Discussion in 'WWII' started by Tiki Tom, Dec 5, 2016.
That sounds about right to this loyalist...
I wouldn't have minded reparations, but I concede that the Penobscot Nation had a prior claim.
Winston Churchill said history was going to be kind to him because he was going to write it.
And he did... !
Semrau should have been cleared of all charges related to a field mercy death and his conviction is indicative of a sanitized legal perspective.
Geneva Convention III, Article 12.
Canada and the United States signed off in 1949, the USA ratified in 1955 and Canada in 1965. It is ratified by 198 nations thus rendering it even for non-signatory nations binding customary international law.
If you could point out which bits of this clearly written nearly seventy year old law is "sanitized", I'd appreciate it.
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.
I also cite and rely upon the commentaries of 1960, which provides thus (emphasis mine). the italicized sentence references that fact that in international law, detainees/prisoners of war, etc., are not held by individuals but by state powers. It is therefore not up to the subjective whim of the individual to determine treatment (you will note as well the historic precedent both in GC 1929 and the Hague laws of 1907, meaning this is no "recent sanitization" of the law):
PARAGRAPH 1. -- RESPONSIBILITY OF THE POWER AS SUCH
1. ' First sentence. -- Principle '
War is a relationship between one State and another, or, one may also say, between one belligerent Power and another; it is not a relationship between individual persons. The logical consequence is that prisoners of war are not in the power of the individuals or military units who have captured them. They are in the hands of [p.129] the State itself of which these individuals or military units are only the agents. The present provision, which formally establishes this principle, reproduces the text of Article 2, paragraph 1 [ Link ] , of the 1929 Convention, which in turn was derived from Article 4, paragraph 1 [ Link ] , of the Hague Regulations of 1907.
Agreed. However, rather than engage a hermeneutic regarding Geneva III/IV which Canada and US ostensibly are not in violation,
said do implicitly recognize the exigencies of war; also, terrorists are without adequate legal definition or prisoner of war status,
which state admittedly is not beyond the humanitarian hold soldiers should bear in combat. Unfortunately, field circumstance can mitigate and remove
more orthodox stringent interpretation of law or morality. Enemy combatants cannot always be taken prisoner; especially by lightly armed units such as
airborne, commando, special forces during active operations; nor can medical care always be afforded enemy wounded.
A mercy killing cannot simply or sanitarily be viewed from a judicial perspective across whatever template practicable under more favorable convention.
I've set out my CV above.
Notwithstanding, you, as a random stranger on the internet, are clearly the SME. I defer to you expertise.
Have a great rest of the day.
Once again, Pearl Harbor Day has arrived. 76 years ago today.
And Hawaii is again testing its air raid sirens in earnest.
Separate names with a comma.