Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> Actually, they deserve fundamental protections simply as human
> beings. If you don't think so then I don't see much point in
> continuing this discussion. War criminals are actually brought
> before high courts in most of the cases I know of. What
> combatants? Supsicion is not being a combatant.
You are apparently rather ignorant of history. Under the Geneva
Conventions, a combatant caught in civilian clothes in a zone of combat
is subject to summary execution, which has been used more often than
not, it was not until Vietnam that one of these cases actually made it
into the news, because prior to that the news media was fully aware of
the Conventions and what they said.
The only war criminals ever brought to trial for war crimes immediately
following a conflict were high ranking general officers and civilian
leaders. Many times more lower rankers are given summary judgement in
military courts. In europe after WWII, for instance, there were only a
hundred or so Nazis who were tried and convicted of war crimes in public
courts (these courts were still military tribunals under military
jurisdiction). Whermacht, Luftwaffe, and other military enlistees and
other low rankers were given summary judgement by military tribunals in
Germany by the allied military JAG corps, most of whome were sentenced
to prison time, if they lived that long. Typically, getting caught by
the enemy committing a war crime on the battlefield usually resulted in
the individual being executed on the spot. For example, serrating your
bayonet, or posessing hollow point ammo, would result, when captured, in
summary execution by any enemy officer (providing you were not court
martialed by your own side prior to combat, of course).
Prosecution of war crimes by combatants does not belong in civilian
courts.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:28 MDT