The notorious "Commando Order" was one of the major indictments of the Nurenberg Trial (see "The Anatomy of the Nurenberg Trials" pp 252-254 by Nurenberg prosecutor Telford Taylor). Numerous other war crimes trials also ensued. Some of those who carried out AND those who issued such orders were executed - by American war crimes tribunals. Others were condemned for simply acting as a conduit, transmitting such a heinous order. [As a footnote, people may remember that the sole charge against Kurt Waldheim was that, as a Lieutenant at a military headquarters, he simply re-transmitted such orders regarding British Commandos and Yugoslav partisans (he was not arrested in the post-war turmoil).]
Paul
I wrote:
>Here one risks belaboring the obvious but...
>In the absence of any international courts to provide rulings and given
>the amorality in certain legal circles this kind of nonsense was inevitable.
>
>Yoo's states that the Geneva conventions only apply under a set of very
>narrow circumstances: war between signatory recognized states, wearing
>uniforms, following the "rules of war". This is a flat out lie, easily
>shown by almost a century of legal findings *by the US government*. Did
>NLF wear uniforms in Vietnam? (was even N. Vietnam a recognized state?)
>Did the Nazis follow the "rules of war"? Why did we insist the Soviets
>were obliged by the Geneva Conventions when THEY fought the Taliban's
>precursor? The list goes on and on.
>
>Perhaps it is just best to remind ordinary Americans of one litmus
>test. In Hollywood's WWII films it was always the Nazis who said the
>Geneva Conventions didn't apply; the good guys always stuck up for
>them. Maybe that should be the point of nostalgia after D-Day and
>before we get to the commemorations next May of the end of WWII.
>
>Paul