Mullah Omar: Taliban Rules and Regulations

[jmm99]

I typed my answer to you a bit too quickly. Haste makes waste.

Since I made the independent magistrate in Step 2 an administrative judge, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) would most likely require review of the case by an Article III court (either a US District Court or Court of Appeals).

I posit that the magistrate in the Step 2 hearing would make findings of fact based on a complete record of admissible evidence (including both unclassified and classified evidence - the latter being protected as usual).

The cleanest way to meet the APA would be to provide for an appeal to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, where the magistrate's findings of fact would be conclusive if made on substantial evidence contained in the complete record (the last requirement to prevent cherry-picking). Errors in matters of law are always reviewable.

So, a Step 3 would have to be added to the process.

Mike

[M-A Lagrange]

Hello every body,

I am trying to catch up and as some know it where I am when it rains...

Mike, I read your comments on the art2 and 3 and your questions.
I come with some comments and begining of response to your questions.

If US have the liberty to recognize or not a government, US do not have the liberty to determine who is a High Contracting Party, it is Swiss as depositary of the signature, ratification and adhesions. (from my understanding).
The paradox is even expressed in your comments: Afghanistan never lost his status of High Contracting Party, while US did not recognize the Rabbani government, even before 2001.

Art 1, 2 and 3 are common to all the GC just as the final dispositions of all the GC. For GC3 it is art 133 to 143.
US ratified the GC3 with the only reserve that they will not recognize the use of the symbol of the red cross and the death penalty.
US had the obligation to provide written notification to Swiss Government of reserve on contracting party to denounce the GC. In that case, only US would had been no more bound to the obligation to apply the GC but also would not have been protected by GC. US did provide written notification concerning the recognition of South Viet Nam (18/01/1974) but not concerning Afghanistan.

Also, denouncing the GC takes 1 year and does not apply for parties at war or conducting military operation in the territory of another party. So even if a written reserve was given in time to Swiss government it would not had apply. (Art 142 GC3)

I understand the fact that US does not recognize any higher legal authority than its constitution would be the same with France with the addition of the universal declaration of Man Rights.
But still, the question is that Afghanistan what ever was its government was still a High Contracting Party and that the conflict occurred between two High Contracting Parties so the paragraph 1 of the Art 2 should had apply.
The quality of international conflict is not stated in the Art 2 paragraphe 1 it is induced by the fact that High Contracting Parties are government representing Nations. So an orthodox understanding and application of GC could be that 2001 operations in Afghanistan were actually falling under art2 paragraph 1.
There US have applied their understanding of recognized government and derogated to its obligations concerning an application stricto sensus of the GC. Also the US did pass an administrative act that would not have been possible in France. (People have rights, you have to preserve that).
This, in my understanding of US Law is possible only because of the status of the constitution that would stipulate the obligation of government administration to protect US citizen. (Which is ok for me)
What I have difficulties to figure out is the consequences of the precedent for any other treaty between let say US and France the day US does not recognize French government as a legitimate government.
Also, there is no designated body given for the settlement of such precedent in GC interpretation.
We have here a juridical question on the difference between High Contracting Party to the GC status and the recognition of a Government. I cannot answer that question and I believe that the answer can be given only by the permanent court of La Haye. Or would be left to each signatory appreciation but it is against the spirit of the GC. (Which does not count but is the way things have been handled).
For France, it would be against the 1789 Universal Declaration of Man Rights. The position is simple: human being have rights. The only question is what legal status has the concerned individual and then which rights goes with.
The Conseil Constitutionel would definitively size the question. By definition, in French Law, the individual must have rights, their rights cannot be denied. We have the same problem with criminals that are considered as danger for the society and have a law saying they will stay, after serving their sentence under medical detention. This law is highly controversial and is we by many as a breach in the legitimacy of Law. Once you serve your sentence you have to be released (that is my position) despite the fact you are a danger for the society. You cannot detain someone on the base he may be a danger. If you really want to put someone out of the system, you can sentence him for life (35 years in France) without possibility of revision of the sentence. (So he will serve 25 years). After you can put him under strict control with a possibility to serve another life sentence. Otherwise the charactere of justice (the second chance) is abandoned by the Law.

Secondly, the Art 1 is even larger as all High Contracting Parties, including US or France or Germany, have the obligation to apply GC3 (or 1,2, 4) in all circumstances. In my understanding that would mean that even if aliens from Mars were at war with France, France would be bound to apply the present GC. There is no definition of the opponent or the conflict status involved.
I would take this article to legitimate that anyway what ever are the circumstances, France is bound to apply the GC3. Here also my job is easier as France put the 1789 declaration of Man Rights at the same level as her constitution. My only question is in which box do I put the bonhomme.

But what ever, Art 3 fully applied to the situation and applies to the actual situation.

Now it is interesting to look at Afghanistan reserves and comments on GC.

PS: Concerning the Rawls theory, I am in position to discuss it only after several scotch very late at night, definitively not during the day. It is out of the subject and too high for me.

[Igel]

jmm99, First of all thanks for the description of the appliance of foreigners to the Bill of Rights. Lots of stuff to think about. I fear, I lack the background knowledge of US law, especially administrative law, to make any meanigful comment right now.

If you could summarize the arguments for an independent German military law and Laws of War, that would be appreciated. IIRC, Fuch once commented that, from his perspective, military law is not relevant.

What do you mean with "independent German military law and Laws of War"? There exist various laws which regulate the military and give guidelines how a war has to be fought. Do you mean something different from that?

That seems unlikely, but then the Basic Law goes back to early post-WWII days when we (US and the three other major ETO allies), in our infinite wisdom, pushed for a de-militarized Germany, where the Laws of War would be quite irrelevant.

I think this time the USA aren't at fault for Germany problems. Problems mainly result from an interpretation of the Basic Law during 60 years of peacetime, with no look at what that means for wartime, especially small wars. But I also want to include M-A Lagrange point.

For France, it would be against the 1789 Universal Declaration of Man Rights. The position is simple: human being have rights. The only question is what legal status has the concerned individual and then which rights goes with.

I think we have to differentiate between two different levels:
1. what a state is bound by international law (especially the Geneva treaty) and
2. what he is bound to by his national law.
I haven't fully read jmm99 links about the international law side yet, so i leave that aside. However, as LM-A Lagrange rightly pointed out, international law can be interpreted by one, common instance: the Hague. So my guess is, that there shouldn't be that much differences, if everyone follows the Interpretations of the Hague. Of course differnces could still existed because of what jmm99 pointed out in No. 3 in his post No. 10.

The more interesting differences result from the national law, especially the Constitution. In that respect jmm99 was quite clever to first show the constitutional level.
I think one of the major differences will be the civil rights and especially their exact coverage and the possibility of a restriction.

It is clearer if I show what I mean with the german basic law. It will be a bit longer, but I think also more clearly understandable. The basic law bestows basic rights, most of them are found within the Art. 1 - 19.

The Question, if the state act violates a basic right is answered by the following Schema: Scope of Protection (Schutzbereich) - Restriction (Beschränkung) - Justification (Rechtfertigung). It is probably easier if I show it with an example. I leave aside various details, because I want to focus on the basic differences between German and US (and French?) civil rights.
Take Art. 12

All Germans shall have the right freely to choose their occupation or profession, their place of work and their place of training. The practice of an occupation or profession may be regulated by or pursuant to a law.

Scope of Protection: Here we would have to define, what occupation is. To quote a well know Commentary: "Occupation is every activity, which contributes in high-minded or in material respect for the creation and preservation of a livelihood."
So working as a Lawyer clearly fits under this. Working as a Mafia Hitman? If he earns money with it: Yes. Working as a Prostitute? Yes.

Restriction: Any state burden on a behaviour, which lies within the Scope of Protection of that Basic Right. So if a law prohibits the Hitman from killing for money, this is a Restriction of its basic right. The same for a prostitute. The law, that states that only legally trained people, can become lawyers is also a Restriction of the basic right.

Justification: As you see sentence 2 allows a regulation. Limitless Regulations? No.
First the regulation has to conform to Art. 19 I, II

(1) Insofar as, under this Basic Law, a basic right may be restricted by or pursuant to a law, such law must apply generally and not merely to a single case. In addition, the law must specify the basic right affected and the Article in which it appears.
(2) In no case may the essence of a basic right be affected.

The most important is not found in the text of the basic law but has been deduced from the rule of law: the Proportionality. This contains 3 important steps: The means must further the purpose. There are no means, which are as effective but milder. And that means and purpose mustn't be out of proportion.
A law that forbids the hitman to kill for money? Surly proportional, the purpose is to save lives (guaranteed by Art. 2 II of the basic law).
A law that only allows legally trained people to become lawyers? As the purpose is to ensure the professionally of advocacy and to ensure the working ability of the judiciary, yes (although maybe not as clear as with the himan).

So there is a major difference between German civil rights and US civil rights. The US rights can't be restricted, so you always have to interpret the Scope of Protection very carefully. This also means, it is an all-or-nothing protection. Either you fall under (e.g.) the Sixth Amendment or not. As the German civil rights can be restricted, the Scope of Protection is generally interpreted very far. Practically you'll always find a civil right which protects this person or behaviour. It is a more general, but also partly lower protection, because everything can be restricted.

So if one concludes that the Bundeswehr is bound by basic rights in the GWOT, one would have to enact laws which allow it to act or analyze if the existing laws are a adequate regulation of the basic rights. More problematic would be a strict binding of the Bundeswehr to the Proportionality.

Now I'm unclear how the situation in France is. Can the rights which are granted by the Declaration be restricted? I think this has major implications on how a nation, which follows the rule of law, can and will fight.

[M-A Lagrange]

Now I'm unclear how the situation in France is. Can the rights which are granted by the Declaration be restricted? I think this has major implications on how a nation, which follows the rule of law, can and will fight.

The universal declaration of Man Right is very general in fact. Men are equal in Rights. (But they can loose administrative rights as vote or paternity...)
But the rights included in it are: right to live, right to have a free opinion, right to express it...
Then we have laws that may condamn you for a miss use of those rights as the law on negation of Shoa. You have the right to say Shoa did not exist. (If you want...) But then the society will suite you for attempt of the law against negationism.
Basically, from my understanding, you can do what you what but you have to assume consequences. Also, with rights, come obligations. Military service was one of them.
Reverse, voting is a right that you are not obliged to use, contrary as in Swiss for example (and in some part of Germany if I well remember).

On the conduct of war, it is the same. There are not much things that you cannot do. The only thing is: if you give or execute an unlawfull order then you will be procecuted.
In that understanding, CG or Rome status does not harm your capacity to conduct war, it just says: if you do so then you will have that problem.
Then it is the military, under his conscience who will judge if he can do or not an action. Knowing that the rule of proportionality will always apply and the individual responsability also for each level of the fault.
If to stop 5 Taleb who stole a gazoline truck you kill 90 civilians with an airstrick without following the chain of evaluation... Then you prety sure to go to court.
The other thing is that France made the experience of unlawfull war conduct in Algeria. And clearly, this did chance, in best I believe, our way to conduct war.

But in fact this does not count too much as the way to conduct war among the people and with auxillaries is something which is long history in the french military tradition.

[jmm99]

My bad for using the word "independent", instead of "separate"; which caused this valid comment:

from Igel
What do you mean with "independent German military law and Laws of War"? There exist various laws which regulate the military and give guidelines how a war has to be fought. Do you mean something different from that?

What I was looking for is whether there is a separate body of German military law, including the laws of wars, which has been adopted as positive law. For example, the US started with the Lieber Code of 1863 (Gen Order 100 and Wiki), written by a German immigrant to the US who was then the leading international and military law expert in our country. He based his code (most of which still holds up) on what he perceived as the best legal rules - in a real sense, he codified the "common laws of war" that he thought best protected combatants and non-combatants.

US military law has since incorporated the Hague and 1949 Geneva Conventions (as well as other conventions), has adopted as positiive law the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and a host of regulations and rules. Various other positive law affect US military law: e.g., War Crimes Act, Anti-Torture Act, Detainee Treatment Act and Military Commissions Act.

While these generally are subject to the US Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to the Constitution), there are some exceptions - not because the statutes override the Bill of Rights, but because the Bill of Rights have some limitations (and some expansions) beyond their express language. That is because of 200+ years of judicial interpretation for better or for worse.

Now, in considering your post about the Basic Law and the articles quoted, the Basic Law does seem to require procedures which are not practical on the battlefield, as you point out. So, how (if at all) do German forces get around this ?

[M-A Lagrange]

Igel,

My comment on the previous post is not an attack against Germany and for those it may have hurt, I am very sorry.
I took the example of the law on negationism as both Germany and France have similar law (in the spirit) on that issue. As for racism. Liberty of speech is limited by the fact that what you say is either a false historical truth or an appeal to comitte a crime or the denial of the equality of every human being (art1 Universal Man Rights in the spirit).
In US, if I have well understood the constitution article on free speech, it is not the case. (may be for an appeal to blood crimes?).
There, we have two different view of the legislator on the interpretation of the liberty of speech. In the US, someone correct me if I am wrong, the law cannot legiferate such things as the constitution guaranty to everybody the right to express his self.
In Europe, we may give a larger power to the law to interfere with some fundemental rights. The French Universal Declaration of Man Right give the freedom of opinion, conscience and religion (you have the right to believe what you want and to think want you want) and press. But it also gives restriction to your liberty: to no harm another human being.
Your liberty stops were the liberty of another starts. You do not have laws that restricts your rights. Those rights are Natural in a philosophical approach, close to Locke state of Nature. This gives room to an argue on is the Man Right declaration a copy and translation of Habeas Corpus or not.

Concerning the legal capacity of the army to plan its activities: you have the military laws, like in US. Those laws apply to the soldiers when on duty but does not replace the civil law.
But layers are not sitting in command room. (heureusement...).
French and US military laws are on the same subjects: detention, torture, military justice...

JMM, I Have a question:
I will take the case of a robbery in Ivory Coast. Some Legionaires broke into the Central Bank and stole several millions. This forced several governments to change their currency in use (the Franc CFA). After that, to stop the rogue soldiers, all the notes in Franc CFA were reprinted.
In French Law, the robbers would be (and have been) prosecuted by a civil tribunal under civil law. They would (have) definitively faced administrative sanctions from the army, but the prison that would follow would be (has been) given by a civilian tribunal.

What about US? (Knowing the guys were on duty in a war zone).

[M-A Lagrange]

Igel, to respond to your question on restriction of rights. It does apply to military forces in France as follow. For the rest, just as JMM said about the military codes of conduct of operations.

Concerning the status of the French military forces :
Art L.1411-1 of the code de la defence:
The military quality:
- Spirit of sacrifice (even up to death)
- Discipline
- Loyalty
- Neutrality on the political maters and mission given (you keep your though for later)
Rights and obligations of military

Rights and liberty: art L.4121-1 the military benefit from all rights and liberty of the citizen (citoyen). But the use of some of them are either forbidden, either restricted in the conditions fixed in the present law.

Individual liberty:
The main restrictions on liberties are the freedom of speech and the freedom of movement.

Political liberty:
If a soldier is a citizen of full rights, he cannot have political activities
Since 1945 he can vote (before not) but he cannot be part of a party. If a soldier is elected, he looses his salary. Also, as he cannot be part of a party, a soldier (active one) cannot pretend to national elections.

Collective liberties:
The freedom of association is recognized to the military. But he cannot be part of a union. And civil or professional military union is prohibited. Soldiers cannot strike.

Protections and guaranties:

Right to vote.
Moral guaranty: as servant of the state in the quality of military, a soldier has the benefice of the consideration of the nation (art L.4111-1).
Material guaranties: soldier have the right of a pension and medical treatment and social services.
Legal protection: Financial cover from the state covers for faults in service, penal prosecution under art121-3 of penal code only if characterized fault…
French soldiers are protected in case of use of force by the art L.1324-12 that creates 2 juridical acts allowing the exoneration of responsibility in case of use of force under certain conditions.

As you see, there is not habrogation of the rights of the individual, only restrictions on the use of them.

[M-A Lagrange]

Ratifications / Accessions
Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 6 July 1906.
[Introduction][Full Text][Articles]

Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. Geneva, 17 June 1925.
[Introduction][Full Text][Articles]

Procès-verbal relating to the Rules of Submarine Warfare set forth in Part IV of the Treaty of London of 22 April 1930. London, 6 November 1936.
[Introduction][Full Text][Articles]

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948.
[Introduction][Full Text][Articles]

Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.
[Introduction][Full Text][Articles][Commentaries]

Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, 26 November 1968.
[Introduction][Full Text][Articles]

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. Opened for Signature at London, Moscow and Washington. 10 April 1972.
[Introduction][Full Text][Articles]

Convention on the prohibition of military or any hostile use of environmental modification techniques, 10 December 1976.
[Introduction][Full Text][Articles]

Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989.
[Introduction][Full Text][Articles]

Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction, Paris 13 January 1993
[Introduction][Full Text][Articles]

Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, 18 September 1997
[Introduction][Full Text][Articles]

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998
[Introduction][Full Text][Articles]

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, 25 May 2000
[Introduction][Full Text][Articles]


Signatures
Final Act of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva, 12 August 1949.
[Introduction][Full Text][Articles]

Final Act of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1974-1977.
[Introduction][Full Text][Articles]

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. Geneva, 10 October 1980.
[Introduction][Full Text][Articles]

Convention on Cluster Munitions, 30 May 2008
[Introduction][Full Text][Articles]

[jmm99]

There are different approaches to drafting a constitution. I'm not talking about whether the document is simple (setting out general principles), or complex (setting out specific, detailed mandates), or a combination of those approaches. In that respect, the US Constitution tends toward general principles, with specific, detailed mandates to be implemented by statutes, regulations and rules.

More important to basic understanding is the constitutional source of the political power expressed in the constitution. So, let us look at the following:

Constitution of the United States of America

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany

Preamble

Conscious of their responsibility before God and man, Inspired by the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe, the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law.

France - Constitution of October 4, 1958

PREAMBLE

The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to the Rights of Man and the principles of national sovereignty as defined by the Declaration of 1789, confirmed and complemented by the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946, and to the rights and duties as defined in the Charter for the Environment of 2004.
....
Title I
ON SOVEREIGNTY

Article 2.
.....
The principle of the Republic shall be: government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Article 3.

National sovereignty shall vest in the people, who shall exercise it through their representatives and by means of referendum.

So, all three, US, Germany and France, are built on people power. The source of political power are the people of the nation, who are served by the government they establish. This concept does not seem revolutionary today, but it was in the late 1700s which still had vestiges of the divine right of kings, etc. The concept of people power (in the sense understood in the quotes above) is not the concept underlying Sharia law in its strict forms, which present a theonomy (divine law). It is well to keep this in mind.

We look at another document, which has a constitutional form (though not called that):

Charter of the United Nations

PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

•to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
•to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
•to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
•to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

•to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
•to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
•to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
•to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

Again, we see a reference to "people power" in a more complex environment; but the last paragraph teaches us some additional terms that must be understood in the context of international law. Those terms are:

1. Nations

2. Governments

3. Representatives of Governments, "who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form."

A very important point to remember is that nations and governments are not the same thing; and that both nations and governments have, at sometime in their existence, to be recognized before they have capabilities in the international (between nations) community.

Nation

For a look at a nation's constitutional history (and different kinds of constitutions), see this post on Afghanistan. We can agree that at all times pertinent hereto Afghanistan was a nation, recognized as such by the international community. Its constitutions differ from the three non-Islamic constitutions quoted above.

Governments

For Astan's governments (1978 to date), see this post which includes some material on the Taliban and its view of Sharia law.

An important point about a nation, as opposed to a government, is that once a nation is recognized as a nation by the international community, that nation continues to exist as a nation (despite changes in governments or the lack of any government at all), unless it is annexed by another nation, partitions itself by agreement or by war, or cedes its international capabilities to another nation.

From the time the US first had diplomatic relations with Afghanistan up to the present, the US and the international community recognized Astan as a nation. That is simply a matter of normative international law and has nothing to do with any peculiarities of US domestic law or its Constitution.

Recognition of Governments

Recognition of a government and withdrawal of recognition from a government is a political decision based on the domestic law of the nation that recognizes or withdraws recognition. There are different standards and different methods for doing that in the international community.

The history of US recognition of various Astan governments can be found at the following posts:

US & Afghan Positions 1919-1992 - part 1

US & Afghan Positions 1919-1992 - part 2

US & Afghan Positions 1992-1996

Note US recognition of the Rabbani government continued into 1997.

The US withdrawal of recognition of the Rabbani government, and the US refusal to recognize the Taliban government, is a longer story:

US & Afghan Positions 1996-2001 - part 1

US & Afghan Positions 1996-2001 - part 2

US & Afghan Positions 1996-2001 - part 3

The US position was triggered by the physical turf war at the Astan embassy in DC, but other factors were also involved.

The US position on recognition of a government is established by decision of the executive branch (the President), and is binding on all three branches of the US government - which includes US military forces.

US Judicial Standard - Executive Branch Recognition

Why are US military forces the military forces of the US as a nation ? The reason is that that they are subject to the command and control of the recognized government of the US. If there were no government in the US, its armed forces (even if they still existed) would not be a national armed force.

We will deal later with the non-recognized status of the Taliban as Astan's government, and thus why its armed forces could not be considered the armed forces of a High Contracting Party to the GCs.

[jmm99]

As to this:

from M-A
JMM, I Have a question:
I will take the case of a robbery in Ivory Coast. Some Legionaires broke into the Central Bank and stole several millions. This forced several governments to change their currency in use (the Franc CFA). After that, to stop the rogue soldiers, all the notes in Franc CFA were reprinted.

In French Law, the robbers would be (and have been) prosecuted by a civil tribunal under civil law. They would (have) definitively faced administrative sanctions from the army, but the prison that would follow would be (has been) given by a civilian tribunal.

What about US? (Knowing the guys were on duty in a war zone).

Answer: It depends - a good lawyerly answer, worthy of Ken.

I am positing active duty, regular US forces, who are in the course of their assigned military mission when they rob the bank and who are taken into US custody. We'll call the "host nation" Chaos Country for David.

We have three possible judicial venues to consider: UCMJ court-martial; Chaos Country court; and US District Court.

1. Does a state of armed conflict exist between Chaos Country and the US ? If so, the Chaos Country court is out. A US District Court would lack jurisdiction, unless other facts are involved (War Crimes Act, Anti-Torture Act - and those could be tried as incorporated crimes under the UCMJ). The best answer seems the UCMJ court martial process for each offender.

2. Has Chaos Country consented to US entry ? If so, there will be something akin to a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement), either formal or informal. That will supply the order in which each country may charge crimes by US forces. A good rule of thunb is that the US will preserve its primacy to prosecute its own soldiers. Immunity for certain crimes may or may not exist.

Despite the post heading, SOFA - Germany - Gays, this post has a serious discussion of NATO-type SOFAs in general, with a number of references. I'd say UCMJ court-martial would be primary under the usual SOFA, unless the US decided to forego prosecution and handoff to a Chaos Country court.

BTW: under the usual SOFA, jurisdictional priority heavily depends on clauses like this (from the German-US SOFA case in post linked above):

Under these provisions, the United States has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over a servicemember who commits an offense against the United States, another servicemember, or a dependent, or for offenses arising out of official duty. Art. VII, ¶ 3(a). In all other cases, the receiving state, Germany in this case, retains the primary right to try an individual. Art. VII, ¶ 3(b).

A act committed during official duty is a key fact.

I could complicate this further by positing the troops (let's make them sailors) committing a robbery at sea (piracy), with concurrent UCMJ and US District court jurisdiction. Or, a bank robbery in the US, with concurrent UCMJ, Federal court and State court jurisdiction.

[jmm99]

The US position as to Astan's governments and recognition of them from the inception of the Rabbani government can be summed as follows:

1. Rabbani government - recognition ended 15 Aug 1997.

2. No government - 15 Aug 1997 up through 21 Dec 2001.

3. Interim Authority (and successors) - from 22 Dec 2001.

At no point was the Taliban recognized by the US Executive branch as either the government of Afghanistan or as a "new nation".

However, what if one argues that I don't care what your US rules are for diplomatic recognition. That would be bad international law (since recognition is a domestic political question). That argument would boil down to: the US must comply with the international norm, regardless of its own constitution and laws.

For purposes of discussion, what was the international norm as found by the UK Home Office Assessments. You will find those at:

UK Home Office Position - part 1

UK Home Office Position - part 2

Based on those sources, the international community lined up as follows.

The Taliban was recognized by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as the government of Afghanistan in May 1997. However, the Rabbani government kept the UN seat (in a sense by default because the UN declined to rule on which government was entitled to the seat - a position similar to that of the US).

By September 27, 2001, Burhanuddin Rabbani led politically the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates decided to withdraw their diplomatic recognition. Pakistan alone recognised the Taliban government. President Rabbani’s government was strongly backed by Iran, Russia, Afghanistan’s Central Asian neighbours and India.

Thus, if the norm of the international community is taken into account(leaving out the no goverment position of the US), the Rabbani government was the recognized government of Astan. The Taliban had no claim to that legal status.

In truth, neither the Taliban nor the Northern Alliance were legitimate in humanitarian terms. Their human rights violations are recounted here:

Links to Astan HR Reports

UN Report cont. - Taliban massacres

Since the Taliban was not the recognized government of Astan according to both the US position and the international norm, the Taliban's armed forces could not be the armed forces of Astan (a High Contracting Party to the GCs).

[Igel]

My comment on the previous post is not an attack against Germany and for those it may have hurt, I am very sorry.

No need to feel sorry at all! I never interpreted that as an attack against Germany and I don't think anyone could come up with such a interpretation. I think that was a good example of differences between US and European Views on the Freedom of Speech (the Denial of the Shoa is also punishable in Germany).

Thanks for the answer about the restirction of rights of military personel. Generally not much different from Germany, although there are variations. E.g. Soldiers can be member of a union.

[M-A Lagrange]

As Mike posted, Sharia does not have the same legacy roots as the French, German and US Law.
Here is a short description of Sharia:
Sharia, the path is a religious document applicable to Muslim as it means “the path to respect the law of God/Allah”. West does name under Sharia the Islamic Law .
In a wide understanding, Sharia also designates the Islamic Faith with 3 dimensions and is called al-sharia’s al-tsalasha (the 3 Sharia): it includes the concept of submission to Allah (Islam), the faith in Allah (Iman) and to do what is beautiful in the eyes of Allah (Ishan).

Sharia regulates both private and public life of a Muslim and the social interactions.

Sources:
Shariia is quoted in Koran: S5v48; S42v13; S45v18.
Sharia is not in the Koran but has been built from the Koran. The various sources are the hadith, the sunna which are the 2 primary sources. Then comes additional sources Usul al-figh based on consensus ijma and by analogical logic the giyas.
All the community of the Muslim, the Oumma recognize the hadith and the sunna as source of Sharia. The Shia do not recognize ilma and giyas as sources of Sharia. And various schools of Islam, madhab, have various interpretations of giyas.
To this are added several other sources:
Personal opinion ray’
Revelations and context: istihsan
The practice: istislah
The personal reflection on Islam: ijtihad. This to be valid must come from mfti (layers) or scholars mujtahid.
The inspiration on past decision (kind of jurice prudence); taglid in opposition to the ijtihad (general interest)
The coutume: ma’rouf or adah. Which includes pre Islamic coutume.

Structure of Sharia

Sharia has two parts

Al ‘Ibadat which is on cult and religion
Al Mu’amalat which regulates the human interactions and regulate:
- financial transactions
- brides
- heritage
- food and beverage
- war and peace
- Penal infractions
- The regulation of judiciary affaires
Human actions are put under 5 categories which are 5 moral quality: al akham and al-khamsa.
What is prescribed: frad or obligations (wajib, muhattam) or required: lazim
What is recommended: manhood or preferable (mustahabb), merit (fadila) or whished (marghub fih) (here my english founds its limites to translate the word souhaitable.)
What is indifferent: mubah
What is blameable: makruh
What is forbidden: haram
Sharia is recognized in Islamic Law with various degrees of legacy.
For example: In Egypt it is a source of the Law but not the Law.
In the case of Afghanistan and the Mullah Omar rules and regulation, there is several questions about the degree of integration of Sharia and what is called Sharia in the text.
As said previously, the quote (which needs to be identify) at the beginning mention the law of God and the framework of the established rules and regulations.

From my personal point of view, this could be understand as:
The law of God = the al-sharia’s al-tsalasha (the 3 Sharia)
The framework of the established rules and regulations = Sharia as a civil law.
Or
The law of God = Al ‘Ibadat
The framework of the established rules and regulations = Al Mu’amalat
I believe they go for the second opinion but as said previously, there are several legal frame referal in the text.

Mike,concerning the robbers, it is even as much complexe as the navy guys doing piratry as it was foreign legionaires in peace mission (still have to see if it was under UN or under french citizen protection unilateral decision...). But I have the idea.

[Igel]

Now, in considering your post about the Basic Law and the articles quoted, the Basic Law does seem to require procedures which are not practical on the battlefield, as you point out. So, how (if at all) do German forces get around this ?

Frankly, I don't know. Under the german system you need a formal law (meaning a law enacted by the Bundestag) to restrict a basic right. If there is none, the state cannot restrict the right. I have no knowledge of new laws, which were enacted for the current Operations. So either it is viewed that the Bundeswehr is not bound by Art. 1 III Basic Law in Foreign Countries or the existing laws are viewed as adequate. I have to research that more. But right now I don't view any of the alternatives as satisfactory.

About the seperate military law:

The Geneva Treaties (including the Protocols) and the Hague Conventions have been transferred into German federal law. In fact they are a federal law (maybe "Bill" or "Act" would the accurate term in USA?). That means they have the same position and effect as all other federal laws. Even if Germany would resign from the Genevea Treaties tomorrow, the federal law which has transformed the Geneva Treaty into German law would still be in effect.

This is the main body of the German Rules of War. As the Federal Republic was created around the same time the Geneva Treaties were drafted, there was no need for the FederalRepublic for an separate Law of LOAC. Now one could create a separate Law, where all different rules are collected, comparable to UCMJ. That would probably be easier to handle and clearer, than all the separate laws. However I see no need for differences to the existing legal situation.

Maybe it's important to note that several regulations of the Humanitarian International Law are protected by the Penal Code.

[Igel]

Now this is funny. About 1 1/2 years ago I took a course about international law. The LOAC were part of it. Then I also bought a collection of law texts titled "International Law". Today I wanted to read the Geneva Treaties from 1949 and - they are not included! The Hague Convention is and also the Protocols I and II. I was quite puzzled because I always thought we worked with the treaties of 1949 in the course. When I read the course script again it turned out we didn't. We worked with the Hague Convention and the Protocols.

This shows two things: For one my bad memory and the differences between the importance of the treaties in different countries. I made a grave mistake, because I always thought that my knowledge about the treatment of civilians and POW derived from the Geneva Treaties of 1949, were in fact it derived from Protocols.
Luckily I haven't posted much about International Law up to now. That means I can read a bit more about the Treaty of 1949 before embarassing myself.

-------

About the Sharia in the Afghan Constitution:

I have a very limited knowledge about the Sharia. I've only read a book by Mathias Rohe, a German scholar. He made the point, that one has to separate the rules of the Sharia. Most are only religious rules, who are enforced by the society at most. In his view most rules are appeals to the individual believer. If he doesn't follow them, this has consequences in the afterlife. But they are not meant to be enforced by a state.
Rules which should be enforced by a state are in his view only a minority of the sharia. And they were mostly rules about marriage.

Now I don't know if this distinction is really all that accepted within the Islamic World. Also Article 3 of the Afghan Constitution states :

In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.

"Beliefs" is IMO far wider. Beliefs are exactly what Rohe counted under his appeals.

[jmm99]

From what I know of Sharia, M-A covered it quite well; and I learned some new terms. The lesson learned from that is that I would be on dangerous ground in attempting a professional comparison of the Taliban rules with the various schools of Sharia Law.

My own background on Islam in general is based on reading such as A.J Arberry, W. Montgomery Watt, Bernard Lewis, John Esposito and S.F. Mahmud - all Western, except the last, who is a Pakistani. I've read them more from the standpoint of understanding the various political threads in Islam. Of couse, since Islamic government is very much influenced by its Koranic etc. theology and Sharia Law, I've absorbed some general concepts.

I've also read the radicals - e.g., Maududi, Qutb, UBL, Zawahiri, etc. Their message is a much more complete merger of religion with law and governance. Their endstate is a theonomy, a community ruling itself by divine law. A theonomy bubbles up from the masses of believers (in their perfect world, everyone would have the same beliefs); as opposed to a theocracy which involves more top down imposition of beliefs.

Currently, I'm reading (on and off) Richard A. Gabriel, Muhammad: Islam's First Great General (2007). That is not a book on Islamic military law; but since the many battles of that era are recounted in the Koran and traditions, the military law of the Muslims in that era could certainly be derived.

There are many books and articles that deal with the Islamic approach to International Law and the Laws of War. I've read some; but would merely being coughing up their words by quoting them. In addition, too many writings in this area have an agenda: some painting Sharia as the worst of all things in the world; and others painting a picture of what they hope Sharia is or could become as an ideal.

My bottom line is that we could use a SME (Subject Matter Expert) in this thread to speak to the inclusion of military law in the Sharia. I don't know one. IIRC West Point has (had) a course in its law department including Sharia Law; but its website was not co-operative tonite.

----------------------------
This is interesting:

from Igel
Now this is funny. About 1 1/2 years ago I took a course about international law. The LOAC were part of it. Then I also bought a collection of law texts titled "International Law". Today I wanted to read the Geneva Treaties from 1949 and - they are not included! The Hague Convention is and also the Protocols I and II. I was quite puzzled because I always thought we worked with the treaties of 1949 in the course. When I read the course script again it turned out we didn't. We worked with the Hague Convention and the Protocols.

AP I and II are definitely different from the Hague and 1949 GCs. The major US objections (more to I than II) are (1) giving irregular fighters a prize for hiding among civilians; and (2) allowing the transitory combatant (combatant if AK in hand; non-combatant when he temporarily puts it down). Those provisions are more likely to enhance civilian casualties than prevent them.

Some AP I and II provisions have been enacted by statute (but in various statutes). Since the US is unlikely to ratify AP I and II in whole, it would be nice if one statute containing all the accepted provisions were enacted. Some AP provisions have been adopted as policies by DoS (State) and DoD (Defense), which are a grey area. Similarly, it seems to me that some AP provisions are being inserted into rules of engagement (ROE) and rules to use force (RUF).

A brief explanation of "bill, resolution, statute, act and law" is in Act of Congress (Wiki).

Best to all

Mike

PS - Igel:

from your link
The first Staatsexamen examination is at a level equivalent to a master's degree, while the second Staatsexamen is roughly comparable to passing the bar exam or finishing ones' residency.

Now, where a German lawyer uses the title Dr. - as in Dr. Michael [rest of name redacted], what does that mean in terms of additional studies or exams (if any) ?

[M-A Lagrange]

Igel,

The Geneva Treaties (including the Protocols) and the Hague Conventions have been transferred into German federal law. In fact they are a federal law (maybe "Bill" or "Act" would the accurate term in USA?). That means they have the same position and effect as all other federal laws. Even if Germany would resign from the Genevea Treaties tomorrow, the federal law which has transformed the Geneva Treaty into German law would still be in effect.

What was done in Germany is that to make sure the past never raised again, the allies at the end of the war included GC into the Federal Law. It is what ICRC is trying to do in several countries as Suth Sudan.
The argument is exactly what you pointed out: even if you denounce GC then you are still bound to apply it as it is a national law.

Mike,

AP I and II are definitely different from the Hague and 1949 GCs. The major US objections (more to I than II) are (1) giving irregular fighters a prize for hiding among civilians; and (2) allowing the transitory combatant (combatant if AK in hand; non-combatant when he temporarily puts it down). Those provisions are more likely to enhance civilian casualties than prevent them.

We have to look at in which political context those protocoles have been negociated. It was just after Algeria War and Viet Nam and most of the liberation wars from colonised countries. Also the movement of the non aligned was quite powerful at that time.
The aim was clearly to protect freedom fighters and it was clearly a political position coming from the "third world" countries.
The aim is also to recognise the participation of civilians and the effects of war on civilians. Protocol IV is even more civilian centred.

Also, as you pointed, I believe that we should go for a very basic (but not necessary simple) interpretation of Sharia as Law with Taliban. They are from salafist inspiration and then will go for the most radical to the very much stricto sensus interpretation. But still, Taleb government had laws. As it is the reference of their legitimacy (more or less) we could start from there.

[Igel]

Now, where a German lawyer uses the title Dr. - as in Dr. Michael [rest of name redacted], what does that mean in terms of additional studies or exams (if any) ?

Dr. means Doktor. To earn a Doktor you have to create original scientific research. You can earn the Doktor after your 1st Staatsexamen, although it is usually done after the completion of the education, the 2nd Staatsexamen. In Law it takes usually takes around one till two years to conclude the Dissertation. Dissertation is the name for the research text. It has to be published, usually as a book. So if you want to know what this particular lawyer has researched, you can search german book databases (Amazon is a good starting point for current dissertations). As a general rule the text should be around 200 - 300 pages, although significantly shorter and longer texts are possible.
The research can be done in any legal field and is usually about a very narrow issue, sometimes very practical, sometimes more theoretical. E.G. "The possibilities of the use of Intelligence Services against Organized Crime" vs. "The development of the municipal legislation of Bavarian areas to the east of the Rhine from 1802 till 1818".

Most jurists don't make a Doktor, since it takes quite some time and energy. The exact title for jurists is "Dr. jur." to identify the field in which the Doktor was earned. Doktor can be earned in all academic areas, e.g. a Doktor in Medicine would be Dr. med. The length of the Dissertation also varies strongly between different areas. In Medicine it is very short, whereas e.g. in Economics or Chemistry it takes at least 3 years.

Since the researched issue can be very different, you can't draw any specific conclusions to additional knowledge of the lawyer. However the Doktor is viewed as the sign of respectability and academic success, especially by the general public.

Jurists who want to work in large, international operating law firms sometimes prefer the "LL.M.". Although in Germany this title is only know within legal circles.

Edit: Way better than Amazon is this. Just check the box next to german flag. It searchs through virtually all german university liberaries.

[M-A Lagrange]

As Mike pointed out, the presentation of Sharia and Islam is basically very much politically oriented.
In the case of the Taliban it is even more difficult as they probably use several “official” interpretation and several “local” interpretations.
The principle of fatwa gives an opportunity to many to comment and establish a rule or coutume that would apply locally. From village to village the interpretation of the same verse can change. Which does not help to understand and come with a critic of the Taleb rules and regulations.

Anyways, as a starting point, I propose here generally accepted references to Koran and to hadith on war by Islam. The idear is not to create a Law School of Islam but to come with the basic referral, as much as possible without interpretation. This to have a very raw base to start with.

Rules:
Historically, the Islamic ethical way to conduct war has been established by Abu Bakr:
Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.

Those rules are recognised as the very base of the Islamic ethic of war conduct.

Most of them are coming to the following Sourates and verses.
I purposely kept the first one despite its potential political interpretation to stay as neutral as possible. Avoiding it would also have been taking position.

"...We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul - unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And, whoever saves one, it is as if he had saved mankind entirely." [Qur'an, 5:32]

"...And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except by right..." [Qur'an, 6:151]

"And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except by right. And whoever is killed unjustly, We have given his heir authority but let him not exceed limits in [the matter of] taking life. Indeed, he has been supported [by the law]. " [Qur'an, 17:33].

"And [the believers are] those who do not invoke any deity with Allah, nor kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except by right, nor commit zina." [Qur'an, 25:68]

"And fight, in the path of Allah, those who fight you..." [Qur'an, 2:190]

"Among mankind is he whose speech impresses you in worldly life, and he calls Allah to witness as to what is in his heart, yet he is the fiercest of opponents. And, when he goes away, he strives throughout the land to cause corruption therein, and to destroy crops and lives. And Allah does not love corruption." [Qur'an, 2:204-5]

I would also recommend having a look to the following link: http://books.google.com/books?vid=IS...age&q=&f=false
Even if it does not apply to the actual exercise.

I also purposely did not integrated sunnah references as I did not have the quotes to give.

[jmm99]

One must consider the Koran (Qur'an) and Traditions (Sunnah & aHadith) because they are the bases for all Islamic laws of war. This area of discourse, however, is ripe for both political and religious "flaming" (as the two are so intertwined in traditional Islam).

All I can do about that is to request that everyone approach these topics with a scholarly and reasoned attitude. If you wish to go beyond that, start your own thread and see where it goes.

That having been said, this seems a logical course of action:

from M-A
In the case of the Taliban it is even more difficult as they probably use several “official” interpretation and several “local” interpretations.

The principle of fatwa gives an opportunity to many to comment and establish a rule or coutume that would apply locally. From village to village the interpretation of the same verse can change. Which does not help to understand and come with a critic of the Taleb rules and regulations.

Anyways, as a starting point, I propose here generally accepted references to Koran and to hadith on war by Islam. The idear is not to create a Law School of Islam but to come with the basic referral, as much as possible without interpretation. This to have a very raw base to start with.

Here is where I am coming from.

The On-line Sources I Use

The Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement - Religious Texts has the following on-line materials:

Islamic Text

The hadith used in the compendium were compiled by the Muslim Students Association at the University of Southern California. The Compendium of Muslim Texts (now available at www.msawest.net/islam) has been one of the most frequently cited sources of hadith and is the most complete compilation of hadith available to the public.

Methodologies for the study of hadith have been developed over centuries by Islamic scholars and jurists and are commonly referred to as the science of hadith study. Verification of hadith as reliable, and the use of hadith to verify or disavow Islamic practice, is left to Ulama, or Islamic scholars, with a deep understanding of Islamic jurisprudence and history. Articles on the science of hadith study, the history of the creation of the Compendium of Muslim texts, and other topics including approaches to the interpretation of difficult texts, viewing scripture as historical as well as religious documents, and other topics, are forthcoming.

Muslim Texts

The Qur'an
The Hadith

Other Resources

The Message of the Quran by Muhammad Asad
The Message of the Quran by Muhammed Asad - Appendix I - IV (pdf)
Digital English Translations of the Holy Quran
Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi's The Meaning of the Qur'an

I am not that familiar with Muhammad Asad, who was a Jewish convert to Islam and collaberated with M. Iqbal in Pakistan's formation. Of the Qur'an translations (see caveat below), there are three, parallel texts on-line. I use M.H. Shakir (orig. pub. by Habib Esmail Benevolent Trust, Karachi, Pakistan; it has fewer corrections and those are not of great substance) in hardcopy. I also rely on Maududi's Introductions to each surah, which set the context and timing of each in the complete Revelation.

So, my sources are basically Pakistani in locale, which are at least near to the Taliban geographically. The Hadiths (aHaditha) are, of course, in Arabic original - which would stop me cold, but for the MSAWest translations.

A Caveat as to Translations

From MSAWest:

Warning!

Please keep in mind that ANY translation of the Qur'an will most definitely contain errors (e.g. see our online list of corrections). We have provided three translations here to emphasize this point. In its natural language (Arabic), the Qur'an is the direct Word of Allah (God) to mankind through the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Any translation of the Qur'an no longer retains that 'official' and perfect status, however it can be tremendously helpful to beginning students wanting to learn more about Islam.

We would strongly encourage those who want to learn about Islam to purchase a hardcopy of the Qur'an but with the following conditions:

- get one with commentary (tafseer)

- make sure the tafseer is scholarly (e.g. references to reasons behind a verse, references to hadith and sunnah, etc.)

Unfortunately, the three translations presented here do NOT meet these simple conditions. To the best of our knowledge, an excellent English translation and commentary of the Qur'an is Maududi's recently published work "The Meaning of the Qur'an". This work took more than forty years to complete, and was published beginning in the mid to late 1980's. We have included Maududi's introduction to each chapter of the Qur'an, but the complete commentary is not online (yet!). Maududi's work is superior to the three works presented here, HOWEVER please note that we are not in any way decrying the tremendous efforts of Ali, Pickthal, or Shakir. May Allah reward them all.

I believe that Maududi's complete commentary is now on-line (at least in Urdu and Arabic), but for immediate purposes is not needed.

The Context of the Revelation

It is well to keep in mind that the Revelation took place generally in times of strife - and of tremendous political and religious divisions in Western Arabia. That is not to say that the Koran is a "book of war"; it has much historical and religious materials which do not deal with the then-current dissensions.

The second thing to keep in mind is the Surah sequence is not chronologial. To find the relative chronology between passages (even within a Surah), one must consult Introductions such as Maududi. What is the relevance of that ? There are two main points (both related):

1. Two passages that appear inconsistent on their face can be harmonized based on when they were revealed. Context, context, context. In short, one may apply to one situation; the other, to another situation.

2. Two passages that are inconsistent and cannot be harmonized can be explained, again based on when they were revealed. Context again. Generally, the later revelation will be deemed to supercede the earlier.

While the Koran and Traditions can be "cherry-picked", that is not the path to understanding.

A Suggestion for Readers and Posters

This nugget is as valid today as when it was revealed (Surah 7, Al A'araf, The Heights; revealed at Mecca) - M. Asad added by JMM from here:

007.204 & 007.205

YUSUFALI: (204) When the Qur'an is read, listen to it with attention, and hold your peace: that ye may receive Mercy.
YUSUFALI: (205) And do thou (O reader!) Bring thy Lord to remembrance in thy (very) soul, with humility and in reverence, without loudness in words, in the mornings and evenings; and be not thou of those who are unheedful.

PICKTHAL: (204) And when the Qur'an is recited, give ear to it and pay heed, that ye may obtain mercy.
PICKTHAL: (205) And do thou (O Muhammad) remember thy Lord within thyself humbly and with awe, below thy breath, at morn and evening. And be not thou of the neglectful.

SHAKIR: (204) And when the Quran is recited, then listen to it and remain silent, that mercy may be shown to you.
SHAKIR: (205) And remember your Lord within yourself humbly and fearing and in a voice not loud in the morning and the evening and be not of the heedless ones.

ASAD: (204) Hence, when the Quran is voiced, hearken unto it, and listen in silence, so that you might be graced with [God's] mercy." (205) And bethink thyself of thy Sustainer humbly and with awe, and without raising thy voice, at morn and at evening; and do not allow thyself to be heedless.

Take this to heart before posting.

-------------------------
Brief Disclosure: In Systematic Theology, in study of "Our Book" and "Our Traditions", I'm a center-right Roman Catholic. My intent is to keep that out of this discussion.

Regards to all

Mike