[lbo-talk] Re: John Yoo article - postscript

Paul paul_ at igc.org
Fri Jun 11 11:57:27 PDT 2004


This still gnaws at me. People should be aware that Adolf Hitler issued a similar order for the execution of Allied Commandos (who operated outside of the established chain of command, as Yoo points out) and against partisans (who, according to Yoo fulfill NONE of the criteria for Geneva protection).

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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list