This café series event was surprisingly very interesting. Human rights has been a very important topic for me in recent years, as I have developed my sense of morality and beliefs. As someone that is concerned about human rights issues, I unfortunately did not have too much knowledge of the legal aspects of war crimes and such. I noticed that the short biography for the week stated that his research includes military action that is not associated with a specific nation (which I assume includes large terrorist organizations and such); the legal issues and lack of treaties associated with the war on terror is an interesting topic that I wish Professor Ohlins would have touched upon. The change in battlefield warfare and the changes in wartime traditions are even more apparent when you include the modern wars in the middle east. The idea that there have always been traditions for warfare (although ever changing) truly disgusts me. Is war so necessary to our nature that we have traditions associated with it, as we do with every major aspect of human culture? When Rose Scholars were suggesting ideas for responses to war crimes, it was almost amusing to see how acceptable these “reparations” are. I know that everybody is against war overall, but it was interesting to think that one government paying another is an accepted response to certain war crimes. The idea almost plays out like a political cartoon, with politicians passing money around for the “unacceptable” crimes that are committed around the world. As discussed in the scholar program, it is not an easy task to legally punish a war criminal; however, when action isn’t taken against criminals—and the judicial body has little power to act—war crimes seem to be an acceptable part our society and culture.