题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
Justice, as well as the law, ______that these robbers be severely punished.
A. demands
B. have demanded
C. is demanding
D. demand
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
更多“Justice, as well as the law, _…”相关的问题
Committee members lined up to take swings at James Ziglar, the head of the INS. He explained, somewhat pathetically, that "outdated procedures" had kept the visa-processing wheels grinding slowly through a backlog of applications. He also had some new rules in mind to tighten up visas. Speeding up the paperwork—and getting more of it on to computers—is vital, but the September 11th attacks have exposed the tension between the agency's two jobs: on the one hand enforcing the security of America's borders, on the other granting privileges such as work permits to foreigners.
But other people want more radical changes. James Sensenbrenner, a Republican congressman from Wisconsin, wants to split the INS into two separate bodies, one dealing with border security and the other with handling benefits to immigrants. The other approach, favored in the White House, is to treat the two functions as complementary, and to give the INS even more responsibility for security. Under that plan, the INS would merge with the Customs Service, which monitors the 20m shipments of goods brought into America every year, as well as the bags carried in by some 500m visitors. The two agencies would form. one large body within the Department of Justice, the current home of the INS. This would cut out some of the duplicated effort at borders, where customs officers and agents from the INS's Border Patrol often rub shoulders but do not work together.
Mr. Bush—who has said that the news of the visa approvals left him "plenty hot"—was expected to give his approval. The senate, however, may not be quite so keen. The Justice Department could have trouble handling such a merger, let alone taking on the considerable economic responsibilities of the Customs Service, which is currently part of the Treasury.
The senate prefers yet another set of security recommendations, including links between the databases of different agencies that hold security and immigration information, and scanners at ports of entry to check biometric data recorded on immigration documents. These ideas are embodied in a bill sponsored by members of both parties, but are currently held up by Robert Byrd, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who worries that there has not been enough debate on the subject. Mr. Ziglar, poor chap, may feel there has been more than enough.
We can learn from the first paragraph that INS ______.
A．will be subjected to strong criticisms.
B．has become the public laughing stock.
C．will take up economic responsibilities.
D．has won the support from Mr. Bush.
Committee members lined up to take swings at James Ziglar, the head of the INS. He explained, somewhat pathetically, that "outdated procedures" had kept the visa-processing wheels grinding slowly through a backlog of applications. He also had some new rules in mind to tighten up visas. Speeding up the paperwork—and getting more of it on to computers—is vital, but the September attacks have exposed the tension between the agency's two jobs: on the one hand enforcing the security of America's borders, and on the other granting privileges such as work permits to foreigners.
But other people want more radical changes. James Sensenbrenner, a Republican congressman from Wisconsin, wants to split the INS into two separate bodies, one dealing with border security and the other with handling benefits to immigrants. The other approach, favored in the White House, is to treat the two functions as complementary, and to give the INS even more responsibility for security. Under that plan, the INS would merge with the Customs Service, which monitors the 20m shipments of goods brought into America every year, as well as the bags carried in by some 500m visitors. The two agencies would form. one large body within the Department of Justice, the current home of the INS. This would cut out some of the duplicated effort at borders, where customs officers and agents from the INS's Border Patrol often rub shoulders but do not work together.
Mr. Bush—who has said that the news of the visa approvals left him "plenty hot"—was expected to give his approval. The senate, however, may not be quite so keen. The Justice Department could have trouble handling such a merger, let alone taking on the considerable economic responsibilities of the Customs Service, which is currently part of the Treasury.
The senate prefers yet another set of security recommendations, including links between the databases of different agencies that hold security and immigration information, and scanners at ports of entry to check biometric data recorded on immigration documents. These ideas are embodied in a bill sponsored by members of both parties, but are currently held up by Robert Byrd, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who worries that there has not been enough debate on the subject. Mr. Ziglar, poor chap, may feel there Nas been more than enough.
We learn from the text that the work of the INS ______.
A．has captured close attention.
B．is being performed at full swing.
C．earned the contempt of officers.
D．is running into a state of confusion.
Levi Strauss persuaded the court that, by selling its jeans cheaply alongside soap powder and bananas, Tesco was destroying the image and so the value of its brands—which could only lead to less innovation and, in the long run, would reduce consumer choice. Consumer groups and Tesco say that Levi's case is specious. The supermarket argues that it was just arbitraging the price differential between Levi's jeans sold in America and Europe—a service performed a million times a day in financial markets, and one that has led to real benefits for consumers. Tesco has been selling some 15,000 pairs of Levi's jeans a week, for about half the price they command in specialist stores approved by Levi Strauss. Christine Cross, Tesco's head of global non-food sourcing, says the ruling risks "creating a Fortress Europe with a vengeance".
The debate will rage on, and has implications well beyond casual clothes (Levi Strauss was joined in its lawsuit by Zino Davidoff, a perfume maker). The question at its heart is not whether brands need to control how they are sold to protect their image, but whether it is the job of the courts to help them do this. Gucci, an Italian clothes label whose image was being destroyed by loose licensing and over-exposure in discount stores, saved itself not by resorting to the courts but by ending contracts with third-party suppliers, controlling its distribution better and opening its own stores. It is now hard to find cut-price Gucci anywhere.
Brand experts argue that Levi Strauss, which has been losing market share to hipper rivals such as Diesel, is no longer strong enough to command premium prices. Left to market forces, so-so brands such as Levi's might well fade away and be replaced by fresher labels. With the courts protecting its prices, Levi Strauss may hang on for longer. But no court can help to make it a great brand again.
Which of the following is not true according to Paragraph 1？
A．Consumers and free traders were very angry.
B．Only the Levi's maker can decide the prices of the jeans.
C．The ruling has protected Levi's from price dumping.
D．Levi's jeans should be sold at a high price.
The Minister of Justice has ______ an immense amount of correspondence before breakfast.
A．got over
B．got behind
C．got round
D．got through
These are some of the questions that are raised by the concept commonly called "superior orders", and its use as a defense in war crimes trials. It is an issue that must be as old as the laws of war themselves, and it emerged in legal guise over three centuries ago when, after the Stuart restoration in 1660, the commander of the guards at the trial and execution of Charles I was put on trial for treason and murder. The officer defended himself on the ground "that all I did was as a soldier, by the command of my superior officer whom I must obey or die," but the court gave him short shrift, saying that "When the command is traitorous, then the obedience to that command is also traitorous①."
Though not precisely articulated, the rule that is necessarily implied by this decision is that it is the soldier's duty to obey lawful orders, but that he may disobey—and indeed must, under some circum stances-unlawful orders. Such has been the law of the United States since the birth of the nation. In 1804, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that superior orders would justify a subordinate's conduct only "if not to perform. a prohibited act," and there are many other early decisions to the same effect.
A strikingly illustrative case occurred in the wake of that conflict which most Englishmen have never heard (although their troops burned the White House) and which we call the War of 1812. Our country was baldly split by that war too and, at a time when the United States Navy was not especially popular in New England, the ship-in-the-line Independence was lying in Boston Harbor. A passer-by directed abusive language at a marine standing guard on the ship, and the marine, Bevans by name, ran his bayonet through the man. Charged with murder, Bevans produced evidence that the marines on the Independence had been ordered to bayonet anyone showing them disrespect. The case was tried before Justice Joseph Story, next to Marshall, the leading judicial figure of those years, who charged that any such order as Bevans had invoked "would be illegal and void," and, if given and put into practice, both the superior and the subordinate would be guilty of murder②. In consequence, Bevans was convicted.
The order allegedly given to Bevans was pretty drastic, and Boston Harbor was not a battlefield; per haps it was not too much to expect the marine to realize that literal compliance might lead to bad trouble. But it is only too easy to conceive of circumstances where the matter might not be at all clear. Does the sub ordinate obey at peril that the order may later be ruled illegal, or is protected unless he has a good reason to doubt its validity？
It can be inferred from the first paragraph that if a soldier obeys his superior's order to burn a house or to kill a prisoner, ______.
A．he is fight according to moral standards
B．he should not receive any punishment
C．he should certainly be liable for his action
D．he will be convicted according to the law of war
