: I have received and considered with interest your letter of the 4th instant, in relation to the protection of those American citizens who reside in the interior of Asia Minor and devote themselves to missionary and educational enterprises among the local Christian population in that quarter. Your letter presents various considerations tending to show the inexpediency of removing those beneficial agencies from their fields of labor. 1 note, however, that your remarks are based upon your understanding that an assurance has been given to your relative, Mrs. Barnum, who with her husband and daughter are shut up in the city of Harpoot, and to their associates, of a safe conduct to the seacoast "1if they will abandon their post," and I infer that you suppose that a similar course has been pursued with respect to other American citizens similarly situated in the cities of the disturbed district of Asia Minor. You are quite mistaken in supposing that the alternative of abandonment of their post is being urged upon American missionaries in Turkey. The real position is stated in the report which, under date of December 19, 1895, I had the honor to submit to the President in answer to a Senate resolution of the 4th ultimo. Quoting from recent advices received from the United States minister, Mr. Terrell, I observed: He says that if the missionaries wish to leave Turkey he can obtain their transportation to Christian ports; if the men wish to remain he can get escort for all to the seacoast, whereupon the men can return, but he adds that the women and children should-quit Turkey. This Government, acting through its agencies in Turkey, has no desire whatever to constrain the movements of the missionaries or prescribe to them the course that they should pursue in this time of evident peril. It stands ready to protect them and their wives and children and it has obtained assurance of proper escort should they or their families desire to seek temporary safety at some less exposed point. It is likewise exerting itself to secure the safety of those who remain at their posts of residence. The missionary boards of which those American citizens are dependents are fully informed of the position of this Department in the matter, and now that Mr. Terrell has succeeded in 1451 TURKEY. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1873 74v03&entity=FRUS.FRUS187374v03.p0397&isize=text&q1=hostis&q2=piracy that it was further pressed upon the government by Mr. Dallas's communication of Mr. Seward's circular. Moreover, confederate privateers were at sea, and British vessels being made prizes by the Federal blockading fleet. Besides the assertion of the premature recognition of belligerent rights, the dispatch states that maritime enterprises in the ports of Great Britain which would otherwise have been piratical were, "by virtue of the proclamation," rendered lawful, "and thus Great Britain became, and to the end continued to be, the arsenal, the navy-yard, and the treasury of the insurgent confederacy." Mr. Fish, in a preceding passage, admits that national belligerency is "an existing fact," and he might Lave added that it exists independently of any official proclamations of neutral powers, as is shown by the records of the American prize-courts, which continually recognize the belligerency of the South American States; although, as Mr. Seward stated in one of his dispatches, the United States have never issued a proclamation of neutrality except in the case of France and England, in 1793. This was proved in the civil war by the reception at Curaýoa of the confederate vessel Sumter as a belligerent cruiser, though the Netherlands had issued no proclamation of neutrality. It was this recognition of the Sumter, after her departure from New Orleans, (July 6, 1861,) at Curaqoa, and at Cienfuegos, which first practically acdorded maritime belligerent rights to the confederates, a fact which is overlooked when it is alleged that confederate "belligerency, so far as it was maritime," proceeded "from the ports of Great Britain and her dependencies alone." Indeed, it is not going too far to say that the confederates derived no direct benefit from the proclamation. Their belligerency depended upon the fact (a fact which, when we are told that the civil war left behind it two millions and a half of dead and maimed, is unfortunately indisputable) that they were waging civil war. If there had been no proclamation, the fact would have remained the same, and belligerency would have had to be recognized either on behalf of the Northern States by admitting the validity of captures on the high seas for the carriage of contraband or breach of blockade, or on the arrival of the Sumter, or some similar vessel, in a British port. In no case can it be really supposed that the recognition of belligerency, which, unless neutral nations abandoned their neutrality and took an active part in the contest, was inevitable, materially influenced the fortunes of such a fearful and protracted civil war. At all events, if it did, the confederates never acknowledged it; the recognition o0 belligerency they regarded (as indeed was the case) as a right which could not be denied to them. What they sought was not the mere technical title of " belligerents," but a recognition of independence; and when they found that it was hopeless to expect England to accord it, they cut off all intercourse with this country, expelled her Majesty's consuls from their towns, and did everything in their power to show the sense which they entertained of the injury which they believed had been inflicted upon them. The result being that, while one side has blamed us for doing too much, the other side has blamed us for doing too little; and thus an assumption of neutrality has lheen regarded both by North and South'as an attitude of hostility. As to the Queen's proclamation, rendering lawful the dispatch of the Alabama, Shenandoah, and Georgia, from British ports, to which it is to be presumed the expression "maritime enterprise" refers, it is to be remarked that it is exactly against such enterprises that the proclamation reciting the terms of the foreign enlistment act was intended to warn British subjects. Instead of rendering them lawful, it rendered them additionally unlawful, by giving notice of their illegality. There would be no difficulty in showing by precedents from American prize-courts that no proclamation of neutrality is required to confer belligerent rights on vessels commissioned by a defacto government. It is admitted that at the time these "enterprises" were undertaken "hostilities" in America were being prosecuted "on a scale of gigantic magnitude." After, therefore, the Alabama escaped on the 29th of July, 1862, she became, by virtue of her confederate commission, undoubtedly a belligerent cruiser, irrespective of any acknowledgment of belligerency by Great Britain, and was received accordingly by the French authorities at Martinique, where she first touched after leaving Liverpool. A pirate is hostis heomani generis, one owing obedience to no authority. If the Alabama had been really a pirate depredating on American commerce, it would have been the duty of the French to seize her and execute justice on her commander and crew, a pirate being triable wheresoever found. Judge Nelson, in the case of the confederate privateer Savannah, ruled that though confederate privateers were pirates quoad American jurisdiction, they were not pirates jure gentium; and, in the case of the Golden Rocket, in which the owner brought an action in an American court against an insurance company for the capture of his ship by the Florida, he being insured against piracy, but not against war risk, it was decided that captures by confederate cruisers were not "piracy" within the usual meaning of the word, and that the company was not liable. The American courts having thus conclusively dealt with the matter, it is unnecessary to pursue the subject further. What is probably meant is that, if the confederates had not possessed a de facto government, and had not been belligerents in the sense of waging public war, vessels under their commission would have been mere roving adventurers, pursuing merchantmen for the sake of private plunder; in short, pirates; but by the admission that "hostilities" (the very word to which exception is taken in the neutrality proclamation) were being prosecuted on a great scale, the only ground on which such a supposition could rest is cut away. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS188 586&entity=FRUS.FRUS188586.p0402&q1=hostis&q2=piracy In principle, and so long as no more is proposed than the overthrow of the established power-the substitution of one Government for another-rebellion is a politica crime pertaining exclusively to the internal public law of each nation; its criminal character, and the civil or military jurisdiction under which it should be, depend, therefore, on the special domestic laws governing the matter. The Government whose existence is set at stake by the rebellion is free and sovereign to proceed against and repress in its own way, by the forces at its command, attacks which may be leveled against it, but it is not sufficient for it to attach to the act the qualification of piracy to cause such a rebellion to be transformed ipso facto, in the eyes of foreign states, into a crime against the law of nations, and to become punishable as such. So true is this, that the country wherein has broken out a rebellion, which by its strength and duration assumes the character of a civil war, may from its own point of view, and to suit its own convenience, behold only acts of piracy in operations which other countries, aloof from the contest, may consider and respect as belligerent acts. (Calvo, Droit International, 2d ed., 1870, 1, 390.) A striking instance of the application of this principle occurred in Spain in 1873. An insurrection broke out in the province of Murcia, and the navy-yard at Cartagena was seized. The vessels found there, among them powerful ironclads, were manned and sent to cruise along the Mediterranean coast against the power of the established Government, to whom they belonged, and by whom they had been purchased or built. The president of the executive power by decree proclaimed those Vessels to be pirates, and invited their capture as lawful prize, by any power, whereupon the commander of a German iron-clad captured one of the revolted vessels in the Mediterranean. It was adjudged by the German admiralty court that the captured vessel was not good prize, because not a pirate under the law of nations, and that the German commander could derive no power or warrant from the municipal decree of the Spanish Government. The case of the Magellan pirates, to which you refer, was adjudged on its merits to have been one of piracyper se, as is, indeed, abundantly evident from the facts narrated in Phillimore's summary, which you follow. Of the vessels seized by the mutinous convicts, one was British, the other American. The British admiral, Moresby, was not claimed to have acted in virtue of or in obedience to any decree of the Chilian Government, such as that to which you refer. He needed no such authority under the law of nations, nor could he have derived an iota of authority from such Chilian decree in the absence of international authority. In respect of the British vessel, the Eliza Cornish, he undoubtedly exercised the right of recovery of stolen property, which, as I explained to you in my note of April 24, is 'an inherent right, apart from the international-law right to capture an actual pirate, hostis humani generis. Had I deemed that the plain ground taken by the United States Government required elucidation or fortification by recorded I)recedent, I would have taken the case of the Magellan pirates as the nearest and aptest at hand, and I would have appended to it the following additional quotation from Calvo, which follows the passage above cited: As for isolated revolts, in a certain sense individual acts, and leading to predatory acts on the high seas committed under a.flag which is not recognized as belonging to a constituted and sovereign state, it is evident that they fully involve assimilation with piracy and repression as a crime against the law of nations." (op. cit., 1, 391.) It is to the class of crimes thus described by Calvo that the fifty-three hundred and seventieth section of the Revised Statutes of the United States, cited by you, refers. It is evident, however, that the piratical character of such acts, and the consequent jurisdiction of any sovereign power in respect thereof, must depend on the circumstances of the individual case, and cannot 274 be derived from such a municipal enactment as -thedecree of the Colombian Government now under our consideration. That the Government of the United States fully comprehends its international-law duty in the premises is shown by the tenor of the instructions recently sent to its naval officers in the Caribbean Sea. Under those orders a vessel, the Ambrose Light, has been captured by one of our cruisers, and is now on its way to the United States for submission to the judgment of the courts. The responsibility accruing to our naval commanders under those instructions requires the reasonable ascertainment of the fact of piratical seizure or of the commission of piratical acts under the law of nations, in the case of each vessel. It does not seem necessary for me now to answer, further than by .way of allusion, the point you make that the guarantees of the treaty of 1846, relative to the keeping open of a specified transit route, are not impaired by reason of a change of locality, on Ihe part of those disturbing that transit, to another place in Colombian territory. If this point be seriously urged, and its mere statement be not its own sufficient refutation, I shall be happy to meet it. Under all the circumstances,*I am constrained to reaffirm the position heretofore announced on behalf of this Government, that the Colombian decree declaring certain vessels in the service of the insurgents to bd pirates cannot be recognized by the United States as importing international effects. Accept, sir, &c., T. F. BAYARD. llnclosure.l Mr. Gushing to Mr. Ulloa. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Madrid, September 24, 1874. Sin: I find myself constrained, not only in obedience to express general and special instructions of my Government to this effect, but also in the intimate personal conviction of the reason and ju~tice of the considerations on which such instructions are founded, to address your excellency again in reference to the acts of Brigadier Burriel, while governor of the eastern department of the island of Cuba, and to what he has said or done, since the time of his relief from that charge, and his return to the peninsula. It affords me sincere gratification to be able to say, in the first place, that the President of the United States does full justice to the frankness and explicitness with which your excellency has been pleased to disavow all responsibility of the Spanish government for the publication made by Brigadier Burriel, in one of the newspapers of Madrid, in April last, in which that person undertook to justify the summary mas~acre of fifty-three persons of the crew and passengers of the Virginius, on the plea of this atrocious act being in conformity with and execution of a certain decree issued by Captain-General Dulce; and for the explicitness and frankness, also, with which your excellency has been pleased, at the same time, to contradict so peremptorily the baseless assertion of that person of the existing force and validity of the decree in question. In declaring, as your excellency does, that General Dulce's decree was repealed by that of General Caballero de Rodas, and has never since been revived, your excellency justifies the understanding of the Government of the United States in this respect and frees that of Spain of all shadow of suspicion in the premises; which suspicion, indeed, did not exist until awakened by the extraordinary audacity of Brigadier Burriel in assuming to pass over the decree of Captain-General Caballero de Rodas, and fall back on that of General Dulce, in the desperate attempt to extenuate one of the most signal acts of cruelty and barbarity which the present age has witnessed, and which attempt on his part so to cover up his crimes did, in fact, involve imputation either express or implied—but that imputation, happily, a false one—of bad faith on the part of his own government. It is satisfactory, also, to the President to know, as stated in your excellency's note, that your predecessor in the ministry of state bad already given explanations in this matter, to the same effect, in a note addressed by him to the representative of the British government. Thus, the honorable attitude of the Spanish government in this respect, and its perfeet good faith in reference to the repealed decree of Captain-General Dulce, are doubly substantiated, and the honor of Spain is thoroughly vindicated as against the unqualifiable aspersions cast upon it by Brigadier Burriel. But while authorizing me to express entire satisfaction with the declarations thus far made by your excellency, the President instructs me further to say that the contents of your excellency's note confirm and fortify his opinion that it would be convenient for the Spanish government, in proper regard to the amicable relations of the respective governments concerned, to subject Brigadier Burriel either to summary punishment or to trial by court-martial, as may be most in conformity with the military jurisprudence of Spain. In reference to this part of the subject it now becomes my duty to submit to your excellency some further observations, specially applicable to the case of Brigadier Burriel as it now stands. Under false pretense of the subsistence of a decree of Captain-General Dulce, which decree he could not but know had been repealed by Captain-General Cabeilero de Rodas, this person perpetrates at Santiago do Cuba an act of wholesale ferocity an4 barbarity, for which no parallel then existed in modern history, or has until now existed previous to the similar acts of atrocity of Dorregary at Estalla, and of Saballs at O~ot. Not content with the perpetration of this great crime at Santiago de Cuba, under false pretense of law or superior authority, but without any such justification in fact, as he could not but have perfectly well known, he now, on his return to Spain, presumes to put forward these false pretenses in the form of a solemn appeal to the world, addressed to the highest political and literary journal of Europe, and in so doing impliedly accuses his government, falsely, however, of scandalous breach of good faith in respect of the assurances it had previously given to foreign governments touching the repeal of * General Dulce's decree by that of General Caballero de Rodas. Now', it may be admitted, as your exuellency suggests, th~t it is not incumbent on any government to take notice of publications in the newspapers. It will do so, or it will not, in its discretion or in accordance to the seriousness of the circumstances. Thus, in the case of the false rumors set on foot by the enemies of Spain in the ' U~iited States, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- respecting the alleged purpose of the Spanish government to cede Puerto Rico to Ger many, the Spanish government might well refuse to condescend to contradict the state merit officially, unless called upon officially so to do, and so it might leave the falsehood to expire of itself or to be contradicted by the person most directly interested, namely, Admiral Polo de Bernabil, as it has been in such terms of just and honorable indignation. But suppose—what is otherwise impossible, save as a hypothetical supposition— suppose that, after being relieved from duty as minister, Admiral Polo himself had been the author of this false rumor, and had propagated it in a solemn communication addressed to the Revue des Deux Mondes, if in such a case the Spanish government should not condescend to go into the newspapers to correct false rumor, would it not have something to say to the inventor and propagator of the falsehood, and he an officer high in the military service of Spain? In like manner, when Brigadier Burriel, in the face of the fact that the decree of Captain-General Caballero de Rodas did, in express terms, repeal the decree of General Dulce, and in the face of the further fact that the Spanish government had given to other governments the most explicit assurance of this repeal, and thus, in effect, pledged its faith to the non-existence of the decree of General Dulce; when, I say, in the face of these facts, Brigadier Bnrriel asserts, in a formal publication, the continued legal existence and effect of that decree, thus impeaching the good faith of his government and offending and insulting the honor of his country, will not the government find some article of the military code of Spain importing condign punishment of the high officer of the army who does this great wrong to his country anti his government? I will not enlarge on this topic, because it less directly concerns my Government than the acts perpetrated by Brigadier Burriel at Santiago de Cuba, to which the rest of this note will be dedicated. Brigadier Burriel had undertaken to maintain that the shooting of unarmed prisoners in the gross, captured on the high seas, and outside, of course, of the territorial waters of Spain, was justified in legal theory by the letter and spirit of the decree of General Dulce. Your excellency has disposed pf this pretended legal justification of the act, by declaring, as good faith induced you to do, that the decree of General Dulce had been repealed by that of General Caballero de Rodas, and did not exist as law at the time of the capture of the Virginius and of the execution of her crew and passengers at Santiago de Cuba. I might well assume, in the absence of this decree of General Dulce, that neither the capture nor~the executions were justifiable by any provision of the municipal jurisprudence of Spain. I go further, and venture to suggest that if there did exist any text of the domestic laws of Spain capable of being forced into this question—I do not stop to inquire if there be any such—I say no provision of local law, if any such there be, could apply to citizens of the United States, or to subjects of Great Britain, found on the high seas, and beyond the jurisdictional waters of Spain. In this remark I associate, as the note of your excellency does in effect, sul~1ects of Great Britain with citizens of the United States, since it is not only a question between the United States and Spain, but also between Great Britain and Spain; and thus, of imperative necessity, it passes from the narrow domain of municipal law into the higher and broader region of the law of nations. Your excellency plainly expresses this idea by saying, in the note under consideration, that, "with respect to legislation referring to jurisdiction on the high sea, the Spanish government considers in force only that established by the maritime international law and accepted by all nations, or that stipulated in subsisting treaties." In what provision of subsisting treaties or in what text book of the law of nations can Brigadier Burriel discover any justification or extenuation of these acts? He and other unadvised persons talk loosely about "pirates" and " piracy" in connection with the Virginius and her crew and passengers. But these phrases of popular prejudice and superficiality, which may be fit for the columns of angry newspapers,' do not belong to the language of diplomacy or jurisprudence. And I take pleasure in recognizing that your excellency declines to descend to the use of any such inappropriate language in the discussion of the case of Brigadier Burriel. In truth, it is palpably absurd to apply the term "piracy" to the voyage of the Virginius, or the term "pirates" to her crew or passengers. The essence of piracy, by the law of nations, as universally defined in the text of all writers on public law and of all books of doctrine and jurisprudence, is armed cruising for the purpose of pillage and plunder, without lawful authority of any government. Such persons only are pirates, according to the law of nations. And there is no suggestion or pretense that the Virginius was fitted out for any such purpose, or that she was armed as a cruiser, or that she ever made or attempted, or intended to make or attempt, any capture, prize, pillage, or plunder. Whatever, if anything, there may have been wrongful in the character of the Virginius, she was not a piratical ship by the law of nations, nor her officers and crew pirates. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1876 &entity=FRUS.FRUS1876.p0560&q1=hostis&q2=piracy I adopt in this respect the language of the dispatch, applicable to this point, of Earl Granville to Mr. Layard, both because of the clearness and precision of the language of that dispatch, and because of the absolute identity of the relation of the two governments, in this respect, to that of Spain: "The real ground of complaint, Her Majesty's government hold," says Lord Granyule, "is that, even assuming the vessel to have been lawfully seized and the crew properly detained, there was no justification for their summary execution after an irregular proceeding before a drum-head court-martial. No possible aspect of the char. acter of the Virginius and her crew could authorize or palliate such conduct on the part of the Cuban authorities. There was no pretense for treating such an expedition as piracy jure gentium. "If the Virginius was to be regarded as a vessel practically engaged in a hostile or belligerent enterprise, such treatment would iiot be justifiable. Much may be excused in acts done under the expectation of instant damage in self-defense by a nation as well as by an individual. But, after the capture of the Virginius and the detention of her crew was effected, no pretense of imminent necessity of self-defense could be alleged; and it was the duty of the Spanish authorities to prosecute the offenders in proper form of law, and to have instituted regular proceedings on a definite charge be. fore the execution of the prisoners. "I-Ier Majesty's government maintain that there was no charge, either known to the law of nations or to any municipal law, under which persons in the situation of the British crew of the Virginius could have been justifiably condemned to death. "They were persons not owing allegiance to Spain; the acts done by them were done out of the jurisdiction of Spain; they were essentially non-combatants in their employment; and they could by no possible construction be liable to the penalty of death." I assume, therefore, as your excellency does, that here is no question of the municipal law of any country, but only of international right, as settled by theory, practice, or convention. And, in reasoning with a person of your excellency's enlightenment and large experience in administrative and diplomatic affairs, it would be waste of tinie here to enter into the consideration of those questions of assimilated piracy, which arise out of the local law of sundry governments or special provisions of treaty, none of which apply to the case of the Virginius~ It is indisputable, in short, that in the eye of the law of nations he only can be characterized as a pirate who puts himself in the condition of hostis humani generis—a sea-robber of all mankind. It does not suffice that he should be the private enemy of one governmeilt only; as, for instance, Spai~ or the United States, or Great Britain. Why, indeed, should we not fix our attention at once and wholly on the undeniable truth of the case, namely, that if there were anything wrong in the acts or the intention of the Virginius, it was only that quasi wrong, the relations and consequences of which are thoroughly defined by the law of nations, as understood in all Europe and America, namely, the transportation of military persons or stores, which may subject the vessel or cargo to condemnation, but which never to this day was deemed a cause of shooting the officers and crew as pirates, except in the perverse imagination of Brigadier Burriel. In fine, it is too plain for contradiction or dispute that the wholesale shootings per. petrated by him at Santiago de Cuba were an act of mere arbitrary military violence, in the highest degree unwise and inexpedient as well as criminal, falling at once into the category of the atrocities committed by the Carlists at Estella, at Cuenca, and at Olot. Historians in all future times will speak in the same accents of horror of the military assassinations of Estella, of Olot, of Cuenca, and of Santiago de Cuba. The government of President Serrano would repel with indignation the idea that this government, the supreme representation of Spain and the Spanish nation, is to assume the responsibility of those acts of transcendent cruelty on the part of Dorregary, of Saballs, of Alfonso de Este, although they be Spaniards. Will not the government of President Serrano in like manner repel all responsibility for the acts of equally transcendent cruelty on the part of Brigadier Burriel, although a Spaniard in the service of a previous government I Suppose a military officer of Spain to-day, operating against the Carlists in Vizayo, Guipuzcoa, Alava, Navarre, Catalonia, Aragon, Valencia, or Murcia, should arbitrarily shoot in cold blood, with or without pretense of verbal court-martial, fifty-three prisoiiers of war, whether Carlist-Spaniards, or even Carlist-Frenchmen. What must follow ' 1 Would not such officer be subject to immediate destitution and punishment'? Spain has appealed to the world in the eloquent and impressive language of your excellency's diplomatic circular, and even more impressively and by the language of action, in the decrees of the executive power, against the massacres of Estella and Olot. Can she to-day, in the face of these appeals to Europe in condemnation of the barbarities of Dorregary and Saballs, justify—nay, accept and affirm the barbarities of Burrid, perpetrated, as we know, contrary to the purpose—nay, in violation of the orders of the supreme government of the time I Permit me respectfully to suggest that, for Spain now to assume such responsibility ' would not only be a measure of direct affront to the United States, and to Great Britain, equally aggrieved with the United States, but indirectly of affront also to Germany, to Austria-Hungary, to Italy, to Portugal, to Belgium, to the Netherlands, and to all the rest of Europe now drawn toward General Serrano's government, not only as representing the conservatism but also as representing the civilization of Spain. I cannot suppose that your excellency will entertain the idea that such acts as those under consideration are at any time beneficial to the government in whose name they may have been perpetrated. Such a supposition would carry us back into the times and usages of mere barbarian and savage war, even to worse times than the invasions of Attila and Alaric. But if a Christian government in the nineteenth century could be tolerated in perpetrating such acts because of any false imagination of the benefits to be derived from them, is it not self-evident that if those acts be to the prejudice of any foreign government, then the government which enjoys the benefit, such as it is, should, with no grudging hand, pay the price of that benefit in reparation of the injured government'? But your excellency will concur with me, I feel sure, in doubting the ultimate use(ultiess of any wrongful act. Certainly, in the present case, the imaginary immediate advantage to the Spanish colony of Cuba was nowise commensurate with the manifest injury to Spain herself. She has rio cause of thanks to Brigadier Burriel. If the foregoing considerations possess in fact all the cogent force with which they present themselves to my mind, there does not exist that occasion which your excellency supposes for the further discussion of the true legal character of the Viginius, preliminary to the trial or punishment of Brigadier Burriel. It is not the capture of the Virginius which is here in debate. If, on being captured and taken into Santiago de Cuba, that vessel had been carried before a court of admiralty for regular trial according to law and treaty—if, meanwhile, her officers, crew, and passengers had been held for examination in like manner, according to law and treaty—there would have been nothing in the case, such as there is now, of superlative and surpassing gravity. It was the rash, cruel, lawless, and criminal act of Brigadier Burriel which raised the case into a perilous international controversy between Spain and the two governments of Great Britain and the United States. The conclusion is inevitable, that Brigadier Burriel has, by his own deeds of wantcn wrong, rendered himself amenable to the penal laws of Spain. The President? of the United States, therefore, has the amplest possible reason to expect that the Spanish government will in due time, and with no unnecessary delay, vindicate her own dignity and her own laws by subjecting to punishment the contumacious officer who, by mingled wickedness and folly, has brought all these calamities upon his country in wantonly giving occasion to the present controversy between Spain and the United States. I make no account of the rumor that, under present circumstances, Brigadier Burriel can be an aspirant for the cross of San Hermenegildo, the recompense not only of constancy in military service but of untarnished honor—constancia en la milicia y honor acrisoiwlo. The Pro ~ident conceives that that which is expected by him of Spain is no more than what is done by all other governments in like circumstances, and which the United States themselves have done in repeated and signal instances. The German government did not hesitate to subject to trial by court-martial a distinguished officer of its own, Captain Werner, who, in the performance of an act beneficial to the Spanish government, had apparently trespassed on the sovereign rights 01 Spain. Not long since a distinguished and meritorious officer of the Navy of the United States, Captain Collins, also trespassed on the sovereign rights of Brazil, in performing an act beneficial to the United States and involving no actual injury to Brazil. Bat, on the suggestion of the Brazilian government, he was tried by a court-martial and condemned on the precise charge of a technical violation of the law of nations. During the same period of time a similar act of trespass on the jurisdictional waters of Spain occurred on the part of another respectable officer of the Navy of the United States, Commander Hunter, and he also was in due time ordered before a court-martial on the charge of a violation of the law of nations to the prejudice of Spain, and was tried, condemned, and sentenced. These proceedings were had quite as much for the vindication of the honor of the United States as for the satisfaction of the Spanish government. It is true, nevertheless, that the Spanish governnient called for such reparation with the same earnestness that the Government of the United States now calls for reparation in the case of Brigadier Burriel. Passing over other examples of the same class, it will suffice to refer to one more of conspicuous significance, also occurring in the relations of Spain and the United States. David Porter was an officer second only to the highest in rank in the Navy of the United States. He had been pre-eminently distinguished in many famous actions of war, and had attained, deservedly, the universal respect of his countrymen. Being employed in the command of a fleet iu the West Indies, for the pursuit there of pirates, genuine pirates—hostes humani generis—with which those seas then swarmed, the EJnited States in this respect acting in concert with Spain, Great Britain, and other governments, he did an act which, although beneficial to Spain, was an act of technical violation of the sovereignty of Spain. For this error he was tried by court-martial on accusation of violating the law of nations, condemned, and sentenced, in spite of his high rank, great services, and unsurpassed personal popularity. Assuredly, therefore, what the United States themselves have done, of their own accord, willingly, spontaneously, in like circumstances, in order to render international justice to Spain, it would be no derogation on her part to do for the satisfaction of th& United States. Nay, in the case of Porter, he, with the proud spirit of a gallant soldier, on finding that his act had been impugned, and asserting that he had been guilty of no wrong in the premises, himself demanded that court of inquiry, which resulted in his being tried by court-martial. Brigadier Burriel has also been guilty of a violation of the law of nations, and of such intensity and aggravation that the inculpated acts of Werner, of Collins, of Hunter~ of Porter, are but as nothing in comparison. Neither of them had outraged the con-V science of mankind, as Burriel did; neither of them had done acts of inhumanity and brutality, like those of Burriel, at the thought of which all men shudder with horror; neither of them had slaughtered helpless captives by the wholesale, as Burriel did; neither of them had perpetrated enormities like those of Burriel, to the eternal disgrace of themselves and to the dishonor of their name and nation, and of the human race itself; neither of them had, like Burriel, by the commission of a êrime of monstromis iniquity, but not less of monsfrous unwisd')m and inexpediency, involved their country in critical conflict with two powerful states; they had not their hands dripping with innocent blood; they had simply committed a technical breach of the rights of national sovereignty to the prejudice of no one and to the benefit of all the world; and yet they were subjected to the rigor of penal law by the voluntary command of their own governments, impelled by motives of national self-respect and of international comity. And shall this Brigadier Burriel go "unwhipped of justice U' Will Spain be less regardful of the claims of international right and comity than other governments ' 1 I cannot and I will not believe it of her. And what an example is not that of Porter for Brigadier Burriel? If he be the man of honor which an officer of his rank in the army of Spain should be; if he be, as he professes, confident of the rightfulness of his acts, should he not, instead of filling the newspapers with shallow and disingenuous arguments on the subject, manfully come forward and demand a trial by a court of his peers, and thus, by the only appropriate means, vindicate his character, if it admits of vindication, and also relieve his government and his country of the painful controversy which he has brought on be— tween Spain on the one hand, and on the other the United States and Great Britain? Juan Burriel, I repeat, might well imitate the example thus set to him, and this without any diminution of personal dignity; for he needs to live many years of a higher life than heretofore, and to fill those years with loftier achievements, in order to approach to the brilliant military fame and the personal authority and popularity of David Porter. I assure your excellency that nothing could be more unwelcome to me than the duty of submitting these observations to the attention of the Spanish government. But it is a duty, the performance of which has been the necessary and unavoidable result of the conduct of Brigadier Burriel. On his head by the blame. And I sincerely trust that, even withoutany necessity on your part of prejudging the imputed blood-guiltiness of Brigadier Burriel, your excellency will perceive in the arguments submitted by me, and especially in the exaniples cited of what other governments, including the United States, have been accustomed ~o do in the same circumstances, abundant justification for such action in the premises on' the part of the Spanish government as, while adding new luster to the proverbial honor of Spain, shall tend to strengthen the ties of international amity between her and the United States. .1 avail myself of this occasion to tender to your excellency the assurance of my highest consideration.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 3:02 am

WHEREAS by Article 95 of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey the High Contracting Parties agreed to entrust, by application of the provisions of the said Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as might be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a mandatory to be selected by the said Powers and further agreed that the mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917 by the British Government and adopted by the other Allied Powers in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil or religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country, and WHEREAS the Principal Allied Powers have agreed to entrust the mandate for Palestine to His Britannic Majesty, and WHEREAS the terms of the said mandate have been defined by the Council of the League of Nations as follows: (Terms of Mandate). and WHEREAS the mandate in the above terms will be issued on thq coming into force of the treaty of peace with Turkey, and WHEREAS the United States of America by participating in the war against Germany contributed to the defeat of her and her allies and to the renunciation of the rights and titles of her allies in the territory transferred by them, but has not ratified the Cove'8Post, p. 315. 282 nant of the League of Nations embodied in the Treaty of Versailles, and WHEREAS the President of the United States is desirous of concurring in the British mandate for Palestine, and WHEREAS His Britannic Majesty as mandatory for Palestine is desirous of ensuring to the United States of America and its citizens the same rights in Palestine as they would enjoy if the United States were a member of the League of Nations. His Britannic Majesty and the President of the United States of America have decided to conclude a convention to this effect and have nominated as their plenipotentiaries ................. W ho ...... .. ............ have agreed as follows: ARTICLE 1 ................. Subject to the provisions of the present convention, the United States concurs in the British mandate for Palestine, including the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, and in the British administration of Palestine pursuant to the terms of the said mandate. ARTICLE 2 The United States and its nationals shall have and enjoy the benefit of all the engagements of His Britannic Majesty defined in the mandate, including therein equality as regards commercial opportunity, notwithstanding the fact that the United States is not a Member of the League of Nations. ARTICLE 3 Vested American property rights in Palestine shall be respected and in no way impaired. ARTICLE 4 A duplicate of the annual report to be made by the mandatory under Article 24 of the mandate shall be furnished to the United States. ARTICLE 5 Nothing contained in the present Convention shall be affected by any modification which may be made in the terms of the mandate as recited above unless such modification shall have been assented to by the United States. 283
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 3:05 am

W7VHEREAS the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the mandatory for Palestine; and WHEREAS the terms of the mandate in respect of Palestine have been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and WHEREAS His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; Hereby approves the terms of the said mandate as follows:ARTICLE 1 His Britannic Majesty shall have the right to exercise as mandatory all the powers inherent in the Government of a Sovereign State, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate. ARTICLE 2 The mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. ARTICLE 3 The mandatory shall encourage the widest measure of self-government for localities consistent with the prevailing conditions. ARTICLE 4 An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country. The Zionist organisation, so long as its organisation and constitution are in the opinion of the mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. 293 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------ARTICLE 5 The mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power. [the Vatican City State, for example… or Iran or Saudi Arabian supported Hamas, for another example] ARTICLE 6 The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4 close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. ARTICLE 7 The Administration of Palestine will be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine. [Jews are Palestinians, not the Arab occupiers!]
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Noahide Laws

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 13 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 11, 12, 13  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum