The Wikileaks collection

[jmm99]

Re: this

from motorfirebox
No matter if this conflict falls under GCIII's "convention in miniature" or the more general purview of GCI, this particular engagement falls under Protocol I Additional to the GC, 1977 (specifically, Article 57).

Neither the US nor Iraq has ratified 1977 AP I. How then do you make it applicable to this engagement ?

Regards

Mike

[Wargames Mark]

Re: this



Neither the US nor Iraq has ratified 1977 AP I. How then do you make it applicable to this engagement ?

Regards

Mike

I share your disagreement with the notion of the U.S. being subject to a treaty which the U.S. government has not signed and ratified.

I have noticed a large number of people believing that the notion of "customary law" should make the U.S. subject to API and APII.

I dispute the entire notion of "customary law."

[motorfirebox]

Re: this



Neither the US nor Iraq has ratified 1977 AP I. How then do you make it applicable to this engagement ?

Regards

Mike

*Headdesk* Too focused on remembering where the actual wording was, forgot to verify the list of ratifiers. I'm really batting a thousand on the GC.

The point remains: there is a difference between unlawfully targeting those protected by whatever laws are applicable, and making a bad judgment call that results in the death of those protected.

[jmm99]

from motorfirebox
*Headdesk* Too focused on remembering where the actual wording was, forgot to verify the list of ratifiers. I'm really batting a thousand on the GC.

The point remains: there is a difference between unlawfully targeting those protected by whatever laws are applicable, and making a bad judgment call that results in the death of those protected.

It's very easy (too easy) to have incidents of cranial gas passage when considering "international humanitarian law" in general and the GCs (+APs) in particular.

Moving away from that to your salient point (para 2 quoted above). The video and transcript proved to me that the Apache people's perception (consistent throughout) was that they were engaging a hostile armed force (groiund unit had been in contact; and not everyone in an armed force has to be carrying a weapon openly). Their perception was correct (weapons were found), although they mistook the cameras for weapons ("bad judgment call" or simply "war fog"). Criminal intent is clearly lacking (as opposed to intent to kill hostiles, which is clearly present - it's supposed to be).

Another key factor was the investigation report, which found no wrongdoing. As a worst case scenario, I envisioned that report being ashcanned and a flag officer pushing for a prosecution (which has happened). But then, issues of undue command influence aside, I envisioned "MAJ Investigator" being called by the defense. What a wetdream scenario for defense counsel - a built in reasonable doubt.

-------------------
Hey WM: "I dispute the entire notion of "customary law." As it is often presented, I too. But full discussion of that would move us far off the mark. What is important is this:

I have noticed a large number of people believing that the notion of "customary law" should make the U.S. subject to API and APII.

That number includes some JAs, as well as operational soldiers who have been wrongly indoctrinated. Your post and its long quote, here in another thread, sets out the correct picture under US law. Good material.

I think your link was clobbered by a filter. Could you post the author, name, publication and year of the article, so it can be Googled to get its url.

Regards

Mike

[Wargames Mark]

I think your link was clobbered by a filter. Could you post the author, name, publication and year of the article, so it can be Googled to get its url.

Title: Training America's Strategic Corporals
Author: LTC David Bolgiano

Don't know the author, but it was recommended to me when I was working on a scenario based on the Haditha incident, as a way to understand the difficulty of applying criminal sanctions to battlefield decisions.

[jmm99]

Must be this computer and network which doesn't show the link in your post. My computer at work yesterday, different network, had it loud and clear.

Cheers

Mike