Subject: US Violates the Geneva Conventions of War
By Jim McMicahael


    One of the cases from history recently cited is the arrest of German
    soldiers who landed secretly on the North American continent with
    plans to commit acts of sabotage.  President Truman authorized their
    trial before a military tribunal and subsequent execution.

    I have never understood how the US could imprison or execute those
    Germans without running afoul of the Geneva Conventions of War, to
    which the US had been a signatory since 1929
    (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva02.htm).

    Article 1 of that treaty incorporates the July 29, 1899 Hague treaty
    on the Laws and Customs of War on Land
    (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague02.htm), which
    defines "prisoner of war" as follows:

        In case of capture by the enemy, [combatants and non-combatants]
        have a right to be treated as prisoners of war ...

    The 1929 Geneva Convention, Article 1, continues as follows:

        ... [and] all persons belonging to the armed forces of belligerent
        parties, captured by the enemy in the course of military
        operations at sea or in the air ... {Article 2] ... must at all
        times be humanely treated and protected, particularly against acts
        of violence, insults and public curiosity ... Measures of reprisal
        against them are prohibited."
        (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva02.htm)

    According to the US Constitution, ratified treaties have the force
    law in the United States.

    Why is the US now boasting that it illegally tried and executed 
    German prisoners of war?

    The 1929 treaty required many things of the captors, including a
    continuance of the soldier's regular pay while in captivity, freedom
    from imprisonment, the right to practice their own religion, normal
    sanitation, and so forth.  

    ARTICLE 45 reads as follows:

        Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations, and
        orders in force in the armies of the detaining Power.  An act of
        insubordination shall justify the adoption towards them of the
        measures provided by such laws, regulations and orders.
        (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva02.htm#art45)

    In other words, an Arab prisoner of war in US captivity who steals
    money must be tried and treated according to the same laws and
    procedures that would apply to a US soldier of the same rank accused
    of the same crime.

    That is the ONLY case allowed by that treaty for using a military
    court on a prisoner of war.

        Measures of reprisal against them are prohibited."
        (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva02.htm#art2)

    ARTICLE 46:
        
        Punishments other than those provided for the same acts for
        soldiers of the national armies may not be imposed upon prisoners
        of war by the military authorities and courts of the detaining
        Power.

        Rank being identical, officers, noncommissioned officers or
        soldiers who are prisoners of war undergoing a disciplinary
        punishment, shall not be subject to less favorable treatment than
        that provided in the armies of the detaining Power with regard to
        the same punishment.

        Any corporal punishment, any imprisonment in quarters without
        daylight and, in general, any form of cruelty, is forbidden.

        Collective punishment for individual acts is also forbidden. 

        (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva02.htm#art46):

    This clear language outlaws the killing of the Germans who were
    captured during WW II.  The treaty also strictly forbids killing
    prisoners of war after the hostilities cease:

    ARTICLE 75:
        When belligerents conclude at convention of armistice, they must,
        in principle, have appear therein stipulations regarding the
        repatriation of prisoners of war. If it has not been possible to
        insert stipulations in this regard in such convention,
        belligerents shall nevertheless come to an agreement in this
        regard as soon as possible. In any case, repatriation of prisoners
        shall be effected with the least possible delay after the
        conclusion of peace.

        Prisoners of war against whom a penal prosecution might be pending
        for a crime or an offense t of municipal law may, however, be
        detained until the end of the proceedings and, if necessary, until
        the expiration of the punishment. The same shall be true of those
        sentenced for a crime or offense of municipal law.

        On agreement between the belligerents, commissions may be
        established for the purpose of searching for dispersed prisoners
        and assuring their repatriation.
        (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva02.htm#art75)

    Thus, any Taleban soldiers or civilians captured during this "war"
    must be freed at the cessation of hostilities, providing they are not
    charged with disciplinary infractions as prisoners of war.

    Collective punishment for individual acts is forbidden.  The US may
    not generalize from one terrorist act in the US to anyone in power in
    Afghanistan.

    If the attack on New York was an act of war, as President Bush is fond
    of saying, all actions stemming from that incident fall under the
    conventions of war.  We cannot kill prisoners in reprisal, we cannot
    generalize guilt, and we MUST repatriate after martial hostilities.
    Permitting them to live is not "amnesty", as we are told recently.  It
    is simply international treaty law.

    But if the attackers are criminals, let the suspects be tried in the
    ordinary criminal courts for the crimes, and let us apply the rules of
    evidence to the case.

    What we have here is confused application: Military courts used to 
    try (and maybe execute) prisoners of war in retaliation for acts of 
    war.

    If US citizens were caught in one of the many US acts of terrorism,
    from car bombings to assassination King Lumumba of the Congo in 1961
    (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jan2001/lum-j10.shtml), what would
    be the US response if the CIA agent perpetrators were tried in secret
    and killed?

    As Alice said of Wonderland, this land of ours is becoming 
    curiouser and curiouser.

    J