Military implications of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, second session, August 9, 11, 18, 1994.

Mode of access: Internet.

"Pussyfoot" Johnson, crusader--reformer--a man among men,

Mode of access: Internet.

LUST regulations (from Title 35 : Environmental protection; subtitle G: Waste disposal) : leaking underground storage tanks.

"Title 35: Environmental protection, subtitle G: Waste disposal, chapter I: Pollution Control Board, subchapter d: Underground injection control and underground storage tank programs, Part 731, Underground storage tanks, subpart A: Program scope and interim prohibition."--Caption title.

King alcohol dethroned.

Mode of access: Internet.

International law topics: documents on neutrality and war, with notes, 1915.

Discussions conducted by George Grafton Wilson.

American problems from the point of view of a psychologist,

English edition published, London 1910, under title: Problems of today from the point of view of a psychologist.

Chase Osborn as David preparing to slay the "brewery interests" as Goliath with "2nd term" of the stone

Original in color

The intruder

A man labelled "Laxity" in the prosecutor's office sleeps through a blizzard of complaints about blind pigs and other prohibition violations

Howell, Mich. street scene

verso: Things reached a fever pitch in 1915 as the Wolverine Paved Way was nearing completion. A brick road from Detroit to Lansing would be finished and the town's main street would finally be paved. In this photograph autos had started from Lansing and picked up others in all the small towns on the way to Howell for the big celebration. As you can see, they didn't worry about parking. They stopped their cars in the street and left them. Before Prohibition, Howell was known as the fun city of Southern Michigan, and there is said to have been 13 bars in the main four blocks of town. All the travelling men made it a point to stay over in Howell whenever possible. It was said that you could not fall down on the main street of town without falling into the doorway of a bar. This probably explains the empty cars after a long dusty trip. Notice, too, that about half the cars are still right hand drive.

They tried to crucify me; or, The smoke-screen of the Cumberlands,

"On the 7th day of April 1924, in the U.S. District court, at Covington, Ky. ... an indictment was returned and filed against me alleging a 'conspiracy to violate the Prohibition act.'"--p. 15.

Regulations no. 7 (a revision of internal revenue Regulations no. 28) relative to the production, fortification, tax payment, etc., of wine and the production of grape brandy for fortification.

Mode of access: Internet.

Supreme Emergencies and the protection of non-combatants in war

Is it ever justifiable to target non-combatants deliberately? This article assesses Michael Walzer's claim that the deliberate targeting of non-combatants may be justifiable during 'supreme emergencies', a view that has received some support but that has elicited little debate. It argues that the supreme emergencies exception to the prohibition on targeting non-combatants is problematic for at least four reasons. First, its utilitarianism contradicts Walzer's wider ethics of war based on a conception of human rights. Second, the exception may undermine the principle of non-combatant immunity. Third, it is based on a historical fallacy. Finally, it is predicated on a strategic fallacy-the idea that killing noncombatants can win wars. The case for rejecting the exception, however, has been opposed by those who persuasively argue that it is wrong to tie leaders' hands when they confront supreme emergencies. The final part of the article addresses this question and suggests that the principle of proportionality may give political leaders room for manoeuvre in supreme emergencies without permitting them deliberately to target non-combatants.

No pain, no gain? Torture and ethics in the war on terror

Is the use of torture ever justified? This article argues that torture cannot be justified, even in so called ticking bomb cases, but that in such extreme situations it may be necessary. In those situations, judgements about whether the use of torture is legitimate must balance the imminence and gravity of the threat with the need to prevent future occurrences of torture and maintain a normative environment that is hostile to its use. The article begins by observing that the use of torture and/or cruel and degrading treatment has become a core component of the global war on terror. It tests the claim that the use of coercive interrogation techniques does not constitute torture, showing that similar arguments were levelled by both the British and French governments in relation to Northern Ireland and Algeria respectively and found wanting. It then evaluates and rejects Dershowitz's claim for the legalization of torture and the more limited claim that torture may be permissible in ticking bomb scenarios. In the final section, the article questions how we might maintain the prohibition on torture while acknowledging that it may be necessary in some hypothetical cases.