This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Is The New U.S. 'Law Of War Manual' Actually ‘Hitlerian'?

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Eric Zuesse, author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of Christ's Ventriloquists: The Event that Created Christianity

Is the New U.S. 'Law of War Manual' Actually ‘Hitlerian'?

The Obama U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has quietly issued its important Law of War Manual, and, unlike its predecessor, the 1956 U.S. Army Field Manual, which was not designed to approve of the worst practices by both the United States and its enemies in World War II, or after 9/11, this new document has been alleged specifically to do just that: to allow such attacks as the United States did on Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and in Iraq, and elsewhere.

First here will be a summary of previous news reports about this historically important document; then, extensive quotations from the actual document itself will be provided, relating to the allegations in those previous news reports. Finally will be conclusions regarding whether, or the extent to which, those earlier news reports about it were true.

EARLIER REPORTS ABOUT THE MANUAL:

The document was first reported by DoD in a curt press release on June 12th, with a short-lived link to the source-document, and headlined, “DoD Announces New Law of War Manual.” This press release was published and discussed only in a few military newsmedia, not in the general press.

The document was then anonymously reported on June 25th, at the non-military site, under the headline, "The USA writes their own version of 'International Law’: Pentagon Rewrites ‘Law of War’ Declaring ‘Belligerent’ Journalists as Legitimate Targets.”

That news article attracted some attention from journalists, but no link was provided to the actual document, which the U.S. DoD removed promptly after issuing it.

A professor of journalism was quoted there as being opposed to the document’s allegedly allowing America’s embedded war journalists to kill the other side’s journalists. He said: "It gives them license to attack or even murder journalists that they don’t particularly like but aren’t on the other side.”

Patrick Martin at the World Socialist Web Site, then headlined on August 11th, “Pentagon manual justifies war crimes and press censorship,” and he reported that the Committee to Protect Journalists was obsessed with the document’s implications regarding journalists.

Then, Sherwood Ross headlined at opednews on August 13th, "Boyle: New Pentagon War Manual Reduces Us to 'Level of Nazis’,” and he interviewed the famous expert on international law, Francis Boyle, about it, who had read the report. Ross opened: "The Pentagon's new Law of War Manual(LOWM) sanctioning nuclear attacks and the killing of civilians, 'reads like it was written by Hitler's Ministry of War,' says international law authority Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois at Champaign.” Ross continued: "Boyle points out the new manual is designed to supplant the 1956 U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 written by Richard Baxter, the world's leading authority on the Laws of War. Baxter was the Manley O. Hudson Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a Judge on the International Court of Justice. Boyle was his top student.”

The document is 1,204 pages. Here the general public can see the document and make their own judgments about it. What follows will concern specifically the claims about it that were made in those prior news articles, and will compare those claims with the relevant actual statements in the document itself. Reading what the document says is worthwhile, because its predecessor, the Army Field Manual, became central in the news coverage about torture and other Bush Administration war-crimes.

THE DOCUMENT:

First of all, regarding “journalists,” the document, in Chapter 4, says: "4.24.2 Journalists and other media representatives are regarded as civilians;471 i.e., journalism does not constitute taking a direct part in hostilities such that such a person would be deprived of protection from being made the object of attack.472.” Consequently, the journalism professor’s remark is dubious, at best, but probably can be considered to be outright false.

The charge by the international lawyer, Professor Boyle, is a different matter altogether.

This document says, in Chapter 5: 5.3.1 Responsibility of the Party Controlling Civilian 5.3.1 Persons and Objects. The party controlling civilians and civilian objects has the primary responsibility for the protection of civilians and civilian objects.13[13 See  J. Fred Buzhardt, DoD General Counsel, Letter to Senator Edward Kennedy, Sept. 22, 1972. …] The party controlling the civilian population generally has the greater opportunity to minimize risk to civilians.14[14  FINAL  REPORT ON  THE PERSIAN  GULF  WAR  614. …] Civilians also may share in the responsibility to take precautions for their own protection.15[15 U.S. Comments on the International Committee of the Red Cross’s Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law in the Gulf Region, Jan. 11, 1991. …]” This is directly counter to what Professor Boyle was alleged to have charged about the document.

The document continues: "5.3.2 Essentially Negative Duties to Respect Civilians and to Refrain From Directing Military Operations Against Them. In general, military operations must not be directed against enemy civilians.16 In particular:
• Civilians must not be made the object of attack;17
• Military objectives may not be attacked when the expected incidental loss of life and injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained;18
• Civilians must not be used as shields or as hostages;19 and
• Measures of intimidation or terrorism against the civilian population are prohibited, including acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.20"

Furthermore: “5.3.3 Affirmative Duties to Take Feasible Precautions for the Protection of Civilians and Other Protected Persons and Objects. Parties to a conflict must take feasible precautions to reduce the risk of harm to the civilian population and other protected persons and objects.27 Feasible precautions to reduce the risk of harm to civilians and civilian objects must be taken when planning and conducting attacks.28”

Moreover: "5.5.2 Parties to a conflict must conduct attacks in accordance with the principles of distinction and proportionality. In particular, the following rules must be observed:
• Combatants may make military objectives the object of attack, but may not direct attacks against civilians, civilian objects, or other protected persons and objects.66
• Combatants must refrain from attacks in which the expected loss of life or injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects incidental to the attack, would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained.67
• Combatants must take feasible precautions in conducting attacks to reduce the risk of harm to civilians and other protected persons and objects.68
• In conducting attacks, combatants must assess in good faith the information that is available to them.69
• Combatants may not kill or wound the enemy by resort to perfidy.70
• Specific rules apply to the use of certain types of weapons.71”

In addition: "5.5.3.2 AP I Presumptions in Favor of Civilian Status in Conducting Attacks. In the context of conducting attacks, certain provisions of AP I reflect a presumption in favor of civilian status in cases of doubt. Article 52(3) of AP I provides that ‘[i]n case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military actions, it shall be presumed not to be so used.’76 Article 50(1) of AP I provides that ‘[i]n case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.’”

Then, there is this: "5.15 UNDEFENDED CITIES, TOWNS, AND VILLAGES. Attack, by whatever means, of a village, town, or city that is undefended is prohibited.360 Undefended villages, towns, or cities may, however, be captured.”

Furthermore: "5.17 SEIZURE AND DESTRUCTION OF ENEMY PROPERTY. Outside the context of attacks, certain rules apply to the seizure and destruction of enemy property:
• Enemy property may not be seized or destroyed unless imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.”

These features too are not in accord with the phrase 'reads like it was written by Hitler's Ministry of War.’

However, then, there is also this in Chapter 6, under “6.5 Lawful Weapons":

"6.5.1 Certain types of weapons, however, are subject to specific rules that apply to their use by the U.S. armed forces. These rules may reflect U.S. obligations under international law or national policy. These weapons include:
• mines, booby-traps, and other devices (except certain specific classes of prohibited mines, booby-traps, and other devices);38
• cluster munitions;39
• incendiary weapons;40
• laser weapons (except blinding lasers);41
• riot control agents;42
• herbicides;43
• nuclear weapons; 44 and
• explosive ordnance.45
6.5.2 Other Examples of Lawful Weapons. In particular, aside from the rules prohibiting weapons calculated to cause superfluous injury and inherently indiscriminate weapons,46 there are no law of war rules specifically prohibiting or restricting the following types of weapons by the U.S. armed forces: …
• depleted uranium munitions;51”

Mines, cluster munitions, incendiary weapons, herbicides, nuclear weapons, and depleted uranium munitions, are all almost uncontrollably violative of the restrictions that were set forth in Chapter 5, preceding.

There are also passages like this:

"6.5.4.4 Expanding Bullets. The law of war does not prohibit the use of bullets that expand or flatten easily in the human body. Like other weapons, such bullets are only prohibited if they are calculated to cause superfluous injury.74 The U.S. armed forces have used expanding bullets in various counterterrorism and hostage rescue operations, some of which have been conducted in the context of armed conflict.
The 1899 Declaration on Expanding Bullets prohibits the use of expanding bullets in armed conflicts in which all States that are parties to the conflict are also Party to the 1899 Declaration on Expanding Bullets.75 The United States is not a Party to the 1899 Declaration on Expanding Bullets, in part because evidence was not presented at the diplomatic conference that expanding bullets produced unnecessarily severe or cruel wounds.76”

The United States still has not gone as far as the 1899 Declaration on Expanding Bullets. The U.S. presumption is instead that expanding bullets have not “produced unnecessarily severe or cruel wounds.” This is like George W. Bush saying that waterboarding, etc., aren’t “torture.” The document goes on to explain that, "expanding bullets are widely used by law enforcement agencies today, which also supports the conclusion that States do not regard such bullets are inherently inhumane or needlessly cruel.81” And, of course, the Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court do not think that the death penalty is either “cruel” or “unusual” punishment. Perhaps Obama is a closeted Republican himself.

The use of depleted uranium was justified by an American Ambassador’s statement asserting that, “The environmental and long-term health effects of the use of depleted uranium munitions have been thoroughly investigated by the World Health Organization, the United Nations Environmental Program, the International Atomic Energy Agency, NATO, the Centres for Disease Control, the European Commission, and others. None of these inquiries has documented long-term environmental or health effects attributable to use of these munitions.”

However, according to Al Jazeera’s Dahr Jamail, on 15 March 2013: "Official Iraqi government statistics show that, prior to the outbreak of the First Gulf War in 1991, the rate of cancer cases in Iraq was 40 out of 100,000 people. By 1995, it had increased to 800 out of 100,000 people, and, by 2005, it had doubled to at least 1,600 out of 100,000 people. Current estimates show the increasing trend continuing. As shocking as these statistics are, due to a lack of adequate documentation, research, and reporting of cases, the actual rate of cancer and other diseases is likely to be much higher than even these figures suggest.” If those figures are accurate, then the reasonable presumption would be that depleted uranium should have been banned long ago. Continuing to assert that it’s not as dangerous a material as people think it is, seems likely to be based on cover-up, rather than on science. Until there is proof that it’s not that toxic, the presumption should be that it must be outlawed.

Finally, though the press reports on this document have not generally focused on the issue of torture, it’s worth pointing out what the document does say, about that:

“5.26.2 Information Gathering. The employment of measures necessary for obtaining information about the enemy and their country is considered permissible.727
Information gathering measures, however, may not violate specific law of war rules.728
For example, it would be unlawful, of course, to use torture or abuse to interrogate detainees for purposes of gathering information.”

And: “9.8.1 Humane Treatment During Interrogation. Interrogation must be carried out in a manner consistent with the requirements for humane treatment, including the prohibition against acts of violence or intimidation, and insults.153
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on POWs to secure from them information of any kind whatever.154 POWs who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.155
Prohibited means include imposing inhumane conditions,156 denial of medical treatment, or the use of mind-altering chemicals.157”

Those provisions would eliminate George W. Bush’s ‘justification’ for the use of tortures such as waterboarding, and humiliation.

Furthermore: “8.2.1 Protection Against Violence, Torture, and Cruel Treatment. Detainees must be protected against violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, torture, and any form of corporal punishment.29” 

Therefore, even if Bush’s approved forms of torture were otherwise allowable under Obama’s new legal regime, some of those forms, such as waterboarding, and even “insults,” would be excluded by this provision.

Moreover: “8.2.4 Threats to Commit Inhumane Treatment. Threats to commit the unlawful acts described above (i.e., violence against detainees, or humiliating or degrading treatment, or biological or medical experiments) are also prohibited.37”

And: “8.14.4.1 U.S. Policy Prohibiting Transfers in Cases in Which Detainees Would Likely Be Tortured. U.S. policy provides that no person shall be transferred to another State if it is more likely than not that the person would be tortured in the receiving country.”

Therefore, specifically as regards torture, the Obama system emphatically and clearly excludes what the Bush interpretation of the U.S. Army Field Manual  allowed.

CONCLUSIONS:

What seems undeniable about the Law of War Manual, is that there are self-contradictions within it. To assert that it "reads like it was written by Hitler's Ministry of War,” is going too far. But, to say that it’s hypocritical (except, perhaps, on torture, where it’s clearly a repudiation of GWB’s practices), seems safely true.

This being so, Obama’s Law of War Manual  should ultimately be judged by Obama’s actions as the U.S. Commander in Chief, and not merely by the document’s words. Actions speak truer than words, even if they don’t speak louder than words (and plenty of people still think that Obama isn’t a Republican in ‘Democratic’ verbal garb: they’re not tone-deaf, but they surely are action-deaf; lots of people judge by words not actions). For example: it was Obama himself who arranged the bloody coup in Ukraine and the resulting necessary ethnic cleansing there in order to exterminate or else drive out the residents in the area of Ukraine that had voted 90+% for the Ukrainian President whom Obama’s people (via their Ukrainian agents) had overthrown. Cluster bombs, firebombs, and other such munitions have been used by their stooges for this purpose, that ethnic cleansing: against the residents there. Obama has spoken publicly many times defending what they are doing, but using euphemisms to refer to it. He is certainly behind the coup and its follow-through in the ethnic cleansing, and none of it would be happening if he did not approve of it. Judging the mere words of Obama’s Law of War Manual  by Obama’s actions (such as in Ukraine, but also Syria, and Libya) is judging it by how he actually interprets it, and this technique of interpreting the document provides the answer to the document’s real meaning. It answers the question whenever there are contradictions within the document (as there indeed are).

Consequently, what Francis Boyle was reported to have said is, in the final analysis, true, at least in practical terms — which is all that really counts — except on torture, where his allegation is simply false.

Obama’s intent, like that of anyone, must be drawn from his actions, his decisons, not from his words, whenever the words and the actions don’t jibe, don’t match. When his Administration produced its Law of War Manual, it should be interpreted to mean what his Administration has done and is doing, not by its words, wherever there is a contradiction between those two.

This also means that no matter how much one reads the document itself, some of what one is reading is deception if it’s not being interpreted by, and in the light of, an even more careful reading of Obama’s relevant actions regarding the matters to which the document pertains.

Otherwise, the document is being read in a way that confuses its policy statements with its propaganda statements.

Parts of the document are propaganda. The purpose isn’t to fool the public, who won’t read the document. The purpose of the propaganda is to enable future presidents to say, “But if you will look at this part of the Manual, you will see that what we are doing is perfectly legal.” Those mutually contradictory passages are there in order to provide answers which will satisfy both  the ‘hawks’ and  the ‘doves.’

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 08/18/2015 - 20:03 | 6441456 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

First rule:  "I will only kick you in the nuts if I need to in order to win."

Second rule:  "you can never kick me in the nuts."

Now let's fight.

 

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 20:32 | 6441557 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

End this War

ENDLESS WAR

 

Remember all the "liberals" running around with this bumper sticker on their cars when W was president?  Now?  Crickets.......

Both parties think war is good.  And its going to be ENDLESS.....until the nukes fly.

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 20:39 | 6441602 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Both parties have been brainwashed into believing that there is an ever-present enemy bent on destroying us.  We have met the enemy. 

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 20:50 | 6441656 Eirik Magnus Larssen
Eirik Magnus Larssen's picture

And (s)he's yourselves.

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 21:00 | 6441689 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Hey, is that black dude eating that white baby?*

*stole this from another ZH post today.  Can't remember the credit, sorry.  And sorry for the cheap shot, but it was fucking funny.

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 21:06 | 6441714 0b1knob
0b1knob's picture

Any article that violates Godwin's law in the title isn't worth reading.

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 21:23 | 6441797 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

I think it's hillarious the amount of denial that whites are steeped in these days. As if there wasn't an a clear agenda being pushed by the progressive left to reduce the whites into nothing.

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 21:34 | 6441847 Richard Chesler
Richard Chesler's picture

Dude, at least Hitler recognized the future of humanity depended on exterminating jew banksters.

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 22:20 | 6442094 GRDguy
GRDguy's picture

Yeah, Hitler bit the (banksters) hand who financed him.  Ordinary Jews (not Zionists) should focus on cleaning out the financial sociopaths in their own house.  Madoff and Corzine took down a bunch of brothers when they failed; so will the banksters.  Of course, the cleaning will never happen. The banksters know just whose hands to grease so their flocks will follow.  

A good man once said "the truth will set you free". They replied "We are not slaves," and then they crucified him. There was no need to deify the good man, but there was just sooo much money in it, so they did.  Too bad.  It kept other good men from pointing out the sociopath who they still claim to follow.  Perhaps that was the point.  Really don't care what folks believe, but I draw the line at lyin'-to, stealin'-from and killin' anyone who doesn't believe their story (a polite word for lie.)

Wed, 08/19/2015 - 06:57 | 6442836 Perimetr
Perimetr's picture

Hitlerian=Hillarian?

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 20:52 | 6441662 max2205
max2205's picture

When the shooting starts, the rules go out the window 

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 21:07 | 6441719 Chupacabra-322
Chupacabra-322's picture

Oh yea, and best be sure any Costume wearing Pure Evil Psychopath will be zeroed in on & in cross hairs.

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 21:26 | 6441805 Nolde Huruska
Nolde Huruska's picture

The military should fire all the lawyers and buy more bullets with the money they save.

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 20:05 | 6441468 TeamDepends
TeamDepends's picture

Not really, more like Satanic.

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 20:18 | 6441514 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

The party controlling civilians and civilian objects

Presumption: when we're at "war", we get to control civilians.  See?

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 21:12 | 6441747 Chupacabra-322
Chupacabra-322's picture

@ Team,

Check out this monstrosity of a lie:

6.5.2 Other Examples of Lawful Weapons. In particular, aside from the rules prohibiting weapons calculated to cause superfluous injury and inherently indiscriminate weapons,46 there are no law of war rules specifically prohibiting or restricting the following types of weapons by the U.S. armed forces: …
• depleted uranium munitions;51”

Yea you Fuckimg heartless Psycho's. Tell that to the innocent women & childre of Iraq & Palisrine.

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 20:06 | 6441471 QQQBall
QQQBall's picture

Hitlerian  - you mean Hitler or Hitlary?

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 20:13 | 6441492 Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

Two points to draw attention away from paid MSM whores. 

17Aug/Valuation Controller (100%)

17.08.15
The BIS seeks a Valuation Controller (100%) for the BIS headquarters in Basel, Switzerland. Fixed-term for 3 years. Application deadline: 14 September 2015

Point Two

17Aug/BIS effective exchange rate indices

17.08.15
Effective exchange rate (EER) indices for a total of 61 economies: data starting from 1964/1994

 

 

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 20:17 | 6441509 robobbob
robobbob's picture

I'ld give this author more credibility if he stopped playing that gop/dnc left right farce. there is one shadow government. only those who submit to it are allowed to be elected. and it answers to the its masters, the mic and the finacial cartel

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 20:17 | 6441510 Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

Mommy, can you hold me, I'm not scared of this fraudulent United States of America Government. 

That negro needs to back to Kenya. 

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 20:18 | 6441516 monad
monad's picture

Hey, guess what tylers. This content is shit.

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 20:45 | 6441632 Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

Kiss your EBT Card away. Work or be deported to Cuba. Gitmo is down the street 

http://www.militaryinstallations.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:0::...

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 20:53 | 6441526 Save_America1st
Save_America1st's picture

well...kinda makes sense, since after WWII we brought over a shit-ton of NAZI's and let them infiltrate all levels of government and business.  Now the country is crawling with fucked up Socialists, Marxists, Left-tards, Neo-Cons, sociopaths, psychos, traitors, and worst of all: Kardashitards.

You'd think that it couldn't get much more fucked up at this point....but they're all trying really hard, Ringo....they're trying reeeeaaally hard...

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 20:25 | 6441544 Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

Dear MSM, we need more Tranny shit and pigs speaking under Hillary Clinton platform. 

Fuck off fifth columnist.

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 20:32 | 6441563 runswithscissors
runswithscissors's picture

when it comes to fighting against US imperial federal troops or UN invaders...Patriots will NOT follow any pointless "rules of engagement"  KILL THEM ALL!

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 20:36 | 6441584 g speed
g speed's picture

fucking lawyer bullshit---

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 20:41 | 6441588 e_goldstein
e_goldstein's picture

Hitlerious.

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 21:00 | 6441685 SameAsItEverWas
SameAsItEverWas's picture

 PREFACE

This manual is a Department of Defense (DoD)-wide resource for DoD personnel –

including commanders, legal practitioners, and other military and civilian personnel – on the law

of war.

This manual has many distinguished antecedents that have provided important guidance

to the U.S. Armed Forces. For example, General Order No. 100, the Instructions for the

Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, commonly known as the Lieber Code,

was prepared by Professor Francis Lieber and approved by President Abraham Lincoln during

the Civil War in 1863.

1

A similar code related to naval warfare titled The Law and Usages of

War at Sea: A Naval War Code was prepared by then-Captain Charles H. Stockton and

approved by President William McKinley in 1900.

2

The War Department published instructions

for the armed land forces of the United States in a 1914 manual titled Rules of Land Warfare,

which was updated in 1917, 1934, and 1940.

3

After World War II, in connection with U.S. ratification of the 1949 Geneva

Conventions, the Department of the Navy published Naval Warfare Information Publication 10-

2, Law of Naval Warfare, in 1955,

4

and the Department of the Army published Field Manual 27-

10, The Law of Land Warfare, in 1956, which was updated in 1976.

5

The Department of the

Army also published pamphlets on international law applicable in peace and war in the 1960s,

and, in 1979, an updated version of the pamphlet on the law of peace.

6

The Department of the

Air Force published in 1976 Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of

Armed Conflict and Air Operations, which was updated in 1980.

7

More recently, the Judge

Advocate General of the Air Force’s School has published a manual titled Air Force Operations

and the Law in 2002, with new editions in 2009 and 2014.

8

 

The Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast

Guard have published several editions of The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval

Operations starting in 1987 and most recently in 2007.

9

Helpful annotated supplements have

also been published.

10

 

 

 

In addition to these major publications, DoD components have produced many other

publications that have supported DoD lawyers in giving advice on the law of war. For example,

since 1895, the Naval War College has published its International Law Studies journal.

11

The

Judge Advocate General of the Army’s Legal Center & School has published many editions of a

Law of Armed Conflict Deskbook, a Law of Armed Conflict Documentary Supplement, and an

Operational Law Handbook.

12

The preparation of this manual also has benefited greatly from consulting foreign experts

and resources – for example, the 2004 edition of the Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict by

United Kingdom Ministry of Defence.

13

In this way, the preparation of this manual is no

different from its predecessors. For example, the 1956 Army Field manual benefited from

considering a draft of what ultimately became the 1958 United Kingdom law of war manual, and

the preparation of the 1914 War Department manual benefited from the Rules of Land Warfare

prepared by officers of the English Army and Professor Lassa Oppenheim.

14

The law of war

manuals of Germany, Australia, and Canada were also helpful resources in the preparation of this

manual.

15

The preparation of this manual has also benefited from the participation of officers from

the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force and the Australian Royal Air Force on exchange

assignments with the U.S. Air Force. In addition, military lawyers from Canada, the United

Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia reviewed and commented on a draft of the manual in

2009 as part of review that also included comments from distinguished scholars.

Promulgating a DoD-wide manual on the law of war has been a long-standing goal of

DoD lawyers. Memoranda and meeting notes from the 1970s reflect that the international law

offices of the Department of the Army’s Office of the Judge Advocate General and the

Department of the Navy’s Office of the Judge Advocate General generally agreed on a concept

plan for a new all-Services law of war manual that would be a resource for implementing the

1977 Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

16

At the time, it was anticipated

that the United States would ratify the Protocols, which has not occurred.

The origin of this manual may be traced to work in the late 1980s to update Department

of the Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare.

17

Then, in the mid-1990s, work

began on an all-Services law of war manual to reflect the views of all DoD components. It was

envisioned that the manual would provide not only the black letter rules, but also discussion,

examples of State practice, and references to past manuals, treatises, and other documents to

provide explanation, clarification, and elaboration. The present manual has sought to realize that

vision and thus it falls within the tradition of the 1914 War Department manual, as well as the

1989 and 1997 Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, which also adopted

this general approach of an annotated manual.

This manual is an institutional publication and reflects the views of the Department of

Defense, rather than the views of any particular person or DoD component. An effort has been

made to reflect in this manual sound legal positions based on relevant authoritative sources of the

law, including as developed by the DoD or the U.S. Government under such sources, and to

show in the cited sources the past practice of DoD or the United States in applying the law of

war.

This manual primarily has been prepared by the DoD Law of War Working Group, which

is chaired by a representative of the DoD General Counsel and includes representatives of the

Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Staff Judge Advocate to the

Commandant of the Marine Corps; the offices of the General Counsels of the Military

Departments; and the Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

18 This manual

has been reviewed by principals of these offices. The preparation of this manual has also

benefited significantly from the participation of experts from the Department of State, Office of

the Legal Adviser, and the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, although the views in

this manual do not necessarily reflect the views of those Departments or the U.S. Government as

a whole.

Comments and suggestions from users of the DoD Law of War Manual are invited. All

such correspondence should be addressed by email to:

osd.pentagon.ogc.mbx.ia-law-of-war-manual-comments@mail.mil

 

.

18

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 21:05 | 6441712 Chupacabra-322
Chupacabra-322's picture

• Civilians must not be made the object of attack;17
• Military objectives may not be attacked when the expected incidental loss of life and injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained;18
• Civilians must not be used as shields or as hostages;19 and
• Measures of intimidation or terrorism against the civilian population are prohibited, including acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.20"

Let's break it down shall we?:
False Flags / Sandy Hoax / Boston Bombing
JADE HELM
FEMA Camps
Torture
Militarizied Police
Sting Ray / Illegal NSA Spying

Yep, they're Pure Evil Criminal Fraud UNIED STATES, CORP. INC. Psychopaths hell bent on Total Complete Full Spectrum World Domination.

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 21:12 | 6441744 DuneCreature
DuneCreature's picture

AND the orders to do all of the above will come from an AI super computer NOT a flesh and blood four star general.

Try court marshalling that thing's ass.

~ DC

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 21:22 | 6441789 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Washington DC and it's collection of Zionists, Neoconservatives, Imperialists and Corporate War profiteers. Their agenda has little to do with defense of the homeland, the American people or the free world. Instead, they seek an expansive Washington based world empire. Whoever seeks to deny that, has to explain a lot of historical fact over the last 50+ years, especially the last 15!

I live out in the heart land of America, I hear little by way of desire to rule the world or start another war. But the people are very pliable. They can easily be driven to war by the media and patriotic military men. If a uniformed Marine tells the average American that someone out there needs to be defeated, most Americans dare not question military authority. Most people I know, wouldn't dare NOT take the word of a uniformed ranking officer.

So while we don't demand empire and war, we are very happy to accept it, as long as a good old US soldier sells it to us.

Wed, 08/19/2015 - 12:22 | 6444006 Ace Ventura
Ace Ventura's picture

-Most people I know, wouldn't dare NOT take the word of a uniformed ranking officer.-

Most of those folks have probably never served in the military, most likely. Anyone who has served learns fairly quickly that military officers are extensively trained in the art of bullshit. Then again, that may have just been my experience. I do agree that there are many good-hearted average folks who have been totally captured by the 'hero worship' mentality when it comes to the military.

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 21:42 | 6441867 20834A
20834A's picture

Just FYI: The GITMO detainees were not considered 'prisoners of war'. That was the underlying justification for torure. And if 'they' designate future 'detainees' in the same category, would still be usable under the new manual.

-In 2002, the Bush Administration established that people captured by the U.S. as part of the War on Terror would not be considered “prisoners of war” but instead “enemy combatants.” -

https://guantanamovoices.wordpress.com/about/

 

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed by Congress on Jan. 3, 2006 and signed into law by President Bush on Oct. 17, 2006, stated:
"The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is:
  1. a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
  2. a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
  3. a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means:

  1. a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
  2. a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

 

William J. Haynes II, JD, General Counsel of the US Department of Defense, wrote in a Dec. 12, 2002 memo to the Council on Foreign Relations:
"'Enemy combatant' is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants...Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention.

The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention."

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000934

 

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 22:26 | 6442117 gregga777
gregga777's picture

Respecting expanding bullets (hollow point bullets, HP) versus full metal jacket (FMJ) bullets: the purpose behind shooting a person is to stop them from continuing hostile actions. To do that requires depositing the kinetic energy of the bullet into the persons body. That does not happen if the bullet passes through the combatant. In that case, it may be necessary to shoot the person multiple times.

An expanding bullet's increased cross-section creates a larger temporary wound channel and shorter wound path, causes increased hydraulic fluid drag, prevents over-penetration and deposits the greatest kinetic energy into the target combatant. Over-penetration by full metal jacket (FMJ) bullets can present a danger to other persons besides lawful combatants.

The entire idea behind expanding bullets is to stop the combatant with the first shot by making the target combatant absorb the full kinetic energy of the bullet. It's not to create superfluous wounds or even to kill. It's to cause the combatant to become hors de combat.

Modern small arms since the advent of nitrocellulose (smokeless) powder have primarily been smaller in caliber, of much higher velocity and use pointed 'Spitzer' bullets versus their black powder small arm predecessors. The large caliber (.58 caliber lead round ball or conical lead Minié bullets), heavy (500 grain versus the 5.56 mm 55-grain FMJ), low-velocity (<1000 feet per second versus 5.56 mm ~3000 fps) bullets of US Civil War Model 1861 Springfield rifle-muskets produced horrendous wounds. Whereas small-caliber, high-velocity Spitzer bullets frequently ricochet from bone, the large-caliber, low-velocity bullets of Civil War muskets and rifles generally shattered bones resulting in ghastly rates of amputee of limbs.

Wed, 08/19/2015 - 09:49 | 6443309 SameAsItEverWas
SameAsItEverWas's picture

I use (MUCH CHEAPER) jacketed rounds for tthan any other arget practice at the range and (MORE EXPENSIVE) expanding rounds in a gun I might or might not be able to  use in self defense.

Most anyone else with a brain would do the same.  Especially so with a 9 mm.

Most of you all don't live in a place where gun possession is allowed and much of the comments seem to be from the under-21 crowd who can't legally own handguns (but could be in the military).

It's not a very easy decision when I think about what kind of round would I carry if I were to open carry.  OK.  A gun in a car here is treated same as gun in a home so for bringiing a gun wwith me in a car I'd use self-defense rounds.  But if I were to go out in daytime openly open carrying I'd use a quality jacketed round.  The decision is completely irrational, but since I live in a world populated by psychotics and journalists are probably more uniformly psychotic than most other professions I'd opt for the LESS CONTROVERSIAL choice because open-carry would expose me to very strict scrutiny, first by cops on the street and then hopefully nobody else.

Tue, 08/18/2015 - 23:32 | 6442327 Omega_Man
Omega_Man's picture

didn't see gas chambers in there... oh forgot, there weren't any in germany either...

Wed, 08/19/2015 - 03:38 | 6442686 quasi_verbatim
quasi_verbatim's picture

Pentagonia siegt an allen Fronten.

Wed, 08/19/2015 - 07:32 | 6442924 22winmag
22winmag's picture

Auslanders raus!

Wed, 08/19/2015 - 08:56 | 6443168 Billy Sol Estes
Billy Sol Estes's picture

This country sucks, what else do you need to know?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!