On 4 May 2004 14:39:30 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Peter H Proctor wrote in message . ..

True, torture may be wrong, but unless the combatants qualify
as POW's, the Geneva conventions don't hold for them, although other
international conventions may. Thus, e.g., you can still shoot
spies.

Since torture is wrong, it doesn't matter if the Geneva Conventions
for POWs or civilians apply or not.

It does cound if you are citing the Geneva Conventions, since these
are only applicable to real POWs.

Consider the Nurenberg trials--
criminals were executed for crimes which violated no statute
or treaty. Rightly so, IMHO, they were tried and executed under
common law.

Quibble, common law never included the ancient sport of
"waging offensive warfare". True, the Nazis pretty much deserved
what they got.

However, the prosecution of Japanes generals generated some
scary precedents. For example, following the precident set by the
prosecution of General Yama****a, an area commander is responsible
for any abuses committed by the troops in his area, even if they are
not under his control and even if he has proved his reluctance to
commit atrocities.

I also support the doctrine of command responsibility. While there
are, as of yet, only rumors that the abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan
were ordered, there are accusations that the responsible officers
took no action to prevent the abuses, which leaves those officers
without a defense. Further, the public sentiments toward prisoners
expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld, clearly fostered the abuses that
have been publicised during the last two years.

Google "Yama****a" and "Manila". Set a scary precident.

Summary execution of suspected spies has been explicitley outlawed
since at least the 1907 Hague conventions.

Not true. E.g., some German sabateurs were executed in WW2. If
you mean, you have to try them in a military court before execution,
this is correct.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5038963

I might be inclined to suppose that the soldier might not have
intended to kill the prisoner, but for now accept the use of
'murder' by Reuters.

Depends of the circumstances. E.g., supposed prisoners in Afganistan
revolted and killed severl US soldiers.

And yes, prisoners are supposed to get some sort of hearing
to determine their POW status.

More than 'some sort'. The word 'competent', a legal term of
art, is used. Tribunals established by Presidential decree
would fail the competency test since the US Constitution
empowers the Congress to establish courts not the President
and past USSC cases have held that the Congress cannot delegate
authority to the President, when that authority is original
to the Congress in the Constitution.

Actually, it can be a military tribunal.

PHP