text:
Defining the right of self-defense: working toward the use of a deadly force Appendix to the standing rules of engagement for the department of defense.
(An abstract of the authors' legal analysis published in the Spring 2002, 31 University Baltimore Law. Review 157.)When we send fine young Americans into harm's way, we have a moral and legal obligation to provide them with Rules of Engagement (ROEs) that protect their right of self-defense. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines must expect ROEs that best ensure their safe return, to the maximum extent possible consistent with the mission parameters. Indeed, this is the stated policy of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's Standing Rules of Engagement (SROEs). (1) The SROEs are silent, however, concerning that ultimate and maximum exercise of self-defense--the use of deadly force. Simply stated, the SROEs fail to answer, clearly and unequivocally, the foremost question of those at the tip of the spear: "When can I pull the trigger?"
Silence at the strategic level regarding the use of deadly force level has resulted in the confusing and potentially life-threatening absence of operationally specific guidance at the tactical level. (2) As recently as March 25, 2001, the roles of engagement in place for soldiers serving in the peacekeeping action in Kosovo gave specious guidance on the use of deadly force that required them to "shoot to wound." (3) This order should not be surprising considering the restrictive guidelines given in Bosnia for NATO's Implementation Force (IFOR): "If you have to open fire, you must: Fire only aimed shots, and fire no more rounds than necessary and ... stop firing as soon as the situation permits." (4) Further, warning shots were permitted, even encouraged, and the use of deadly force against assailants fleeing an attack was not even covered. These rules remained the same for the Peace Stabilization Force (SFOR), as well. (5) More disturbingly, many commanders have imposed "no rounds in the chamber" roles for perimeter security and patrols. (6)
It would be an understatement to say that confusion exists among commanders and judge advocates as to what constitutes a reasonable use of deadly force by U.S. forces and when that force is authorized. (7) It is no wonder that commanders are left with insufficient legal guidance and ad hoc methods for training their troops on when and how to use deadly force. The United States military forces, whose mission was once described as "to kill people and break things" has a 300-page regulation on the issuance of I.D. cards, (8) but lacks any specific guidance on the use of deadly force for its soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines on world-wide deployments. (9) After having examined some sources upon which to base that guidance, this article concludes with a proposed appendix to the SROEs on the use of deadly force as the benchmark mechanism with which to provide that specific guidance. In light of the recent terrorist activity in this country, the need for clear and robust guidance is essential.
International law, as well as the common law of the United States, provides ample support for the establishment of vigorous guidelines concerning the use of deadly force. As discussed later in this article, every relevant legal system in the free world makes aggression a crime and protects the right of self-defense. This right is often referred to as an "inherent right" or a "divine right." Our own federal common law, as well as many latter-day constitutional law cases concerning this right, strongly defines and permits a rigorous force protection stance. Judge advocates and commanders crafting rules of engagement have ignored this rich source of law favorable to a vigorous defensive posture.
Incorporation of federal constitutional law and common law into the development of enhanced force protection and self-defense rules will only enhance our forces' ability to accomplish their missions. From humanitarian assistance to force-on-force conflicts, if potential opponents believe our forces vulnerable, the mission is compromised. Recurrent, hands-on tactical exercises that provide service members an opportunity to viscerally experience the psychological and physiological dynamics of tactical encounters recognized by the law is a critical requirement for effective training. Those so trained however, need clear and concise legal guidance demonstrating that both legal and political support is present if deadly force is used.
The Present SROE Use Of Deadly Force Policy
"The purpose of these SROE is to provide implementation guidance on the application of force for mission accomplishment and the exercise of the inherent right and obligation of self-defense." (10) So begins the unclassified Enclosure A to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3121.01A and yet, this purpose is not being served. The policy appearing on virtually every page of the SROE states that the Rules "do not limit a commander's inherent authority and obligation to use all necessary means available and to take all appropriate actions in self-defense of the commander's unit and other U.S. forces in the vicinity." The use of deadly force, however, is not accompanied by any implementation guidance. In fact, the words "use of deadly force" never appear in the SROEs, which begs the question--Is it any wonder that confusing, confounding and dangerous tactical rules of engagement (ROEs) exist? While cognizant of the fact that some of this confusion stems from improper training, without clear and unhindered rules, we may have fumbled before the kickoff.
The SROEs do provide some limited guidance on the use of force in general. It takes the form of a three-step process: When feasible give a warning; defend with proportionate force; and attack when it "is the only prudent means." (11) The first step, giving a warning when feasible, is one that is common to existing federal policies as appears below and ultimately appears in this article's proposed appendix. Similarly, the second step, proportionality, although arguably misplaced in a ROE document, (12) is a bedrock principle of self-defense under both domestic and international law. The third step, an attempt to define when the use of force is prudent, is the concern of this article and therefore will be examined in greater detail.
Again, the SROEs never actually address the use of deadly force. Instead, the third step is concerned only with limiting when to "attack to disable or destroy." Such an attack is permitted when it "is the only prudent means by which a hostile act or demonstration of hostile intent can be prevented or terminated." As the section on the existing Executive Branch policies regarding use of deadly force will discuss, this "last resort" notion permeates all policies on when to exercise self-defense. Moreover, as the probable root cause for "shoot to wound" and "no rounds chambered" policies seen at the tactical level, this "last resort" concept flies in the face of tactical realities and is inherently dangerous without a clearly defined use of deadly force policy. This unreasonably risky guidance should be eliminated from the SROE. Further, in the critical arena of self-defense, the SROE only concerns itself with "when" to attack to destroy, but not with "how," again leaving many commanders to focus on the last resort language.
Finally, regarding pursuit, the SROEs state that "[s]elf-defense includes the authority to pursue and engage hostile forces that continue to commit hostile acts or exhibit hostile intent." (13) The definition of a "hostile act" or "intent" is one that is drafted to cover U.S. forces only. (14) Compared with what is permissible under customary international law, the common law, and existing Department of Justice policies, this SROE language presents an unreasonable limitation on the use of deadly force in self-defense in pursuit situations against a "continuing threat." At a basic tactical level, it allows a group or individual that has recently demonstrated either a hostile act or intent to seek cover or a tactical advantage without fear of attack. An example of a recently demonstrated hostile act or intent occurred to an SFOR unit in Mostar, Bosnia. in early 1997. (15) At a checkpoint, individuals in a car fired two rocket-propelled grenades at a Spanish armored personnel carrier. The hostile actors then fled the scene by driving down a straight, unoccupied road. Despite having a clear shot with their .50 caliber machine gun, the Spanish unit did not fire because they thought the rules of engagement would no longer characterize the subjects as a threat.
Nevertheless, the SROEs do provide some very fundamental guidance on self-defense. Some claim that by providing only basic information, the SROEs allow for the mission-specific tailoring of rules for each mission. Despite the simplicity and generic nature of the SROEs, they are often the only promulgated roles of engagement for deployed forces, with very little mission-specific tailoring at the subordinate level as to how and when to apply force in self-defense. (16) As eloquently stated by Lieutenant Colonel Mark S. Martins, much of this problem has to do with proper leadership and training. (17) However, the failure of the SROEs to squarely address the use of deadly force in self-defense can lead to conflicting and dangerous restrictions on this inherent right. Moreover, it places an onus on commanders without the proper legal guidance by which to operate.
The charge is put to commanders under the SROEs that they "have the obligation to ensure that individuals within their respective units understand and are trained on when and how to use force in self-defense." As demonstrated by the confusion at the tactical level, this obligation is not being met. An appendix to the SROEs codifying the inherent right of self-defense would help end this confusion and enable our commanders to ensure that their troops retain their inherent right to self-defense, instead of issuing specific ROE that unnecessarily abridge that inherent right. Perhaps more importantly, clear and supportive guidance would give junior enlisted American military personnel--those who actually have to apply deadly force--the critical tools necessary to do that job correctly and protect themselves from the potential adverse consequences associated with an improper use of deadly force. The following are sources for such an appendix:
International Recognition of the Inherent Right to Self-Defense. The most relevant and recognized view of self-defense in international law resides in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, (18) which states that "[n]othing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." It is important to note that Article 51 does not create the right of self-defense in international law. Rather, it codifies a pre-existing and more universal right.
Historically, the right of self-defense has been viewed as a divine right in international law. (19) The right of self-defense in criminal law is one deeply rooted in the legal traditions of England, the source of most American common law. Almost a half millennium ago, the right of self-defense was expressed in the statutes of King Henry VIII, (20) as a complete defense to civil and criminal prosecutions. The inherent nature of the right of self-defense was also addressed in Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, (21) as such, "[s]elf-defense ... is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be ... taken away by the law of society." Thus, the SROEs are entirely correct in proclaiming the right of self-defense as an inherent right.
Customary international law recognizes this right as well. The application of anticipatory or pre-emptive self-defense and the maxim of a person's inherent right to self-defense were firmly established in the Caroline incident. In 1837, the British were fighting a counter-insurgency war along the Niagara River in Canada. The steamer Caroline was being used by the insurgents on both the American and British sides of the river. On the evening of December 29, 1837, British combatants crossed onto the American side of the river and destroyed the Caroline while it was docked in Schlosser, New York. The Americans protested, but the British responded that they were merely exercising their inherent right of self-defense. American Secretary of State Daniel Webster agreed. This incident is a widely cited authority dealing with anticipatory self-defense, and holds that states may resort to force even when not actually under attack if there is "a necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." (22) Secondly, to be appropriate, self-defense must be proportional, not "unreasonable or excessive." (23)
Some prominent Judge Advocates consider the Caroline incident an important milestone in the recognition of the common law right of self-defense as it relates to international law. (24) Lieutenant Commander Dale Stephens wrote:
The 'Caroline' correspondence indicates, however, that the authors themselves drew upon natural law concepts and combined them with municipal notions of self defense as then understood in Anglo-American criminal law. In this regard, the authors were acknowledging the personal and instinctive nature of self defense. Lord Ashburton plainly stated in his response to Mr. Webster of 28 July 1842, that self defense "is the first law of our nature, and it must be recognized by every, code which professes to regulate the conditions and relations of man." Further, Lord Ashburton was plainly aware of the novel nature of the American proposition that international actions may be justified by a combination of the established principle of necessity and the national legal concept of self defense. Lord Ashburton specifically noted the 'ingenious' suggestion by Mr. Webster that the legitimacy of British actions should be assessed by reference to this modified concept of self defense under international law. Thus, the British suddenly found themselves defending their Captain's actions on the basis of a principle narrower than self-preservation. Further, Lord Ashburton accepted the challenge and consistently described his justification of British actions in terms analogous to personal self defense.
Thus, international law has long recognized the right of nations to engage in acts-even anticipatory acts-of self-defense. A military unit, as an extension or arm of sovereign power, has this right. This long recognized right of self-defense is also strongly enunciated in our common law.
American Common Law. The inherent right of self-defense has been a tenet of american law since its beginning, (25) and it has been perpetuated throughout the case law history. Regarding American citizens not in the employ of any police enforcement activity, New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Co. v. Jopes, (26) stood for the idea that "the rules which determine what is self-defence [sic] are of universal application, and are not [diminished] by the character of the employment in which the [shooter] is engaged." Further, the common law did not call upon a man to flee rather than fight to defend himself, as illustrated in the case of Beard v. United States. (27) In Beard, the court stated:
[I]f the accused ... had at the time reasonable grounds to believe and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life or do him great bodily harm, he was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, was necessary to save his own life or to protect himself from great bodily injury.
The right or privilege of self-defense also belongs to federal agents, not only civilian criminal defendants. This right exists for federal agents, because it is necessary for them to protect themselves so they can accomplish their missions. (28) As said in Maryland v. Soper: (29) "Such acts of defense are really part of the exercise of [an Agent's] official authority. They are necessary to make the enforcement effective." Similarly, U.S. military forces abroad are not only unreasonably put in jeopardy, but are unnecessarily hamstrung in accomplishing their missions if not allowed to adequately defend themselves.
Common law does not require one to delay in considering non-lethal responses to an immediate threat of deadly force. Nor is one required to shoot to wound or give warning. In light of the clarity of the law of self-defense on this point, it is astounding that many judge advocates write into operational unit ROE, or incorporate into training requirements, that service members must consider or exhaust lesser alternatives when confronted with deadly force. (30) The words of the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. United States, (31) are particularly persuasive on this point:
Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant[, or to consider other alternatives,] rather than to kill him. (32)
This leaves one to wonder why many commanders and judge advocates expect detached reflection when soldiers are confronted with an upraised AK-47. Or a hostile rabble armed with clubs.
Lastly, concerning the use of deadly force, the Supreme Court has levied its judgment on the criteria for analyzing an officer's decision to use deadly force. In Graham v. Connor, (33) utilizing a Fourth Amendment analysis (34), the Court ruled that "[t]he 'reasonableness' inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officer's actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation." Further, the Court stated:
The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight ... "Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers," violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments--in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving--about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
Some advocates may assert that the common law, as well as latter-day Fourth Amendment cases, has no relevance to the analysis of the use of deadly force in the military. (35) However, the common law already has relevance in the application of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In fact, the instructions found in Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-9, The Military Judge's Benchbook, concerning the use of deadly force in self-defense, mirror the common law. (36)
Existing Policy in the Executive Branch. On October 16, 1995 the Departments of Justice and Treasury issued new policies on the use of deadly force. Revelations from the congressional hearings on the Ruby Ridge shootings, where federal agents were under special orders that snipers "could and should" fire at any armed adult male spotted outside Randy Weaver's cabin, spurred the new policy. The policy brought under its purview the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the U.S. Marshals Service, the Bureau of Prisons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secret Service and the Customs Service, and remains in effect today. Considering the often analogous situation between federal agents and service members conducting peace enforcement, peace keeping, humanitarian intervention, and non-combatant evacuation operations, the rules under which the other federal officers operate, while not binding, certainly offer one source from which to craft a use-of-deadly-force appendix to the SROE.
Unfortunately, the DoD has ignored both federal common law and constitutional decisions concerning the use of deadly force in its development of the SROE and tactical ROE. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Commentary to their deadly force policy expressly acknowledges such case law in developing policy, for officers. (37) Indeed, the DOJ states in the introduction to the commentary that, "[i]n developing the policy, it became apparent that decisional law provides only limited guidance regarding the use of deadly force. In addition, as a matter of principle, the Department deliberately did not formulate this policy to authorize force up to constitutional or other legal limits." (38) The DOJ has therefore opted for a more restrictive authority based on its judgment of what a prudent policy should instruct.
The commentary to the policy establishes that "the touchstone of the Department's policy regarding the use of deadly force is necessity." As the policy, commentary, and the FBI's Training Guide to the Deadly Force Policy explain, the necessity to use deadly force hinges on two factors: (1) "[t]he presence of an imminent danger" of death or serious physical injury to the agents or others, and (2) no safe alternative to using such force exist. (39) The criteria for evaluating an officer's judgment of what constitutes necessity is based explicitly on Graham v. Connor, which is common to the policies of DoD law enforcement agencies as well.
There may be situations in which a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine may be constrained by policy not to fire on an otherwise dangerous subject. (40) Such situations, however, should be the tactical exception rather than the rule, and should be solely within the unfettered purview of leaders at the absolute lowest levels. Moreover, the constraining policy imposed should not result in an unnecessary risk to the service member. This is not, as some suggest, a usurpation of military authority. (41) It should be remembered that military leaders have the authority to order subordinates to "take that hill," but not the right to order them to charge with fixed bayonets when machine guns are available.
Safe alternatives are considered when determining whether deadly force should be utilized, and the DOJ has outlined their parameters very clearly. Unlike the mandatory "Stani Ili Pucam!" (Stop or I will fire), in the IFOR and SFOR ROEs, verbal warnings are not required where they would pose a risk to the officer or others. Yet another concern is the availability of cover: deadly force may still be necessary where the felon can find or is seeking tactical cover. A dangerous individual can represent a continuing threat, despite the seemingly non-threatening actions of a subject fleeing the scene.
The DOJ policy boldly prohibits two commonly, but improperly, accepted alternatives: warning shots and shooting to wound. The policy states that "[w]arning shots are not permitted outside of the prison context." As the commentary explains, "[d]ischarge of a firearm is usually considered to be permissible only under the same circumstances when deadly force may be used-that is, only when necessary to prevent loss of life or serious physical injury. Warning shots themselves may pose dangers to the officer or others." As for the propriety of shooting to disable or shooting to wound, the commentary flatly bans such a practice: "[a]ttempts to shoot to wound or to injure are unrealistic and, because of high miss rates and poor stopping effectiveness, can prove dangerous for the officer and others. Therefore, shooting merely to disable is strongly discouraged." Although federal law enforcement agencies have already recognized and banned the practice of shooting to wound, this ineffective and dangerous practice is perpetuated by the orders given to our troops in the Balkans. More disturbing, are rules requiring servicemen deployed in hostile fire or hazardous duty zones to patrol with unloaded side arms. This practice flows from commanders' misunderstanding of the level of force allowed by the law, inadequate training, and an irrational fear that shooting someone, even if justified, will somehow lead to a perception of mission failure.
Once an individual has made the decision to open fire, the next question is for how long can he continue to fire. Again, in contrast to IFOR and SFOR ROEs, a federal agent is not required to shoot once and then stop. Instead, he is to continue firing until the subject surrenders or no longer poses an imminent threat. This determination, rather than the number of rounds fired, is a more accurate measure of proportionality. Further, under the stressful conditions of a deadly force encounter, it is unrealistic and tactically unsound to require the counting of rounds.
Use of Deadly Force According to DoD. Somewhat surprisingly, a DoD policy does exist on the use of deadly force. Unfortunately, it only relates to the performance of law enforcement and related security duties rather than to ROEs for the force as a whole. Originating in 1992, it evolved in 1997, and matured to its most recent version as of November 2001: Department of Defense Directive 5210.56, Use of Deadly Force and the Carrying of Firearms by DoD Personnel Engaged in Law Enforcement and Security Duties.
This Directive authorizes DoD personnel to carry firearms while engaged in law enforcement or security duties; while protecting personnel or vital government assets;, or guarding prisoners. The recent changes to this Directive, in the wake of September 11, 2001, set forth rules for armed travel aboard commercial aircraft. To its credit, the new policy attempts to better comport with DOJ Deadly Force Policy, as well as specifically barring the use of warning shots. Unfortunately, the new DODD 5210.56 retains some confusing language concerning what constitutes "serious bodily harm." Serious bodily harm is "not ... a black eye or a bloody nose, but [it] does include fractured or dislocated bones, deep cuts, torn members of the body, serious damage to the internal organs, and other life-threatening injuries." (42) While attempting to illustrate what constitutes "necessity," such language may actually place DoD law enforcement personnel in danger by giving them the mistaken belief that they must first suffer less than "serious physical harm" before resorting to the use of deadly force against an otherwise dangerous subject.
In a tactical military setting, this issue becomes more apparent. Anyone who attacks an openly armed soldier becomes a de facto and de jure threat, and deadly force is authorized. A physical attack against an armed service member in which that service member's weapon may be taken by the attacker and used with deadly effect against either the service member or his/her fellow service members is, in effect, a use of deadly force. One refusing to recognize this fact is either uneducable or silently stating that the assailant's life is more important than the uniformed service member's life.
There are many other activities, such as manning traffic control points or guarding a ship in port, when the carrying of loaded side arms would be prudent and warranted. Usually, this would occur in a deployed environment. Therein lies the impotence and irrelevance of DODD 5210.56, for it does not apply, "to DoD personnel engaged in military operations and subject to authorized rules of engagement." (43) It is precisely in such situations where most DoD personnel will need such guidance and where such guidance is lacking.
Lastly, among judge advocates and commanders, there is great confusion over what "use proportionate force" means. DODD 5210.56 adds to this confusion by stating that "[i]n such cases where the use of force is warranted, DoD personnel shall use the minimum amount of force necessary to reach their objective." The requirement to use "minimum force" does not appear in the SROE. Further, the Law of Armed Conflict (or the Law of War) only requires proportional force to be used. Yet troops are regularly briefed that this is how they are to defend themselves-not with proportionate force, not to eliminate the threat, but with minimum force. In addition to the political pressures for no conflict or casualties, this language is briefed perhaps due to commanders' or judge advocates' underestimation of troops' capacity to appreciate proportionality. In other words, troops are briefed to use "minimum force" in self-defense as a shorthand measure in an effort to preclude "excessive force." However, as Colonel (Ret.) W. Hays Parks has quite accurately, proclaimed: "Minimum deadly force is an oxymoron." (44) The proposed appendix seeks to eradicate this potentially life-threatening advice for troops operating under the SROE.
Use-Of-Deadly-Force Appendix To The SROE
While this proposed appendix has its roots in the U.S. Constitution and American common law, it is also consistent with customary international law and the underpinnings of the UN Charter. Both the DOJ Deadly Force Policy and DODD 5210.56 are similarly based on federal case law. Since it is the Constitution of the United States to which servicemen take an oath of allegiance, such roots are not misplaced.
The trigger for the use of deadly force is necessity. The legal criterion by which the service member's decision to open fire will be evaluated is that of "objective reasonableness" as explained by Graham v. Connor.
The term "imminent" retains the elastic definition found in the commentary to the DOJ policy. It includes the situation where the individual suspected of threatening or in fact inflicting serious bodily harm remains a valid target for self-defense if he is heading for cover or where a weapon may reasonably be available to him.
The requirement of a verbal warning is maintained at the "feasible" level: One is only required if it does not endanger the service member or others. Further, the evaluation of the assailant's reaction as discussed in the FBI's Training Guide is also adopted: compliance, and no shot is allowed; resistance or ignoring the warning, and shots are still authorized. This concept of allowing for a verbal warning must remain in proper perspective. It should not be a requirement, but only a desirable attempt, if feasible. The IFOR/SFOR ROE requirement to warn in the host nation's languages would be altered to include the words "if feasible." The absurdity of making verbal warnings a requirement--speaking a foreign language clearly enough to be understood in a high stress and noisy environment--merely increases the exposure of our young service members to more Monday morning quarterbacking.
Hopefully, the confusion on warning shots and "shoot to wound" will be put to rest by the Appendix since both are expressly prohibited for most ground force applications. As the case law, DOJ policy, and DODD 5210.56 all recognize, these practices violate the governing principle of the SROE, to wit: Commanders should not diminish their troops' right of self-defense. Tactical and law enforcement experience has shown that these practices only serve to endanger officers and service members, and they should rightly be banned. The Appendix also addresses these issues.
During the past decade, the U.S. military has changed its mission from one of "killing people and breaking things" to "healing people and building things, but be prepared to kill people and break things, too." Prior to September 11, 2001, these recent missions caused uncertainty among commanders as to what levels of force may be used in self-defense. Now, new and clarified roles are required, If and when forces are declared hostile, there is no concern for when a serviceman fires, how long or how often he fires, so long as it is directed at the enemy. But in today's world, the "enemy" is not such a clear-cut target. Instead, our troops are deployed on counter-terrorist, peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, and security assistance missions. What decisions are we to expect of our service members when no armed conflict exists, yet they are threatened and attacked by hostile host nationals either pointing firearms or attacking with clubs? Our troops need proper guidance and training so that they are not further endangered by the SROEs and their progeny found in tactical ROE and ROE cards. The Use of Deadly Force Appendix proposed by this article provides that guidance. It will clear up the confusion, give commanders the political support they deserve, and protect our troops' right of self-defense.
When confronted with the proposal of adding a deadly force policy to our SROEs that is similar to the DOJ policy, many have voiced a concern that this will impair our warfighting capability by causing young troops to hesitate when ordered to fire at a declared combatant in a traditional force on force environment. This argument is without merit for two reasons: First, it assumes that personnel are incapable of following orders to switch from one role to another (an assumption belied by both practical experience and the routine use of phased ROEs in battle planning). Secondly, the alternative as it now stands--commanders prohibiting individuals to lock and load magazines for fear of unintended discharges or, as happens throughout the SFOR theater, sending Army CID personnel to investigate every discharge of a firearm--in no way can be viewed as inculcating a warrior mentality.
The authors recognize the inherent tension that exists between operators and policy makers. Too often, just as in law enforcement bureaucracies, policy makers are more concerned about liability and not enough about survivability. Uniformed judge advocates, however, should concern themselves with enhancing our commands' survivability within the parameters of the law.
1. Purpose and Scope
a. This appendix establishes policies and procedures and provides SROE (additional to those in Enclosure A) governing the use of deadly force by US forces to defend the United States, US forces, US nationals and their property, US commercial assets, and designated non-US forces against a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent. To provide uniform training and planning capabilities, this document is authorized for distribution to commanders at all levels and is to be used as fundamental guidance for training and directing their forces.
b. Except as augmented by supplemental ROE for specific operations, missions, or projects, the policies and procedures established herein remain in effect until rescinded.
c. U.S. forces operating with multinational forces: U.S. forces always retain the right to use necessary and proportional force, including the use of deadly force, for unit and individual self-defense in response to a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent.
d. Commanders of U.S. forces subject to international agreements governing their presence in foreign countries (e.g.,. Status of Forces Agreements) retain the inherent authority and obligation to use all necessary means available and take all appropriate actions, including the use of deadly force, for unit self-defense.
e. U.S. forces in support of operations not under OPCON or TACON of a U.S. CINC or that are performing missions under direct control of the NCA, Military Departments, or other-USG departments or agencies (e.g.,. Marine Security Guards, certain special security forces) retain the authority and obligation to use all necessary means available and to take all appropriate actions, including the use of deadly force, in unit self-defense in accordance with this appendix to these SROE.
f. DoD units operating under USCG OPCON or TACON retain the authority and obligation to use all necessary means available and to take all appropriate actions, including the use of deadly force, in unit self-defense in accordance with this appendix to these SROE.
2. Policy. As established in Enclosure A and this appendix, these rules do not limit a commander's inherent authority and obligation to use all necessary means and to take all appropriate actions, including the use of deadly force, in self-defense of the commander's unit and other U.S. forces in the vicinity.
3 Definitions
a. Deadly Force The use of any force that a person knows or should know would create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm
b. Reasonable Belief. Facts and circumstances, including the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, known to the person at the time of the use of deadly force, that would cause a reasonable person to conclude that probable cause exists to take immediate action The reasonableness of a belief or decision must be viewed from the perspective of the person on the scene, who may often be forced to make split-second decision in circumstances that are tense, unpredictable, and rapidly evolving. Reasonableness is not to be viewed from the calm vantage point of hindsight
c. Imminent Involving a period of time dependent on the circumstances of an individual situation, rather than the fixed point of time implicit in the concept of "immediate" or "instantaneous" Thus, a subject may pose an imminent danger even if he or she is not, at that very moment, pointing a weapon at an US unit or service member For example, if a subject who has demonstrated a hostile act or intent has a weapon within reach, or is running for cover carrying a weapon, or is running to a place where the U.S. service member has reason to believe a weapon is available, that subject may pose an imminent threat.
4. Authority to Use Deadly Force. Deadly force may be employed under one or more of these circumstances:
a. Self-defense and Defense of Others. Individuals may use deadly force, when the individual reasonably believes himself or other U.S. personnel, units, or friendly forces in the vicinity to be in imminent danger of death or serious physical harm.
b. Assets Involving National Security. When it appears reasonably necessary to prevent the actual theft or sabotage of assets vital to national security. DoD assets shall be specifically designated as "vital to national security" only when their loss, damage or compromise would seriously jeopardize the fulfillment of a national defense mission. Examples include nuclear weapons; nuclear command, control, and communications facilities; and designated restricted areas containing strategic operational assets, sensitive codes, or special access programs.
c. Assets Not Involving National Security But Inherently Dangerous to Others. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the actual theft or sabotage of resources, such as operable weapons or ammunition, that are inherently dangerous to others; i.e., assets that, in the hands of an unauthorized individual, present a substantial threat of death or serious physical harm to others. Examples include high-risk portable and lethal missiles, rockets, arms, including individual or crew served small arms, ammunition, explosives, chemical agents, and special nuclear material.
5. Action in Use of Deadly Force
a. Means of Self-Defense. All necessary means available and all appropriate actions may be used when employing deadly force for self-defense. The following apply for individual, unit, national, or collective self-defense:
1) Verbal Warning. If feasible and if doing so would not increase the danger to the individual or U.S. personnel, units or other friendly forces in the vicinity, give a verbal warning prior to the use of deadly force. Failure to heed a verbal warning may be considered as a threat indicator.
2) Warning Shots. General Rule: Warning shots by ground forces are prohibited. Exception: A ground commander, at any level of command, may, on a case-by-case basis, order the use of warning shots if such use does not place members of his command at greater risk of death or serious physical harm, and to do so would not place innocent bystanders, at greater risk of death or serious physical harm
3) Discharge of a Firearm. When a firearm is discharged, it will be fired with the intent of rendering the individual or group posing a threat of death or serious physical harm incapable of continuing to do so. In other words the intent will be to stop the conduct that poses a threat of death or serious physical injury. Orders to "shoot to wound," or words to that effect, are prohibited.
b. Pursuit of Hostile Forces. Pursuit and use of deadly force is authorized when it reasonably appears necessary to detain or prevent the escape of a person who is believed to have posed an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to U.S. personnel, units, or other friendly forces in the vicinity (as defined in para 4a), stolen or attempted to steal National Security Assets (as defined in para 4b), or stolen or attempted to steal assets inherently dangerous to others (as defined in para 4c), and it reasonably appears that the individual poses an imminent or continuing threat of death or serious physical injury to U.S. personnel, units, or other friendly forces in the vicinity.
(1) CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION 3121.01A, STANDING RULES OF ENGAGEMENT FOR U.S. FORCES (15 Jan. 2000) hereinafter SROE]; see also infra note 19 and accompanying text.
(2) W. Hays Parks, Deadly Force is Authorized, U.S. NAVAL INST. PROC. (January 2001), at 34. ("Overly restrictive and unsuitable rules of engagement handicap and endanger U.S. forces, especially ground troops on peace-support missions. Individual marines, sailors, and soldiers need to know when they may resort to deadly force to protect their lives.").
(3) Thomas E. Ricks, U.S. Military Police Embrace Kosovo Role, WASH POST Mar. 25 2001, at A21 (quoting Staff Sergeant Jimmy Stogner about how the use of deadly force has been reduced to "'the five S's[:]' ... '[s]hout, shove, show your weapon, shoot to wound, then shoot at the 'center of mass' '").
(4) See OPERATIONAL LAW HANDBOOK, 2001 TJAGSA, Chapter 5, app. B, 102-03 (providing sample ROE cards).
(5) Id. at 104-05.
(6) U.S. ARMY COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLLEGE, STUDENT TEXT 27-1: MILITARY LAW [paragraph] 3.3.III (1997), available at http://wwwcgsc.army.mil/nrs/publications/STs/ST27-1_97/welcome_ST27-1.html (noting that the ROE required to be utilized and understood by all U.S. service members of a Multi-national Force stated that "[w]hen on post, mobile, or foot patrol, keep a loaded magazine in the weapon, weapons will be on safe with no rounds in the chamber").
(7) Mark S. Martins, Rules of Engagement for LandForces: A Matter of Training, Not Lawyering, 143 MIL. L. REV. 3, 53 (1994) ("Commanders wrestled with the question of whether and how to impose the most restrictive form of ROE: orders dictating which soldiers are armed and have live ammunition and when they may chamber rounds.").
(8) See AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 36-2907.
(9) Parks, supra note 4, at 34. ("[T]he JCS SROE is a poor document for assisting an in-port ship commander or a ground force commander in informing individuals when they may use deadly force to protect themselves and others."); see also supra note 3 and accompanying text.
(10) SROE, supra note 2, encl. A, [paragraph] 1.a; see also id. [paragraph] 7 ("Enclosure A, minus appendices, is UNCLASSIFIED and intended to be used as a coordination tool with US allies for the development of combined or multinational ROE consistent with these SROE.").
(11) SROE, supra note 2, encl. A, [paragraph] 8.a.
(12) Parks, supra note 3, at 36. ("'Minimum deadly force' is an oxymoron, as is 'proportionate deadly force.'").
(13) SROE, supra note 2, encl. A, [paragraph] 8.b. As defined at 5.i., a hostile force is one that has "committed a hostile act, exhibited hostile intent, or has been declared hostile by appropriate US authority." Id. [paragraph] 5.i. This use of "hostile force" is confounding in that once a force is declared hostile, as per paragraph 6, "US units need not observe a hostile act or a demonstration of hostile, [sic] intent before engaging that force." Id. [paragraph] 6. The repeated use of the term "hostile force" adds to the confusion in the definition. Specifically, if a force is declared hostile, it is always a target. Id. Moreover, the notion of pursuit is not limited by a hostile force's demonstration of a hostile act or intent. Id. [paragraph] 5.i. The SROE also makes any force that demonstrates a hostile act or intent an undeclared hostile force. Id. This distinction of hostile force by actions, and hostile force by declaration is unnecessarily confusing and frustrates the purpose of the SROE of serving as guidance and training. This terminology should be changed to clear up any potential confusion. "Hostile force" should be reserved for declared hostile forces and all other forces who demonstrate hostile act or intent should be addressed precisely that way, as a force who demonstrates hostile act or intent.
(14) Id. [paragraph] 5.g-h. There are provisions for extending the right of self-defense beyond U.S. forces to include U.S. nationals, U.S. property, and even foreign nationals, but each of these decisions are specific to the theater or mission, whereas the protection of U.S. forces may not be altered. Id. [paragraph] 8.c(1-5).
(15) Interview with Lieutenant Colonel John Taylor, USA, in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, May 17, 2001 (noting that these facts were based on co-author Lieutenant Colonel Taylor's firsthand account at SFOR).
(16) Parks, supra note 3, at 35. ("By and large, ROEs produced by the most lawyer-heavy military in the world are cut-and-paste, copycat products lacking original thought or analysis and unsuitable for current missions.").
(17) Martins, supra note 41, at 16.
(18) U.N. CHARTER art. 51.
(19) Mark B. Baker, Terrorism and the Inherent Right of Self-Defense (a Call to Amend Article 51 of the United Nations Charter), 10 HOUS. J. INT'L L. 31-32 (1987). See also, 30 Corpus Juris Homicide 207 (1923)
(20) 24 Hen. 8, ch.5 (1532) (Eng.).
(22) 29 BRITISH & FOREIGN STATE PAPERS 1129, 1138 (1840-41) (quoting Daniel Webster, concerning the Caroline incident).
(23) Id.
(24) Lieutenant Commander Dale Stephens, Rules of Engagement and the Concept of Unit Self Defense, 45 NAVAL L. REV. 126, 134 (1998).
(25) See U.S. CONST. amend II; see also Ronald S. Resnick, Private Arms as the Palladium of Liberty: The Meaning of the Second Amendment, 77 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 1, 14 n.27 (1999) (citing several of the Founding Fathers for their view that the Second Amendment stands for the right to private self-defense).
(26) 142 U.S. 18 (1891) (noting that the plaintiff, a passenger on the train, was shot and injured when he approached and threatened the conductor by wielding an open knife).
(27) 158 U.S. 550, 563-64 (1895) (noting that the plaintiff's land was trespassed by three armed men who sought to steal a cow and take plaintiff's life, and in an attempt to protect himself the plaintiff struck one man across his head with his rifle, causing a mortal wound).
(28) See, e.g., In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 72 (1890); Reed v. Madden, 87 F.2d 846, 852 (8th Cir. 1937); West Virginia v. Laing, 133 F. 887, 891-92 (4th Cir. 1904); Kelly v. Georgia, 68 F. 652 (S.D. Ga. 1895); Ramsey v. Jailer, 20 F. Cas. 214 (D. Ky. 1879); Roberts v. Jailer, 26 F. Cas. 571, 576 (D. Ky. 1867).
(29) 270 U.S. 9 (1926) (noting that this case concerned a petition for a writ of mandamus to remand an indictment for the murder of four probation agents).
(30) MARINE CORPS ASSOCIATION, GUIDEBOOK FOR MARINES 74-75 (17th ed. 1997) ("Application of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity and only as a last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.").
(31) 256 U.S. 335 (1921) (noting that defendant shot and killed assailant, who had repeatedly struck defendant with a knife).
(32) Id. at 343; see also Silas v. Bowen, 277 F. Supp. 314, 318 (D. S.C. 1967) (stating that use of deadly weapon as self-defense is justified if a reasonable person would anticipate serious bodily harm); United States v. Peterson, 483 F.2d 1222, 1236 (D.C. App. 1973) (recognizing that there is no duty to retreat from an assault producing imminent danger); Glashen v. Godshall, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17698, *6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 1999); Marche' v. Parrachak, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14804, *13 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2000); United States v. Yabut, 43 C.M.R. 233, 234 (CMA 1971).
(33) 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (noting that police officers violently arrested the plaintiff not knowing that plaintiff was suffering a diabetic attack).
(34) A Fourth Amendment analysis is utilized because the Court is looking at the overall appropriateness of the law enforcement seizure rather than self-defense only.
(35) Parks, supra note 3, at 35. ("Military and DoD civilian lawyers have eschewed federal case law relating to law enforcement use of deadly force because of the natural (and correct) reluctance to involve the military in domestic law enforcement, failing to distinguish between applying it and using its resources for assistance.").
(36) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, PAMPHLET 27-9, MILITARY JUDGE'S BENCHBOOK, 5-2-1, et seq (stating that there must be "a reasonable belief that death or grievous bodily harm was about to be inflicted ...").
(37) U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE COMMENTARY REGARDING THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN NON-CUSTODIAL SITUATIONS, fn. 1 (Oct. 17, 1995).
(38) Id. (footnotes omitted). The commentary continues:
Courts would step outside their proper role if they formulated detailed policies with respect to the procedures governing deadly force; in contrast, the Department has the discretion to determine what the policy should be and to provide guidance to its employees with regard to these solemn issues. Cases arise in procedural postures--typically civil tort or civil rights actions, or motions to dismiss or overturn criminal charges or convictions--in which a wrongful act on the part of the government may not lead to recovery or sanctions. As a result the court often does not reach the question of whether the use of force was wrongful.
(39) See JOHN C. HALL, FBI TRAINING ON THE NEW FEDERAL DEADLY FORCE POLICY [paragraph] III.B (April 1996) (noting that Mr. Hall, who teaches in the FBI Academy's Legal Instruction Unit, is regarded as a leading expert on the law relating to deadly force).
(40) e.g., if an armed subject is hiding among a crowd of unarmed noncombatants, or if to return fire would provoke a more dangerous response. Just as in civilian law enforcement settings, the authority to fire does not mean a service member must fire.
(41) Public discussion generated at the XVIII Airborne Corps' Joint Rules of Engagement Conference, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, May 17-18, 2001.
(42) Id. This is the same language found in the Manual for Courts-Martial 2000), paragraph 54.c.(4)(a), for its definition of grievous bodily harm.
(43) DODD 5210.56. [paragraph] 2.3.
(44) Parks, supra note 3, at 36.
Major David Bolgiano is Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, 175th Wing, Maryland Air National Guard and Adjunct Professor of Military Law, University of Baltimore School of Law; former Senior Trial Counsel and Chief of Operations Law, 3d Infantry Division; Trial Counsel and Chief of Administrative Law, 82d Airborne Division; and Baltimore police officer.
Captain Mark Leach is Assistant Staff Judge Advocate, 16th Special Operations Wing, Hurlburt Field, Florida, with duties in Southwest Asia in support of Operation Enduring Freedom; former Assistant Staff Judge Advocate, 81st Training Wing, Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi.
Major Stephanie Smith is Legal Advisor, Department of the Navy, International and Operational Law Division(Code 10); former Staff Judge Advocate, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable); and Defense Counsel in Somalia where duties included representation of a Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant charged with crimes directly resulting from Marine peace enforcing operations in that region.
Lieutenant Colonel John Taylor, Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, Fort Jackson, South Carolina; served as Legal Advisor, Joint Interagency Task Force/Intelligence Fusion Cell, Task Force Bowie, USCENTCOM, Bagram, Afghanistan; former Legal Advisor, 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (Delta Force); Task Force Legal Advisor, Bosnia; Command Judge Advocate, 3d Special Forces Group (Airborne); and Trial Defense Counsel, 82d Airborne Division.
Reader Opinion
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback | |
Author: | Bolgiano, David; Leach, Mark; Smith, Stephanie; Taylor, John (English pop musician) |
Publication: | Infantry Magazine |
Geographic Code: | 1USA |
Date: | Jun 22, 2002 |
Words: | 8559 |
Previous Article: | Tactical decision game #2-01. |
Next Article: | Lessons learned from a light infantry company during Operation Anaconda. |
Topics: |


text:
Stocks are higher risk over the long-term than we think
By Duru
March 16, 2003
I know some of you don't believe me when I say to expect an extended trading range in stocks for at least the rest of the decade, or that at best we should expect returns on the order of 5-7% after this trading range is through. But I continue to find evidence in history that demonstrates just how unique a period our last bull market was (I am going beyond the 90s bubble here). If you grew up investing/trading/speculating during this time, it is likely you have grown up with poorly calibrated expectations about stocks. I am pasting another clipping that shows how poorly stocks have performed against Treasuries over the last EIGHTY years. It is amazing how if you pick your timeframes correctly, you can make any argument you want about whether stocks are good over the long-term. I obviously have biased my missives to studies that show just how risky stocks can be rather than the stuff you regularly get fed from the buy-and-hold proponents.
Overall, all this tells me is that market TIMING, NOT buying and holding, is the key to excess returns....and note that market timing does not have to mean buying and selling every week or even every month. For example, the S&P was sitting at 100 back in 1982 when the last bull market began. If you bought a basket of S&P stocks (or the index itself) back then, you are STILL sitting on a 10.5% annualized gain from then to now. Even after adjusting for inflation, you could be quite content. This is VERY respectable since the long-term average return is supposed to be about 7-8% (not adjusted for a typical 3-5% inflation rate). Heck, you could watch this bubble collapse ANOTHER 25% and STILL come out with a 9.0% long-term return and be well-ahead of the inflation rate!!! Pretty sweet, huh? But woe be unto those of you who started investing in the last 6-7 years. You are about even now or maybe a sliver ahead. The market is going to have LEAP far and high SOON for you to even have a prayer of coming close to 9 or 10% annualized return.
Hey, let's do the math. Here are the scenarios under which you could realize a 10% return assuming you had bought everything during the LOW in 1997 when the S&P was at 731:
Year |
Years since 1997 |
S&P value giving 10% return |
Market growth factor from NOW |
6 |
1295 |
1.6 |
2004 |
7 |
1425 |
1.8 |
2005 |
8 |
1567 |
2.0 |
2006 |
9 |
1724 |
2.2 |
2007 |
10 |
1896 |
2.4 |
2008 |
11 |
2086 |
2.6 |
2009 |
12 |
2229 |
2.9 |
2010 |
13 |
3252 |
3.2 |
2011 |
14 |
4277 |
3.5 |
2012 |
15 |
5305 |
3.8 |
If you cannot read the formatting of the table above, I will pull some choice examples. The S&P must DOUBLE by 2005 for you to get that juicy 10% return from the lows of 1997. And if the S&P doesn't reach that feat in the next two years, then you can still get 10% returns if the S&P TRIPLES by 2009. Do you begin to see how much the odds stack against you if you were "unlucky" enough to have only begun buying and holding during the later years of the bull market? Of course, these figures can change for the better or the worse if you have been investing at regular intervals during this timespan....it all depends on the timing.
Mind Over Matter
By RANDALL W. FORSYTH
DrDuru, 2003

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Employee Login
Email Address/Login ID:
Current Property
Riverview Tower
(Change Property)
Contact Us
Phone: (216) 361-3700
Fax: (216) 432-5900
CMHA PropertiesProperty OverviewFeaturesNeighborhoodApplication Info
Riverview Tower Current Property: Riverview Tower (Change Property)
NOAA Award Winner
AMP Properties
Click a room on the floor plan to view a photo of that room.
View Winner's Photo
Northeast Ohio Apartment Association (NOAA), promotes and maintains the highest professional standards in the apartment industry through education, publication and advocacy programs.
Click on tabs above photo for additional information
Property Information
Get Directions
Property Type:
Senior High Rise
Property Built:
Number of Floors:
Accessible Units (UFAS):
Bedroom Breakdown:
Click to view Click to hide
498 one-bedroom units
Unit Information
Total Rentable Units:
AMP Leader Contact Information
Barry Roberts AMP Leader 1795 West 25th Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Phone: (216) 348-5155 Fax: (216) 348-4924
View properties within this AMP


text:
News 1 - 10 of 10
Matt Cardle Debuts 'Amazing' Music Video
January 14, 2012 12:01:33The winner of 'The X Factor' seventh season unveils a performance video which features him singing in a dimly-lit room.
Video Premiere: Matt Cardle's 'Starlight'
November 03, 2011 10:11:34The winner of 'The X Factor' season 7 brings a bunch of friends to the rooftop and lights up the sky with lights and fire.
Video Premiere: Matt Cardle's 'Run for Your Life'
September 06, 2011 08:09:21Take a look at the winner of 'The X Factor' season 7 as he convinces his object of affection to wipe away the tears and move on with him.
Matt Cardle's Single Reigns Holiday U.K. Chart
January 03, 2011 04:01:08The 'X Factor' champion's single took the first position on top of those by Rihanna, Black Eyed Peas and Katy Perry.
Artist of the Week: Matt Cardle
December 27, 2010 11:12:18On the heels of his 'X Factor' win, Matt Cardle rules U.K. Singles chart for second week in a row and scores the biggest-selling single of the year behind Eminem.
'X Factor' Winner Matt Cardle Tops U.K. Christmas Chart
December 20, 2010 02:12:33The retitled cover of Biffy Clyro's 'Many of Horror' rules the U.K. singles chart, claiming victory over 'What's My Name' and 'Surfin' Bird'.
Matt Cardle's 'When We Collide' Music Video Arrives in Full
December 15, 2010 01:12:46The 2010 winner of 'The X Factor' recalls his journey to the stardom in this music video supporting the retitled cover of Biffy Clyro's 'Many of Horror'.
Sneak Peek to Matt Cardle's 'When We Collide' Music Video
December 13, 2010 03:12:24The snippet of music video supporting cover version of Biffy Clyro's 'Many of Horror' features a cameo from 'The X Factor' judge Dannii Minogue.
Artist of the Week: Cee-Lo
December 13, 2010 11:12:15The Gnarls Barkley star makes an impressive comeback from his solo career hiatus, introducing his 'Lady Killer' persona with risky, yet chart-busting single 'F**k You'.
Matt Cardle Tearful as He's Crowned 'The X Factor' Winner
December 13, 2010 11:12:01The act mentored by Dannii Minogue admitted that he is indeed an emotional person, dedicating his victory to the people who have sent him letters and support.


text:
Huaorani Spirit
Category: People
Photo and caption by Martin Pacyna
A photo of two women living in a traditional Huaorani hut in the Amazonian region of Ecuador. The Huaorani have only been in contact with our culture for a few decades. This family left the larger Huaorani settlement of Bameno to live in seclusion.
Location: The Ecuadorian Amazon, Bameno Huaorani Settlement


text:
THURSDAY, Feb. 9 (HealthDay News) -- The number of American adults who received advice from their doctor to engage in regular exercise has increased steadily over the past decade, according to new research from U.S. health officials.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers noted that this trend could help more Americans lower their risk for chronic illnesses, reduce their dependence on medication and improve their quality of life.
The investigators used data from the U.S. National Health Interview Surveys from 2000, 2005 and 2010 to examine whether or not physicians make a point to recommend regular physical activity to their patients.
The research revealed that between 2000 and 2010, the percentage of adults advised to get regular exercise jumped from 22 percent to 32 percent -- a 10 percent increase.
Among those told most often to engage in some sort of physical activity were obese patients. Exercise was also increasingly recommended to patients with high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer and diabetes.
Also, data from each of the three survey time points indicated that female patients were more likely to have been urged to exercise than male patients.
By 2010, nearly one-third of adults who had seen a doctor in the past 12 months had been advised to begin or continue an exercise regimen, according to information in a CDC news release.
In addition, the researchers found, the percentage of adults aged 85 and older who were told to exercise nearly doubled from 15.3 percent to 28.9 percent over the course of 10 years.
Although more people of all races and ethnicities were advised to get physically active, the study revealed that Hispanic adults had the largest percentage point increase over the decade.
Despite the rising trend, the prevalence of exercise advice remains well below 50 percent of U.S. adults and varies significantly among different groups of peo
Copyright©2010 ScoutNews,LLC. All rights reserved |


text:
The firm has enhanced its starting platforms with the new front-edge plate that increases the surface area for improved grip
The firm now offers a new, portable, all-terrain version of its popular Griff's Guard Station
The new ADA step system is a modified version of its Aquatrek product
Ideal for all water sports, the shirt is designed to offer protection and buoyancy
To address concern over the safety of its underage athletes, USA Swimming has launched two new initiatives.
The Fifth Annual International Conference Swimming Pool and Spa, held in Rome, focused on recent research advances in aquatics.
Myrtha offers its new Track Start Blocks.
Hydro-Fit Weighted Cuffs provide flexible and secure weighted.
The FatTowels line offers towels of varying thickness and color.
A look at Bradford's UL-listed equipment pack.


text:
Peering Into the Past
Speak to Lorewalker Cho at the Circle of Stone. | Lorewalker Cho escorted to Circle of Stone |
Just a moment, now. Allow me to gather my things.Wouldn't want me to lose these notes now, would we? Especially after you risked life and limb for them!
There, all set. Let us be off, shall we?
I must say, I feel much safer traveling with you after seeing how you handled that saurok!
Upon completion of this quest you will gain:- 9,760 experience


text:
Genesis Today's Black Raspberry cotnains exceptional black raspberries harvested from the lush Pacific Northwest and immediately freeze-dried. Harvested annually in the hot summer months, black rapsberries are know for their intense, dark flavor and are often eaten right off the bush.
Each serving of Genesis Today's Black Raspberry delivers 800 mg of freeze-dried black raspberry.
Vegetarian Capsules.
Amount Per Serving | % Daily Value |
Calories | 5 | |
Total Carbohydrate | <1 g | 1%* |
Sugars | <1 g | † |
Black Raspberry Powder | 800 mg | † |
2 Capsules Contains: | ||
| ||
and more | ||
Servings: 30
Serving Price:
Price Per Capsule:
Order by Phone 800-338-7979 24 hours | Customer Service 800-754-8000
Information provided on this site is solely for informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Do not use this information for diagnosing or treating a health problem or disease, or prescribing of any medications or supplements. Only your healthcare provider should diagnose your healthcare problems and prescribe treatment. None of our statements or information, including health claims, articles, advertising or product information have been evaluated or approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The products or ingredients referred to on this site are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. Please consult your healthcare provider before starting any supplement, diet or exercise program, before taking any medications or receiving treatment, particularly if you are currently under medical care. Make sure you carefully read all product labeling and packaging prior to use. If you have or suspect you may have a health problem, do not take any supplements without first consulting and obtaining the approval of your healthcare provider. California Consumers – Proposition 65 requires sellers to notify California consumers of substances that are in many foods, plants, herbs and supplements with the following warning. WARNING: These products contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm.
©2000-2015 Nutrition Express Corporation. All rights reserved.


text:
Choose the faery name that you are drawn to, sound it out to see if the vibration of the name feels right for you, let your intuition guide you. By choosing a faery name you are inviting faery magick into your life. Faeries are mystical creatures and life is always better when they are around. Before any magick practise or before meditation say your faery name out loud three times, by doing this you consciously invoke faery energy and add potency to any magick work or meditation practises.
Alvisa Alsen Alnosa Asena Alile Begona Brigen Brena Bittan Besane Cathen Cosia Casele Cosena Corane Doranth Derona Demile Dellar Domar Engatha Euphren Emathe Elmar Ephwar Foresta Fettam Freylar Fistonia Fresmar Gamane Gisset Geffar Goldame Golar Hasan Hepsonar Hethane Hollamia Hopenny Islatar Ilsepas Leftemi Lopeth Leray Limpet Lifthe Magendar Mabellia Miphaneth Maizmar Misellrai Nofar Nephley Nomaline Neesweth Niphlar Opaline Olsapine Ottemai Ottepha Offsemar Prearna Presmath Pincole Pinevair Phoetestay Queenstar Quilesse Questar Questaphane Quistine Roselph Ristain Rifensar Rometh Remasay Silphane Silver Simjay Siphilmire Semsebar Tippy Totezane Timplemay Twasar Tolsane Uphren Umbar Unile Unefet Unape Veronay Volsar Velmear Vamsar Vintespay Xolain Xaymin Xyvinar Xpensomal Xtephae Yetam Yampolane Yesmire Yitten Yaymar Zento Zephan Zetta Zimola Zeph |
Fast faery Loving faery Clever faery Nosey faery Calm faery Truthful faery Dancing faery Musical faery Sparkling faery Faery of words Laughing faery Serious faery Sleepy faery Bossy faery Talkative faery Intuitive faery Faery of the flowers Woodland faery Faery of the stars Faery of the lake Faery who sews Faery of powerful magick Faery of the sky Faery of the arts Faery counselor Forest sprite Faery of the Moon Faery of the roses Good faery Mischevious faery Little faery Gossamer faery Graceful faery Water nymph Golden Queen Faery of power Faery of green fields Faery of dewdrops Faery of the grass Faery of the lake Faery of the trees Golden haired faery Cotton faery Faery of the bluebells Faery of the birds Dragon faery Dark haired faery Faery of the rainbow Warrior faery Faery of languages Faery of music Mystical faery Faery of the night Faery of words Faery of light Faery of kindness Faery of laughter Faery of the garden Faery of gold Faery of silver Bestower of gifts Nightime faery Faery of courage Faery who does act Faery of dance and music Faery of the home and hearth Faery of beauty Faery from the royal castle Faery from the golden hills Star faery Faery with gossamer wings Faery of the clouds Faery of the golden orbs Keeper of the faery keys Keeper of the faery tablets Faery of languages Faery of light Faery of music Faery of myths and legends Faery of Autumn Faery of saphires Faery of bells Faery of travel Faery of animals Faery of the land Faery of the mind Faery of intuition Mischievous faery Faery friend of elves Faery carer of newborn babies Faery of health and vitality Faery of apple trees Faery of blue flowers Faery of the night Faery with red hair Faery who watches over children Faery of hospitals Queen of fairyland Faery of communication Faery of summer Dispenser of magick faery dust Faery candles maker Faery of Winter Faery of health Faery of mind magick Faery of blue light Faery of memory Faery of spring Faery of all that is good Faery of luck Faery of blessings Faery of the stars |
Witcheslore.com 2013.


text:
Improving Vertical Handover Performance of Real Time Applications Over Heterogeneous Wireless Networks
Date Added: Jan 2013
Format: PDF
The Wireless network, applications and devices have been dramatic changes in throughout the last decade. Several issues related to the heterogeneity of such wireless environment were handled, namely the mobility management, resource allocation, security, quality of service and transparent handover. In fact, to meet the increasing demands of mobile users, the next generation wireless systems form a relay of cooperatives of heterogeneous wireless technology that allows users to be connected anytime and anywhere. Wireless networks can integrate various heterogeneous radio access technologies as GSM, UMTS, WLAN, WiMAX etc. The main promise of interconnecting these heterogeneous networks is to provide high performance in achieving a high data rate and support real time applications.


text:
Josh Goldman, is CEO of Australis Aquaculture
Ignite is a geek event in over 100 cities worldwide. At the events Ignite presenters share their personal and professional passions, using 20 slides that auto-advance every 15 seconds for a total of just five minutes.
Find an Ignite near you, start your own or watch a video.


text:
j.yuri posted an update from 2pm 2 years, 9 months ago
hello @deasylee, @nuraliah and @caterinamarzuollo, thank you for join with us in our 2PM fansite hope you all enjoy in here
most welcome
sure and thanks for the welcoming…
Yeah^^ thanks for the welcoming too
Do you remember her? You can't resist her attractiveness. SONG HYE KYO, the name of beauty! From a lovely girl to a beautiful woman, she has changed!
629 (See details)
Fan club Post Guide Here is "Post Guide" explaining how to upload video / photo and adjust thumbnail photo. This will help write posts in fanclub easily. Click here to see the guide Close
Sorry. No data so far.


text:
Grilling Sauces
user ratingOur grilling sauces are made with fresh fruits and veggies to give them a full-bodied flavor. Use them as dipping sauces for your favorites breads or meats. Flavors: Peach Chipotle, Apple Balsamic, and Raspberry Jalapeno.
Creators of award-winning specialty foods made by hand in historic Washington, Miss. We are a small, family-owned company that prides itself on using fresh ingredients and utilizing local produce when available. Products include salsas, grilling sauces, pepper jellies and relishes.


text:
OLYMPIA, Washington (AP) — Gov. Chris Gregoire signed into law a measure that makes Washington state the seventh to legalize same-sex marriage, but opponents almost immediately filed a referendum to challenge the new law, meaning voters likely will have the final say.
Gregoire signed the bill Monday, saying it was "a day historians will mark as a milestone for equal rights, a day when we did what was right, we did what was just, and we did what was fair."
The law takes effect June 7, but opponents on multiple fronts already are preparing to fight.
Gregoire's signature comes nearly a week after a federal appeals court declared California's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, saying it was a violation of the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples.
A group called Preserve Marriage Washington filed Referendum 73 Monday afternoon. If they collect the more than 120,577 valid voter signatures needed by June 6, the law will be put on hold pending the outcome of a November vote. Separately, an initiative was filed at the beginning of the legislative session that opponents of gay marriage say could also lead to the new law being overturned.
"I think in the end, people are going to preserve marriage," said Joe Fuiten, senior pastor at Cedar Park Church in Bothell who is involved in the referendum effort.
The Washington, D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage, which was involved in ballot measures that overturned same-sex marriage in California and Maine, has promised to work with Preserve Marriage Washington to qualify the referendum to overturn the new law.
A campaign has already formed to fight any challenge to the new law. "Washington United for Marriage," a coalition of gay marriage supporters, formed in November to lobby the Legislature to pass the measure and to run a campaign against any referendum challenging it.
Gay marriage supporters said that while they are ready for a campaign battle, they are allowing themselves to celebrate first.
"You have to relish this moment," said 31-year-old Bret Tiderman of Seattle, who attended Monday's bill signing.
The state reception room at the Capitol was packed with hundreds of gay rights supporters and at least 40 lawmakers from the House and Senate to watch Gregoire sign the bill Monday. Gregoire was greeted with loud cheers.
"No matter what the future holds, nothing will take this moment in history away from us," Sen. Ed Murray, a Seattle Democrat who is gay and has sponsored gay rights legislation for years, told the cheering crowd.
Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who opposes gay marriage, was in town speaking with conservative voters. Santorum also met with Republican lawmakers at the Capitol Monday afternoon.
Santorum said he encouraged gay-marriage opponents "to continue the fight."
"There are ebbs and flows in every battle, and this is not the final word," he said.
Washington state has had domestic partnership laws since 2007, and in 2009 passed an "everything but marriage" expansion of that law, which was ultimately upheld by voters after a referendum challenge.
Gay marriage is legal in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C.
Same-sex marriage also has the backing of several prominent Pacific Northwest businesses, including Microsoft Corp., Nike Inc. and Starbucks Corp.
The New Jersey Senate advanced a gay marriage bill Monday, and a vote is expected in the New Jersey Assembly on Thursday. Gov. Chris Christie, who is pushing for a public vote on the issue, says he'll veto the bill if it comes to his desk.
Legislative committees in Maryland heard testimony on gay marriage last week, and Maine could see a gay marriage proposal on the November ballot.
Proposed amendments to ban gay marriage will be on the ballots in North Carolina in May and in Minnesota in November.
Would you like to contribute to this story? Join the discussion.


text:
Pop Culture
Downton Abbey Portrays Reality of Interfaith RelationshipsBy Gerri Miller
Go inside Season 5 Episode 9 where the story line of Atticus and Rose's interfaith relationship comes to a head.
Go To Pop Culture
Days of AwesomeThere are many advantages to working here at InterfaithFamily.com. One is that Jewish holidays do not sneak up on you. We're starting with the High Holiday content this week! Can you believe it? It's the beginning of Elul, the Jewish calendar month before Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. I wrote a Guide to the High Holidays for Interfaith Families. There will be no excuse this year when I fail to buy myself new clothing or a white shirt for the holiday, no excuse for scrambling around like a maniac to arrange the holiday meals. Also, my husband (who reads this blog, right?) will remember to start practicing blowing the shofar starting on Sunday, the first day of Elul. Maybe. We're going out of town and it might be a risk to take it on the airplane. I don't know how airport security feels about people taking ram's horns on planes. (Doesn't this photo just rock? I got it from flickr.com–it was from a whole neat Rosh Hashanah sequence by an Israeli photographer.) More goodies below the cut! I have a new coworker here who took a look at my Guide and wished I could include a sound file of Barbra Streisand singing Avinu Malkenu. Well, it is here on Youtube–I can't embed it, but I don't mind–it's schmaltzier than what I usually like. That's OK, we're all about the pluralism here! If you like it, click the linked text (and tell me all about it, I want to know!) I was kind of excited to find a video of a jam by the band Phish from 1999 that ends with a long riff on Avinu Malkeinu–but I'm not embedding that either, because it's over 7 minutes and Avinu Malkeinu comes after another song. It made me think of my Judaic Studies students from UMass Amherst back in that year who were totally into Phish, and loved it that they played something Jewish. I think instead I'm going to embed this adorable song from Michelle Citrin from last year, "I Gotta' Love You Rosh Hashanah," because it's so cute. Is she wearing a t-shirt that says Brooklyn Bubbelehs? Now that's awesome! CommentsNote: All comments on InterfaithFamily are moderated. Any comment that is offensive or inappropriate will be removed. 2 thoughts on "Days of Awesome"Leave a Reply |


text:
Judith Jarvis Thomson: List of Publications
1 July 2001
This Bibliography includes critical studies, but no book reviews. Starred items are reprinted in Rights, Restitution, and Risk (item 49 below).
1. "In Defense of Moral Absolutes." Journal of Philosophy 55 (1958): 1043-1053.
2. "Critical Study of Intention, G. E. M. Anscombe." Journal of Philosophy 56 (1959): 31-41.
3. "Notes on Strawson's Logic." Mind 70 (1961): 53-82.
4. "Ethics and Ethics and the Moral Life." Journal of Philosophy 58 (1961): 65-83.
5. "Definition by Internal Relation." Australasian Journal of Philosophy 39 (1961):125-142.
6. "Professor Stenius on the Tractatus." Journal of Philosophy 58 (1961): 584-596. Reprinted in Essays on Wittgenstein's Tractatus, Irving Copi and Robert Beard, eds. London: Routledge, 1966; and in The Philosophy of Wittgenstein, John Canfield, ed. New York: Garland, 1986.
7. "Practical Reasoning." Philosophical Quarterly 12 (1962): 316-328.
8. "Private Languages." American Philosophical Quarterly 1 (1964): 20-31. Reprinted in Philosophy of Mind, Stuart Hampshire, ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1966; and in The Private Language Argument, O. R. Jones, ed. London: Macmillan, 1971.
9. (with James Thomson) "How Not to Derive 'Ought' From 'Is'." Philosophical Review 73 (1964): 512-516. Reprinted in Readings in Ethical Theory, Wilfrid Sellars and John Hospers, eds. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1952; The Is-Ought Question, W. D. Hudson, ed. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979; and in Philosophy: A Contemporary Perspective, Robert Hoffman and Sidney Gendin, eds. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1975.
10. "Time, Space, and Objects." Mind 74 (1965): 1-27.
11. "Reasons and Reasoning," in Philosophy in America, Max Black, ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1965.
12. "Grue." Journal of Philosophy 63 (1966): 289-309.
13. "More Grue." Journal of Philosophy 63 (1966): 528-533.
14. "Introduction," in Logical Constructions, John Wisdom. New York: Random House, 1969.
15. "The Identity Thesis," in Philosophy, Science, and Method: Essays in Honor of Ernest Nagel, Sidney Morgenbesser, Patrick Suppes and Morton White, eds. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1969.
16. "Comments on Joseph Agassi, 'Science in Flux: Footnotes to Popper'" in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 3. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1968.
17. Contribution to the Symposium "Cause and Action," Proceedings of the Seventh Inter-American Congress of Philosophy. Québec: Presses de l'Université Laval, 1967.
18. "John Wisdom," in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards, ed. New York: Macmillan, 1967.
19. "Comments" (on Körner) in Fact and Existence: Proceedings of the University of Western Ontario Philosophy Colloquium, 1966, Joseph Margolis, ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1969.
20. (Edited with Gerald Dworkin) Ethics: an Anthology. New York: Harper & Row, 1968.
21. "The Time of a Killing." Journal of Philosophy 68 (1971): 115-132. Reprinted in Events, Roberto Casati and Achille Varzi, eds. Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1996.
22. "Individuating Actions." Journal of Philosophy 68 (1971): 774-781.
23. *"A Defense of Abortion." Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1971): 47-66. Reprinted in The Rights and Wrongs of Abortion, Marshall Cohen, Thomas Nagel, and Thomas Scanlon, eds. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974; The Problem of Abortion, Joel Feinberg, ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1973; Moral Problems, James Rachels, ed., New York: Harper & Row, 1971; Today's Moral Problems, Richard Wasserstrom, ed., New York: Macmillan, 1975; and other anthologies.
24. *"Rights and Deaths." Philosophy and Public Affairs 2 (1973): 146-159. Reprinted in The Rights and Wrongs of Abortion, Marshall Cohen, Thomas Nagel, and Thomas Scanlon, eds. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974; and other anthologies.
25. *"Preferential Hiring." Philosophy and Public Affairs 2 (1973): 364-384. Reprinted in Moral Problems, James Rachels, ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1971; Equality and Preferential Treatment, Marshall Cohen, Thomas Nagel, and Thomas Scanlon, eds. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977; and other anthologies.
26. "Molyneux's Problem." Journal of Philosophy 71 (1974): 637-650.
27. "Moore's Technique Revisited," in Wisdom, Twelve Essays, Renford Bambrough, ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1974.
28. "Academic Freedom and Research," in The Concept of Academic Freedom, Edmund Pincoffs, ed. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1975.
29. *"The Right to Privacy." Philosophy and Public Affairs 4 (1975): 295-314. Reprinted in Ethics and Public Policy, Tom Beauchamp and Terry Pinkard, eds. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975; and other anthologies.
30. *"Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem." The Monist 59 (1976): 204-217.
31. "Property-Acquisition" (abstract) Journal of Philosophy 73 (1976): 664-666.
32. *"Self-Defense and Rights," 1976 Lindley Lecture, University of Kansas Press. Reprinted in Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, John Kaplan and Robert Weisberg, eds. Boston: Little, Brown, 1986.
33. Acts and Other Events. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977. 34. (with Sandalow) "On Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Appointments." AAUP Bulletin (1978).
35. *"Some Ruminations on Rights." Arizona Law Review 19 (1977): 45-60. Reprinted in Reading Nozick, Jeffrey Paul, ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1982.
36. "Common-Sense Morality" (abstract) Journal of Philosophy 76 (1979): 545-547.
37. *"Rights and Compensation." Nous 14 (1980): 3-15.
38. "Philosophical Prospects for a New World," in Two Centuries of Philosophy in America, Peter Caws, ed. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1980.
39. (with Chodosh et al.) "Regulations Governing Research on Human Subjects." Academe 67 (1981): 358-370.
40. "Parthood and Identity Across Time." Journal of Philosophy 80 (1983): 201-219. Reprinted in Material Constitution, Michael Rea, ed. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997; Metaphysics, Jaegwon Kim and Ernest Sosa, eds. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999; and other anthologies.
41. (with Dreben et al.) "Academic Freedom and Tenure: Corporate Funding of Academic Research." Academe 69.6 (1983): 18a-23a.
42. *"Remarks on Causation and Liability." Philosophy and Public Affairs 13 (1984): 101-133.
43. *"Some Questions about Government Regulation of Behavior," in Rights and Regulation: Ethical, Political, and Economic Issues, Tibor Machan and Bruce Johnson, eds. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1983.
44. *"The Trolley Problem," Yale Law Journal 94 (1985): 1395-1415.
45. *"Imposing Risks," in To Breathe Freely, Mary Gibson, ed. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1983.
46. "Causal Priority: A Comment." Nous 19 (1985): 249-253.
47. "A Note on Internalism." Philosophy and Public Affairs 15 (1986): 60-66.
48. *"Liability and Individualized Evidence." Law and Contemporary Problems 49.3 (1986): 199-219. Reprinted in Legal Positivism, Tom Campbell, ed. Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1999.
49. Rights, Restitution, and Risk. William Parent, ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1986. This volume reprints all the starred items above.
50. "Feinberg on Harm, Offense, and the Criminal Law: A Review Essay." Philosophy and Public Affairs 15 (1986): 381-395.
51. (Edited) On Being and Saying: Essays for Richard Cartwright. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1987.
52. "Ruminations on an Account of Personal Identity," in On Being and Saying, op. cit.
53. "Verbs of Action." Synthese 72 (1987): 103-122.
54. "Causation and Rights: Some Preliminaries." Chicago-Kent Law Review 63 (1987): 471-521.
55. "The Decline of Cause." (Hart Lecture) Georgetown Law Journal 76 (1987-1988): 137-150. Reprinted in Readings in Philosophy of Law, William Shaw, ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1993.
56. "Morality and Bad Luck." (Metaphilosophy Address) Metaphilosophy 20 (1989): 203-221. Reprinted in Moral Luck, Daniel Statman, ed. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993.
57. "The No Reason Thesis." Social Philosophy and Policy 7 (1989): 1-21.
58. The Realm of Rights. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990.
59. "Ideology and Faculty Selection." Law and Contemporary Problems 53.3 (1990): 155-176. Reprinted in Freedom and Tenure in the Academy, William Van Alstyne, ed. Durham: Duke University Press, 1993.
60. "Self-Defense." Philosophy and Public Affairs (1991): 283-310.
61. "On Some Ways in Which a Thing Can Be Good." Social Philosophy and Policy 9 (1992): 96-117. Reprinted in The Good Life and the Human Good, Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred Miller, and Jeffrey Paul, eds. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
62. (with Matthew Finkin) "Academic Freedom and Church-Related Higher Education: A Reply to Professor McConnell," in Freedom and Tenure in the Academy, William Van Alstyne, ed. Durham: Duke University Press, 1993.
63. "Précis of The Realm of Rights." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53 (1993): 159-162.
64. "Reply to Commentators." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53 (1993): 187-194.
65. "Goodness and Utilitarianism" (Presidential Address) Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 67.2 (1993): 145-159.
66. "Abortion." Boston Review 20.3 (1995).
67. "Reply." Boston Review 20.4 (1995).
68. "Academic Freedom and Tenure: University of Southern California." Academe, November-December (1995): 40-49.
69. (with Gilbert Harman) Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
70. "Baier's Carus Lectures on Killing and Letting Die," in Reason, Ethics, and Society, J. B. Schneewind, ed. Chicago: Open Court, 1996.
71. "Killing and Letting Die: Some Comments," in Intending Death, Tom Beauchamp, ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1995.
72. "Critical Study of Jonathan Bennett's The Act Itself." Nous 30 (1996)ling and Letting Die," in Reason, Ethics, and Society, J. B. Schneewind, ed. Chicago: Open Court, 1996.
71. "Killing and Letting Die: Some Comments," in Intending Death, Tom Beauchamp, ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1995.
72. "Critical Study of Jonathan Bennett's The Act Itself." Nous 30 (1996): 545-557.
73. (with Dworkin et al.) "Amicus Brief on Assisted Suicide." The New York Review, March 27, 1997.
74. "The Right and the Good." Journal of Philosophy 94 (1997): 273-298.
75. "People and their Bodies," in Reading Parfit, Jonathan Dancy, ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.
76. "Précis of Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58 (1998): 171-173.
77. "Reply to Critics." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58 (1998): 215-222.
78. "The Statue and the Clay." Nous 32 (1998): 149-173.
79. "Physician-Assisted Suicide: Two Moral Arguments." Ethics 109 (1999): 497-518.
80. "Goodness and Advice", Princeton University Press, 2001
81. "McTaggart on Time," Philosophical Perspectives, vol.
15, 2001
82. "Causation: Omissions," Philosophy and Phenomenological
Research, January 2003
83. "The Legacy of Principia," Spindell Conference 2002, Southern
Journal of Philosophy, Supplement, 2003


text:
April 9, 2007 Electric engines have a very unsexy image; environmentally friendly hybrids and plug-in vehicles couldn't be further from the minds of most high performance motorsport fans. The battery-powered Killacycle, however, is raising eyebrows at the dragstrip after smashing the electric vehicle quarter-mile speed record with a very respectable 8.168 seconds @ 155.78mph earlier this week. Video here. Read More
April 5, 2007 "We're not rewriting American history, we're writing its future," reads Victory's website preview of its 2008 Vision cruisers. Perhaps, although the styling seems to blend the front end of a big touring Beemer with the rear of a 1930s gangster-style Cadillac. There's no denying the bike is a bold statement - but will cruiser fans, notorious for their conservative styling tastes, share Victory's enthusiasm? Loz Blain looks at a new and important motorcycle. Read More
April 3, 2007 BMW has already shown in its short time as a Formula One constructor that it has the wherewithal to play at the ultimate level and news this week that it will begin competing in motorcycle endurance racing is hence of great significance. On 21st April 2007, the legendary "24-heures moto" races off to yet another blinding start, but with one small but significant historic difference: after an absence of 50 years from competitive road racing, a BMW Motorrad factory team will be on the grid. Read More
March 28, 2007 While motorcycle riders are going to miss pulling on the dome of silence and escaping from the rest of the world, BlueAnt's Interphone Handsfree & Intercom offers new capabilities that will be highly sought after. The US$190 Interphone Handsfree & Intercom is being launched at this week's CTIA Wireless 2007, and is designed to be easily attached to either full faced or open faced helmets. It is fully weatherproof and water resistant and incorporates a world class Digital Signal Processor (DSP) designed to reduce noise and echo to ensure excellent clarity of sound. The motorcycle "hands-free" follows just a few days after the company's US$100 Supertooth Light Bluetooth handsfree speakerphone which is aimed primarily at motorists though it offers handsfree functionality for any bluetooth-enabled mobile phone in any environment. Read More
March 10, 2007 Ducati drew first blood in the 2007 version of MotoGP with 800cc engines at the first round of the 18-race series in Qatar today. Australian 21 year-old rising star Casey Stoner made a perfect start with the Ducati Marlboro Team, riding to a magnificent victory aboard his Desmosedici GP7. Stoner rode a perfectly judged race, leading the first lap and then battling with former World Champion Valentino Rossi throughout. The pair swapped positions several times, separated by just a few tenths for most of the 22 laps, Stoner crossing the finish line 2.8 seconds ahead after setting a new track record on the final lap. One of the highlights of the race was the speed of the four Ducati-engined machines in the field, sometimes with a margin of 20 km/h over the fastest of the others at the end of the kilometre-long Qatar front straight. Rossi's Fiat Yamaha M1 was a clear second and Dani Pedrosa's Repsol Honda RC212V was a narrow third ahead of the Rizla Suzuki of John Hopkins, indicating at least four different makes of machinery will be capable of winning a race this season. Stoner's odds dropped from 0/1 to 5/1 overnight on world betting markets. Read More
March 10, 2007 One of the great things about production racing is that you get to see exactly how well a pretty standard motorcycle can perform. With the advent of the Superstock class, we can now see something very close to showroom stock motorcycles – a far more realistic appraisal of how well they perform on the road. The European Superstock Championships are now eight years old and Suzuki's Gixxer won it last year, and has taken the title five of the eight times it has been contested. The AMA equivalent class kicked off yesterday at Daytona and it looks like Suzuki will be keeping its crown already. Team Yoshimura Suzuki's Ben Spies took pole on his Yoshimura Suzuki GSX-R1000, then led home Ben Bostrum's Yamaha R1 to take the first win of the season. With the defending champ scoring a victory first up, Suzuki's stocks are again strong, but a look down the field indicates that the contest may well come from within. Suzuki Gixxers filled third through to tenth place. Read More
March 4, 2007 This is a story of two men, one a dreamer, and the other a mechanical genius, from opposite sides of the globe joining forces to bring something new and astounding to the streets of America. It starts back in December of 2003, in Sydney, Australia when 3D designer Tim Cameron sketched a cruiser motorcycle on a scrap of paper. A pure flight of fancy, Cameron drew out an aggressively poised, extreme, low- riding design. As an out-of-hours project, using his 3D computer modelling skills, Cameron began to build what he called his 'dream bike' in the only place he thought it could ever exist, the self-contained virtual 3D world inside his computer. He spent 2 months 'building' the design in 3D down to the bolt heads, in a type of program normally used for Hollywood-type special effects, to create photo-realistic images of the bike so convincing that the average person would be hard pressed to pick them from the real thing. These images attracted the interest of an Australian custom bike magazine, Ozbike, and became the basis for an 8-page cover story. This story in turn generated interest internationally and the images went on to be published by leading motorcycle magazines in 10 different countries around the world. This all by itself was a satisfying result for Cameron, but pales considerably in comparison with what was about to happen next! Read More
March 1, 2007 Nicky Hayden's 2006 MotoGP Championship has prompted Honda to announce a limited edition Repsol replica Fireblade CBR1000RR which will be released into European and American markets later this month. It's the second Repsol Replica Fireblade, the first coming in 2005 to commemorate a decade of Repsol sponsorship. Repsol began sponsoring the Honda MotoGP Team in 1995 when Michael Doohan won his second of five consecutive World GP 500 titles. Since then the team has won seven of the last eleven World Championship crowns including last year's Constructor, Team and Rider's Championship. The CBR1000RR features a host of race-developed technological innovations including the PGM-DSFI dual sequential fuel injection system, the Mass-Centralised Chassis Configuration, the Gravity Die-Cast Aluminium Frame, the Unit-Pro-Arm Swingarm, Radial-Mount Front Brake Callipers and the Electronic Steering Damper. Though it's nowhere near an exact replica of the racing machines ridden by Nicky Hayden and Dani Pedrosa, the new Repsol Honda Fireblade certainly looks authentic. Read More
February 20, 2007 Chris Pfeiffer has become the first Indoor Streetbike Freestyle World Champion at the one-off indoor event last weekend at the SWISS-MOTO Motorcycle, Scooter and Tuning Exhibition in Zurich. The 36-year-old German and his BMW F 800 were up against 16 other competitors from nine nations, yet Pfeiffer went through Saturday's qualifying rounds and both of Sunday's final rounds, posting near perfect results in front of thousands of spectators and winning every round. Second place went to former World Stunt Riding Champion AC Farias from Brazil, with Finnish newcomer Joni Tammela securing the remaining podium slot. Read More
February 8, 2007 Carroll Shelby International and Rucker Performance unveiled a limited production Shelby motorcycle at the Cincinnati V-Twin Expo last week. The high performance motorcycle was developed in partnership between the two companies and will be built by Rucker Performance. Sticking to his tried and true formula of brute horsepower in a lightweight frame, the powerhouse is a new S&S X-Wedge 128 c.i.d. engine with closed loop VFI fuel injection that churns out a healthy 150 bhp. Each Shelby motorcycle can be custom painted according to the owner's personal tastes and includes a special edition logo. In addition, a complete line of Shelby merchandise including apparel, accessories and limited edition collector's items will be available. Initial production of the Shelby will be a very limited edition run of 25 motorcycles that will be available for purchase by the third quarter of this year. Production of a second round of bikes will begin in the fall of 2007. Read More
- Features
- Reviews
- Aircraft
- Architecture
- Around The Home
- Automotive
- Bicycles
- Children
- Computers
- Digital Cameras
- Electronics
- Environment
- Games
- Good Thinking
- Health and Wellbeing
- Holiday Destinations
- Home Entertainment
- Inventors and Remarkable People
- Laptops
- Marine
- Medical
- Military
- Mobile Technology
- Motorcycles
- Music
- Outdoors
- Pets
- Robotics
- Science
- Space
- Sports
- Telecommunications
- Urban Transport
- Wearable Electronics


text:
Hawthorn Suites by Wyndham Jacksonville is a business friendly
hotel located in Jacksonville's Southeast Jacksonville
neighborhood, close to Saint Luke's Hospital and The Avenues. Other
area points of interest include St. Johns Town Center and
University of North Florida.
Hotel Features.
Recreational amenities include an outdoor pool, a spa tub, and a
fitness facility. This 3 star property offers small meeting rooms,
audiovisual equipment, and business services. A complimentary
hot/cold buffet breakfast is served each morning. Guests can enjoy
a complimentary light meal reception in the evening, available
Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. Guest parking is
complimentary. Additional property amenities include laundry
facilities, express check out, and coffee/tea in the lobby.
116 air conditioned guestrooms at Hawthorn Suites by Wyndham
Jacksonville feature coffee/tea makers and complimentary weekday
newspapers. Furnishings include desks and sofa beds. Kitchenettes
include microwaves and refrigerators. Bathrooms feature
complimentary toiletries and hair dryers. Televisions have premium
cable channels, pay movies, and VCRs. Rooms also include electronic
check out and irons/ironing boards. Housekeeping is offered daily
and guests may request wake up calls.
What's Nearby? Hotels » Activities »
Find Hotels near Hawthorn Suites By Wyndham Jacksonville »