Legality of Assassinations
Bob Sheridan
bobsheridan at earthlink.net
Fri Aug 26 14:26:30 PDT 2005
The case that comes to mind is the U.S. air strike against the personal
compound or palace of Moammar Khaddafy, Libya, during the Reagan
Administration, that killed members of the Khaddafy family, in
retaliation for agents of Khaddafy having been traced to the bombing of
a night club in Berlin that killed a number of American service people,
as I recall the incidents from 1986 or so.
The thing that keeps resonating is Eugene's reference that the president
may make exceptions to E.O. 12,333. Since a president made the order,
it seems logical that a president may order exceptions. My question is
whether the president may order the assassination of a foreign head of
state by fiat. Apparently the answer is yes, witness Reagan v.
Khaddafy. If that is correct, then what of the position of the
Watergate plumbers or Ollie North, et. al. in Iran-Contra that if they
were doing what they believed was the president's bidding, they were
operating legally. Didn't North or Poindexter claim the benefit of
presidential findings? I forget the role they played; I somehow have the
vague lingering impression that Reagan may have signed a finding that
was put before him the significance of which he didn't fully appreciate
following which I wondered whether he was dozing at the switch some of
the time.
I don't pretend to know the law of this, or whether there is a decided
Supreme Court case that squarely reaches this; I've certainly overlooked
it if there is one. Is the reason that this question can arise because
it remains an open question as to whether in the interests of national
security the president can disobey domesticically applicable U.S. law?
U.S. law respecting foreign nationals abroad? International law? Does
making findings and declaring exceptions to presidential decrees suffice
to protect the president, and the United States, legally?
I'd thought that the principles of Youngstown and U.S. v. Nixon have put
the president in the position that he is not above U.S. law despite
claims of national security and executive privilege. The Pentagon
Papers case, NYT v. US, disallowing prior restraint on publication of
information deemed to be harmful to the national security, also seem of
a piece with the idea that we expect the president and the entire the
executive department to obey the law, meaning that he may not violate it
with impunity, essentially by fiat. Essentially this means that the
United States may not operate internationally as a rogue state in
violation of international norms. Aren't we subject to being hauled
before an international court of justice at the Hague such as Milosevich?
I wonder what finding was made to justify the Libya raid.
rs
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> I much appreciate both Prof. Martin's pointer, and Marty
>Lederman's update. It seems to me that Marty's reading of sec. 1116 is
>right, and assassinating a foreign official in that person's country is
>not illegal under that section.
>
> As to sec. 960, which says that "Whoever, within the United
>States, knowingly begins or sets on foot or provides or prepares a means
>for or furnishes the money for, or takes part in, any military or naval
>expedition or enterprise to be carried on from thence against the
>territory or dominion of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony,
>district, or people with whom the United States is at peace, shall be
>fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or
>both," I'm skeptical that this would be read as an attempt to
>criminalize a Presidential decision to go to war, or even to engage in
>military actions short of war. (An attempted assassination by the U.S.
>of a foreign leader, it seems to me, is an act of war.) I doubt, for
>instance, that President Carter was made a felon by this provision by
>his authorizing the attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran, or President
>Clinton by his authorizing the use of American troops in Kosovo, though
>both were in derogation of the dominion of the Iranian and Serbian
>governments. Dellums v. U.S., 577 F.Supp. 1449 (N.D. Cal. 1984), might
>suggest otherwise, but that was reversed on standing grounds in Dellums
>v. Smith, 797 F.2d 817 (9th Cir. 1986), so doesn't have much
>presidential value.
>
> Eugene
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
>>[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
>>marty.lederman at comcast.net
>>Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 1:14 PM
>>To: ricenter at igc.org; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
>>Subject: Legality of Assassinations
>>
>>
>>That depends, I suppose, on what one means by
>>"extraterritorial." A quick read of the statutory language
>>suggests that section 1116 does not prohibit most
>>assassinations -- namely, those that occur within the
>>victim's own home country.
>>
>>The statute criminalizes the killing of "foreign officials"
>>and "internationally protected persons."
>>
>>It then defines "foreign official" as "a Chief of State or
>>the political equivalent, President, Vice President, Prime
>>Minister, Ambassador, Foreign Minister, or other officer of
>>Cabinet rank or above of a foreign government or the chief
>>executive officer of an international organization, or any
>>person who has previously served in such capacity, and any
>>member of his family, *while in the United States.*"
>>
>>And it defines an "internationally protected person" as,
>>inter alia, "a Chief of State or the political equivalent,
>>head of government, or Foreign Minister . . . *in a country
>>other than his own*."
>>
>>Section 1116 therefore proscribes the killing -- including
>>the assassination -- of certain heads of state in the U.S.
>>and outside their home nations, but does *not* appear to
>>cover a killing in an official's own nation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>18 U.S.C. sec. 1116 criminalizes extraterritorial murder of
>>>
>>>
>>heads of
>>
>>
>>>state by U.S. nationals. Section 960 explicitly
>>>
>>>
>>criminalizes military
>>
>>
>>>expeditions against countries with which the U.S. is at peace.
>>>
>>>Francisco Forrest Martin
>>>President
>>>Rights International, The Center for International Human
>>>
>>>
>>Rights Law,
>>
>>
>>>Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>[Original Message]
>>>>From: Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>
>>>>To: <CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu>
>>>>Date: 8/26/2005 2:12:10 PM
>>>>Subject: RE: Apropos free speech law and suggestions of
>>>>assassination
>>>>
>>>> I'm pleased that Bob no longer thinks that national
>>>>
>>>>
>>security would
>>
>>
>>>>require or justify a restriction on Pat Robertson's speech.
>>>>
>>>> To the extent that the issue is relevant to the Brandenburg
>>>>analysis, though, I should mention that to the best of my
>>>>
>>>>
>>knowledge
>>
>>
>>>>a Presidentially approved assassination of a foreign
>>>>
>>>>
>>leader is not a
>>
>>
>>>>crime
>>>>-- unless I'm mistaken, there's no statute prohibiting such
>>>>assassinations, only a Presidential Executive Order
>>>>
>>>>
>>(12,333), from which
>>
>>
>>>>the President can of course carve out an exception. (I
>>>>
>>>>
>>would imagine
>>
>>
>>>>that a rogue assassination would indeed be a crime.) Prof. Martin
>>>>argued that the assassination may violate America's
>>>>
>>>>
>>treaty obligations;
>>
>>
>>>>I don't know the subject well enough to express an opinion, but I
>>>>suspect that it's not a crime under U.S. law for the
>>>>
>>>>
>>President to order
>>
>>
>>>>a violation of the treaty (or for others to implement that order).
>>>>
>>>> Eugene
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: Bob Sheridan [mailto:bobsheridan at earthlink.net]
>>>>>Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 10:57 AM
>>>>>To: Volokh, Eugene
>>>>>Cc: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
>>>>>Subject: Re: Apropos free speech law and suggestions of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>assassination
>>
>>
>>>>>Let me say that I began my post calling attention to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>the irony of
>>
>>
>>>>>Pat
>>>>>Robertson's call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez,
>>>>>because he might
>>>>>allow Venezuela to be used as a launching pad for Muslim
>>>>>Fundamentalists, one of whose tenets is the elimination by
>>>>>assassination
>>>>>of those with whom they disagree, with the note that,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>"Fortunately,
>>
>>
>>>>>Robertson is protected by the Brandenburg decision."
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think Robertson can or should be restricted
>>>>>constitutionally
>>>>>from such blathering if he feels that's a good thing, which he
>>>>>apparently no longer does.
>>>>>
>>>>>I see Robertson's comments as essentially unconsidered
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>expression
>>
>>
>>>>>of
>>>>>frustration with a prominent someone holding
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>diametrically different
>>
>>
>>>>>world views. Sure, there is a question of immediacy under
>>>>>Brandenburg,
>>>>>such as if a listener took up the challenge and began
>>>>>shooting at Chavez
>>>>>right now. But that doesn't seem to have been the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>situation, in
>>
>>
>>>>>hindsight. Hindsight is a part of FA law that doesn't seem
>>>>>to get a lot
>>>>>of attention, exept in hindsight. The focus always seems,
>>>>>not without
>>>>>reason, to be on "What if...?"
>>>>>
>>>>>Eugene offered that Robertson had a right to address his
>>>>>government to
>>>>>urge it to assassinate. Citizens have the right to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>petition, urge,
>>
>>
>>>>>advocate to government that it take action, even
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>illegal action.
>>
>>
>>>>>Government's duty is either to reject such advice or change
>>>>>the law or
>>>>>otherwise act to make legal what is urged. As I understand
>>>>>it, it's a
>>>>>crime for U.S. officials to do the James Bond, 007,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>license-to-kill
>>
>>
>>>>>routine on foreign heads of state. If diplomats of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>hostile nations
>>
>>
>>>>>enjoy protection, then why not heads of state, absent a
>>>>>declaration of
>>>>>war?
>>>>>
>>>>>I hesitate to get into presidential findings of the need to
>>>>>assassinate. I believe it to be the case that the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>Watergate Burglars
>>
>>
>>>>>and Iran-Contra officials on the NSC believed that they were
>>>>>justified
>>>>>in performing illegal acts on the theory that if the
>>>>>president wants it,
>>>>>the president gets it, and it is legal, because the
>>>>>president's views as
>>>>>to what protects the nation, if not above the law, are the law.
>>>>>
>>>>>If we have the right to urge our leaders to make war,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>or not, then
>>
>>
>>>>>I
>>>>>don't see why we can't urge the making of war on an
>>>>>individual, which I
>>>>>would read as an invitation to declare war or change
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>the law, not to
>>
>>
>>>>>break it. Allowing people to vent, as Robertson was
>>>>>apparently doing,
>>>>>is an important value in a society that encourages people to
>>>>>make their
>>>>>feelings known. It then becomes the duty of others (the
>>>>>marketplace) to
>>>>>come out shooting in the direction of such trial
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>balloons. I was
>>
>>
>>>>>certainly trying to do that on this forum because of the FA
>>>>>richness of
>>>>>the episode. Apparently others elsewhere also figured it out
>>>>>independently and raised their voices as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Robertson episode is a trove of FA concerns worth noting
>>>>>and I don't
>>>>>propose noting them as they've been gone over except for
>>>>>this. It is so
>>>>>easy in wrestling with FA issues to fail to see the other
>>>>>side until it
>>>>>is put in front of you by someone who may not share your
>>>>>view, or who,
>>>>>even if sharing your view, has learned to regard FA values
>>>>>favoring free
>>>>>expression as having overriding importance.
>>>>>
>>>>>Robertson, as a broadcaster and speaker, would, I assume,
>>>>>have a healthy
>>>>>respect for FA values to the extent he's thought of them. He
>>>>>apparently
>>>>>missed entirely the irony that he called for the death of a
>>>>>person for
>>>>>promoting Muslim Fundamentalists who favor the death of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>persons with
>>
>>
>>>>>whom they disagree. In short, he stepped into shoes of those
>>>>>he decried
>>>>>because he committed Sin #1 in FA understanding, that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>you must not do
>>
>>
>>>>>unto those with whom you disagree by gagging them, such as by
>>>>>killing them.
>>>>>
>>>>>The fact that Robertson has put in ironic juxtaposition
>>>>>Christian values
>>>>>vs. Muslim Fundamentalist values and come out in agreement
>>>>>with the MFs
>>>>>(assassination as a gag means, a la the Rushdie fatwa) is
>>>>>simply icing
>>>>>on the FA cake at this banquet.
>>>>>
>>>>>Brandenburg speaks to dangerousness of the speech in the here
>>>>>and now.
>>>>>I didn't see Robertson's speech as such a real danger
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>of immediate
>>
>>
>>>>>action, the storming of City Hall now (in San Francisco
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>after the Dan
>>
>>
>>>>>White manslaughter verdict for the murder of the mayor,
>>>>>George Moscone,
>>>>>and supervisor, Harvey Milk -- White reloaded the gun
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>-- Castro
>>
>>
>>>>>District residents marched on City Hall, rioted, overturned
>>>>>and burned a
>>>>>dozen police cars, and broke the doors to City Hall
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>before the police
>>
>>
>>>>>were able to regain a semblance of order and protect
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>the building).
>>
>>
>>>>>This, for me, is where the Brandenburg line is. Speech is
>>>>>not protected
>>>>>when you've got the excited crowd assembled and you exhort
>>>>>them to burn
>>>>>City Hall, which, by the way, is, like right over there?
>>>>>
>>>>>Eugene argues that citizens have a right to petition
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>government,
>>
>>
>>>>>in
>>>>>essence, and while I agree, as stated, Brandenburg
>>>>>dangerousness is far
>>>>>more likely to exist among government agents who agree with
>>>>>Robertson's
>>>>>view that people who oppose U.S. interests deserve to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>be "taken out"
>>
>>
>>>>>and therefore should be. This is no more than the old
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>(Southern)
>>
>>
>>>>>defense of "He needed killin.' "). I guess Brandenburg
>>>>>didn't consider
>>>>>this, although, come to think of it the speaker was
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>urging a march on
>>
>>
>>>>>Congress to protest, wasn't he.
>>>>>
>>>>>There may have been a light note on my part in picking up
>>>>>Eugene's point
>>>>>that addressing government is protected speech, and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>noting the above,
>>
>>
>>>>>but it does relate to, or highlight, Brandenburg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>dangerousness in its
>>
>>
>>>>>own peculiar way: i.e, Suppose that the danger comes not from
>>>>>a mob of
>>>>>private citizens but from gov't officials who may take
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>heart from a
>>
>>
>>>>>leader of Robertson's somewhat national stature,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>considering his
>>
>>
>>>>>national forum, his history as a national political
>>>>>candidate, and the
>>>>>relatively common knowledge that he and the people he
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>speaks for are
>>
>>
>>>>>strong supporters of the present administration politically.
>>>>>Government
>>>>>officials are at least as likely to take heart from a man
>>>>>they may view
>>>>>as a moral leader as private citizens; hence the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>Robertson speech was
>>
>>
>>>>>arguably (with tongue firmly in cheek) more dangerous than
>>>>>speech to a mob.
>>>>>
>>>>>I can't remember where the principle may be manifested, but
>>>>>isn't there
>>>>>U.S. law which prohibits citizens from interfering in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>the nation's
>>
>>
>>>>>foreign affairs in various ways?
>>>>>
>>>>>rs
>>>>>
>>>>>Volokh, Eugene wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Sheridan, as I understood his post, suggested that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Robertson's
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>speech might be constitutionally restrictable. See
>>>>>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/2005
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>-August/02
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>1
>>>>>>564.html ("don't you think that national security
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>requires such a
>>
>>
>>>>>>restriction?") Sandy asked whether "if we support
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>citizen speech
>>
>>
>>>>>>but not resident alien speech, is that because we give some
>>>>>>special 'credit,' as it were, to the speech of our fellow
>>>>>>citizens, or simply out of a positivist belief that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>we're 'stuck'
>>
>>
>>>>>>with the First
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Amendment
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>and have to tolerate certain kinds of egregious speech, but
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>the FA, at
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>the end of the day, protects only citizens?" I took this as a
>>>>>>suggestion (one that Sandy might ultimately not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>endorse, but that
>>
>>
>>>>>>he thinks is important to air) that we should be hesitant or
>>>>>>regretful about the protection of Robertson's speech.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree entirely that Robertson's and Stephanopoulos's
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>speech should
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>be protected, and my view that it should be entirely equally
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>protected
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>-- the religiosity of one's views neither strengthens nor
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>weakens one's
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>rights to express those views.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eugene
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: RJLipkin at aol.com [mailto:RJLipkin at aol.com]
>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 8:39 PM
>>>>>>To: Volokh, Eugene; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>>>>>Subject: Re: Apropos free speech law and suggestions of
>>>>>>assassination
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In a message dated 8/25/2005 6:54:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>>>>>>VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu writes: Glenn Reynolds points out
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>that George
>>
>>
>>>>>>Stephanopoulos wrote a Newsweek article on Dec. 1,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>1997 urging that
>>
>>
>>>>>>Saddam Hussein be assassinated. Again, my view is that such
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>speech --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>urging the government to take a particular action,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>whether or not
>>
>>
>>>>>>we
>>>>>>approve of it
>>>>>>-- is core protected speech, which deserves the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>fullest of First
>>
>>
>>>>>>Amendment protection. Do those who were hesitant about
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>protection for
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Robertson's speech disagree? Or is there some distinction
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>that they'd
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>offer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I reviewed several posts in this thread and did not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>find anyone
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>who categorically denied that Robertson speech was
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>protected or
>>
>>
>>>>>>even
>>>>>>any one of whom it would be fair to say was truly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>"hesitant about
>>
>>
>>>>>>protect[ing] Robertson's speech." Of course, I might
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>have overlooked
>>
>>
>>>>>>the relevant posts because that, for me, was not the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>interesting aspect
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>of the discussion. I didn't consult the archives nor am I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>sure I read
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>every post, but it would be helpful if Eugene were to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>identify (if not
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>the members) the language that clearly shows a reluctance to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>consider
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Robertson's remarks to be protected speech. Illumination
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>here would be
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both Stephanopoulos and Robertson's speech, in my
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>view, are and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>should be protected. That was never the issue, at least for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>me. The
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>difference between the two is that Stephanopoulos is a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>politician and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Robertson is primarily a religious leader. The issue, for me
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>at least,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>was always whether or not we treat the two the same. Or put
>>>>>>differently, whether permitting religious leaders to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>bracket their
>>
>>
>>>>>>religious faith and make political statements,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>arguably inconsistent
>>
>>
>>>>>>with that faith, has implications for issues of religion in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>the public
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>square. If it's perfectly all right for Robertson to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>bracket his
>>
>>
>>>>>>religious faith when it comes to assassination, why shouldn't
>>>>>>democratic citizens have a persuasive argument that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>religious citizens
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>bracket their religious beliefs regarding prayer in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>the school or
>>
>>
>>>>>>displays of creches or the Ten Commandments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would be interested to be alerted to those posts
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>that clearly
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>state that Robertson's speech should not be protected,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>and would
>>
>>
>>>>>>be
>>>>>>grateful to Eugene for pointing out these posts or the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>arguments made
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>in them. I can't imagine the arguments being very strong or
>>>>>>persuasive. Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bobby
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Robert Justin Lipkin
>>>>>>Professor of Law
>>>>>>Widener University School of Law
>>>>>>Delaware
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>>>>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>>>>>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>viewed as
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>that are
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>can (rightly
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>>>>
>>>>
>>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>>
>>>
>>>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot
>>>>
>>>>
>>be viewed
>>
>>
>>>>as
>>>>
>>>>
>>>private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
>>>
>>>
>>messages that are
>>
>>
>>>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
>>>(rightly or
>>>wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>>
>>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
>>>
>>>
>>viewed as
>>
>>
>>>private.
>>>Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>>>
>>>
>>posted; people can
>>
>>
>>>read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
>>>
>>>
>>wrongly) forward the
>>
>>
>>>messages to others.
>>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password,
>>see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>
>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
>>viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
>>messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
>>and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
>>messages to others.
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bobsheridan.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 73 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20050826/f9f79597/bobsheridan.vcf
More information about the Conlawprof
mailing list