According to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The exclusionary rule is not a constitutional right. Rather, it is more often considered a court-created remedy to policing methods as well as a deterrent against unlawful search and seizure, which is covered in the fourth-amendment. The exclusionary rule does not allow the government to use evidence gained that violates the constitution of the United States. In addition, any evidence gained through this method will be considered according to the same rule, meaning that it will not be allowed.
Although international laws evolved after the Second World War, a concept and standard on behaviors between countries, what countries can do to their people and how countries should engage in war existed in the international law prior the Second World War. For example, Hague Conference of 1907 and Geneva Convention of 1929 had guidelines on how a country in war should treat the certain individuals. Several laws in the conferences conventions applied to the U.S. government’s action, which proved the government’s violation of international law toward people of Japanese ancestry during wartime. Both Hague Conference of 1907 and Geneva Convention of 1929 have a part on the treatments of Prisoners of War (POW), which could be applied to the people
Rules: With regard to international armed conflicts, the four Geneva Conventions (GC I to IV) and Additional Protocol I and II contain various provisions specifically dealing with both of Prisoners of War, Civilians protection to prevent any kind of violations that may happen toward them. The Forth Geneva convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War has set rules governing the issue of civilians who found themselves under enemy’s possession. Article 5 of the 4th GC has identified who are protected persons with putting conditions to be considered as protected with the privileges of having the statue of protected persons at article 27 of the same convention. Third Geneva Convention in particular has recognized group of rights with regarded to POWs such as the right to be humanely treated at article 13, correspondence at article 71, the right to gain a sufficient food in quantity and quality at article 26 and the right to not be subjected to torture and question at article 17 where every prisoner of war “when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information” Moreover, the use of weapons and means that have indiscriminate effects such as poisonous gas and bombs which also would aggravate the suffering recognized as prohibited to use due to the amount of damage it causes upon civilians as well as the environment
One could not go to war without having a just reason for doing so. Therefore, the International Humanitarian Law, subdivided into two categories, entail the rules that apply in times of armed conflict. These rules outline a) The kind of weapons that can be used in a combat, and the legitimate targets of an armed attack ; b) The protection of certain categories of persons; wounded and sick
The legal right to determine how to enforce its own resolutions lies with the Security Council alone (UN Charter Articles 39-42), not with individual nations. Other member of UNSC declared that Council Resolution 1441 did not authorize any "automaticity" in the use of force against Iraq, and that a further Council resolution was needed were forced to be used. But the US supported the use of war based on the intelligence from the CIA and MI6 stating that Iraq controlled WMD. The US use of force was based upon Iraq's breach of several UN resolutions, especially UNSC Resolution 1441. The invasion began in March that year and Hussein was captured by December.
Reprisals in the laws of war are extremely limited, as they commonly breached the rights of non-combatants, an action outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. It refers to acts which are illegal if taken alone, but become legal when adopted by one state in retaliation for the commission of an earlier illegal act by another state. Counter-reprisals are generally not allowed. It also relate to the topic use of force because it involves war and we all know that wars includes arm conflicts between states internationally. There are lot of aspects that deals on the use of force for example, sometimes police are accused of an unjustified use of force to subdue a suspected criminal or to quell protesters.
The Geneva Convention requires that prisoner of wars who are on trial for war crimes can be subject to the same procedures as would be the holding military's own forces. Most navies have a standard court-martial which convenes whenever a ship is lost; this does not presume that the captain is suspected of wrongdoing, but merely that the circumstances surrounding the loss of the ship be made part of the official record.
Under international law, in an armed conflict enemy fighters may be targeted and killed in situations not permitted in peace. Certain persons may also be detained without trial or tried before military commissions. Many important human rights protections may be relaxed or derogated from in the exigencies of armed conflict. This shift from the law that prevails during peace occurs only when armed conflict begins. It is, therefore, critical to understand what constitutes “armed conflict” in international law to make an appropriate choice of law between the law that prevails in peace and the law that may be applied during an armed conflict.
The fear of the law can never restrain bad men so effectually as the fear of the sum total to individual resistance. Take away this right and you become, in so doing, the accomplice of all bad men. ” The question in this issue to be considered is the alleged exercise of right of private defence. Sec 96 provides that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. However, this section does not define the expression ‘right of private defence.’ It is merely indicative of the fact that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of such right.