Alt+left-arrow to return from a link
U.S.-Israel aggressive war
U.S.-Israel war on Gaza, Palestine, Lebanon:
Blockade, targeting, capture, self-defense, reprisals
by Charles Judson Harwood Jr.
What you don’t see on TV, hear on the radio, or read in the corporate press:
Blockade
Condoleezza Rice (U.S. National Security Advisor), interviewed by Margaret Warner, “Rice on Iraq, War, and Politics” (PBS: Public Broadcasting Service, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, September 25 2002, 7:00 p.m.), video bb {17:15 bb}, audio {16:51, at 10:49}.
• Bombing Iran's IAEA safe-guarded nuclear facilities
• Palestine Peace Not Apartheid
• Colony settlements
• The Israel Lobby
• Blockade, reprisals
• Silver bullet
• Iran uranium timeline
• Iraq wmd war timeline: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005-2006, 2007-2008
• Congress debates, votes
As shown in the timeline (which I haven’t yet done):
U.S. officials promptly allied with Israel.
And attacked Gaza.
And the rest of Palestine.
With a quarantine and blockade.
In response the election of the Hamas government in Palestine (January 2006).
Universally recognized to be a free and fair democratic election.
In addition to inciting other countries to join this blockade, U.S. officials threatened to punish foreign banks, who transferred money to the Hamas government.
For example, money donated by foreigners, in foreign countries, and by foreign countries themselves.
Their war-aim was to overthrow the democratically elected government of Palestine.
This U.S. offensive war on Gaza, and the rest of Palestine, was not voted on by the U.S. Congress.
As the U.S. constitution requires.
It was planned, initiated, and launched, by the U.S. president and the rest of his cabal.
In the service of the Israel-Jew Lobby.
(There is no Israel-Arab Lobby. Israeli Palestinians are second class citizens, in their racist Jewish State).
But had it been submitted to a vote, Congress would likely have agreed to it.
Because virtually the whole of the political elites, in the U.S., both political parties, support the agenda of the Israel-Jew Lobby and the Israeli regime.
Zionism.
An aggressive political apartheid ideology.
Pursuing conquest.
By force.
Of their neighbors’ lands and resources.
Ethnic cleansing of non-Jews from their midst.
And permanent subjugation of their neighbors.
Corraled into ghettos.
Open prisons.
On waste land.
The Israeli regime doesn’t want.
And, because they are justly hated, by their neighbors, on account of their aggression, the Israeli regime pursues a particular military strategy.
The same one the U.S. regime pursues.
Which is likewise hated.
And for much the same reasons.
“They hate us.
Therefore they are a threat.
Which must be dealt with.”
In the case of the U.S. this takes the form of “forward basing.”
With this slogan:
“Fight them over there.
So we don’t have to fight them over here.”
In the case of Israel, this takes the form of a concrete wall.
Constructed on their neighbor’s lands.
And buffer zones.
Also beyond their borders.
Occupation of the West Bank (their neighbors’ land), to the Jordan river, in the east.
A naval blockade of Gaza, in the west.
Occupation of Syria and Lebanon, their territory, in the north (Golan Heights, Shaba Farms).
And now, recently, a 15 mile deep buffer zone, inside Lebanon, in the north.
Which the Israeli regime sterilized.
Against human habitation.
As best they could.
They destroyed all housing, all infrastructure, all vehicles, and, in the final two days, sowed the whole area with land mines, a million {copy} anti-personnel cluster bomblets.
All of the above, prima facie war crimes.
On a breathtaking scale.
For which, justice requires, the Israeli Deck of Cards, be apprehended, and delivered for trial, before an international criminal tribunal.
The cluster bombs, prima facie criminal munitions (when used in an area not exlusively military), were supplied to Israel by their co-belligerent, the U.S.
The U.S. also resupplied Israel with other munitions, during the course of the U.S.-Israel war on Lebanon, an act of war by a belligerent.
During the course of the U.S.-Israel war on Lebanon, and in response to that attack, Hezbullah launched thousands of Katusha rockets, into Israel. These munitions cannot be further targeted, once in flight.
Israel claimed its attacks in Lebanon were justified.
In self-defense.
Against these rockets.
Which Hezbullah launched, in self-defense, against the Israeli military, and as reprisals, against Israeli civilians, for Israeli targeting of civilians, and civilian objects, in Lebanon.
Prior to this war, Hezbullah launched 10 rockets (according to an Israeli military talker, I heard on the radio) into Israel, over the years, since Israel’s withdrawal from most (but not all) of Lebanon.
Presumably these 10 rockets were launched as a reprisal, for something Israel did.
But, at present, I do not know Hezbullah’s asserted reasons for launching these 10 rockets, or what damage they caused, if any (if they’re not fictional).
This second offensive war by the U.S., this time on Lebanon, was likewise once against launched by the U.S. president, and his cabal.
In violation of the U.S. constitution.
Without a vote in Congress.
And once again, had there been a vote, Congress would likely have agreed.
Because that’s what the Israel-Jew Lobby.
And the Israel regime.
Wanted to do.
The U.S. Axis partner.
The Axis Powers are now working to enleague the United Nations, to supply a military force, into the buffer zone, to defend the Israel aggressors, from a future attack, from the north, by Hezbullah, a Lebanese citizen militia, supported financially from international sources, Arabs in other lands and, apparently, the government of Iran.
This would be identical, for example, to Adolph Hitler, arranging with the League of Nations, to supply an international force, south of Paris, to protect his forces from attack, by the French Resistance.
If it is lawful for Hezbullah to attack Israel.
Then it is lawful for Hezbullah to attack international forces protecting Israel.
In Gaza — choked and strangled by the U.S.-Israel offensive war by blockade and quarantine — Palestinian fighters made a dramatic raid, on an Israeli military post (June 25 2006).
They tunneled under the border.
Killed two Israeli soldiers.
And captured one (Gilad Shalit).
With the aim of swapping their prisoner, to free a few hundred Palestinian women and children, held by Israel, as civilian detainees.
A tiny percentage of the 10,000 Palestinians detained in prisons by Israel, few of them charged with any offense.
Israel’s Guantanamo Bay.
This was a perfectly lawful attack.
By the Gaza fighters.
Under the laws of war.
The Israeli regime.
And the Israel-Jew Lobby, in the U.S.
Promptly, and hysterically.
(Their normal decibel level).
Labeled this lawful attack “terrorism.”
And the U.S. president, and his cabal, and the U.S. press (also in thrall to the Israel-Jew Lobby), endorsed this propaganda as fact.
Thereby preempting any rational public analysis.
Of law and justice.
And, especially, any public discourse, about the offensive, aggressive, war by the U.S. and Israel, on Gaza and the rest of Palestine.
And their prima facie criminal war-aim (to overthrow the democratically elected Hamas government).
Israel then escalated its offensive war on Gaza, with a severe military attack, targeting “civilian objects” (a war crime), the Gaza infrastructure.
Claiming, they acted in self-defense.
Hezbullah soon staged a similar raid, attacking an Israeli military post, inside Israel, on the Lebanon border (July 12 2006).
Killing three Israeli soldiers and capturing two.
With a similar aim, to exchange their two prisoners, this time for Lebanese citizens, long held as prisoners by Israel.
Dating from Israeli’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
Hezbullah did not mention, as I recollect, that this attack was also in the collective defense of the Palestinians, then victims of the offensive U.S.-Israel war.
Attacking Israel from the north, or from any direction, for the purpose of assisting the Palestinian victims of the U.S.-Israel offensive war, is the continuing prima facie lawful right of all nations in the world.
As is attacking Israel with the war-aim of driving Israel back inside its borders, freeing the Palestinian occupied territories, freeing the 10,000 Palestinian detainees, and apprehending the Israeli civilian and military leaders, to stand trial, for their 40 years of prima facie crimes.
All nations (such as Iran) also have the prima facie lawful right, to provide money and arms, to local groups, like Hezbullah, who are courageous enough to attack Israel.
Once again, Israel asserted that its massive assault on Lebanon was—
Self-defense.
And, once again, nearly all nations of the world.
Endorsed this faulty analysis.
Israel has been illegally occupying Palestinian territory.
For 40 years.
An “aggression.”
Slowly, Israel has stolen the land they occupy (a war crime).
And the water (a war crime).
In recent decades, during the Reagan-Bush-Bush regimes, with no apparent opposition from the intervening Clinton regime, Israel has escalated their armed robbery.
Exporting 450,000 Israeli settlers (a war-crime).
To colonize their neighbors’ land.
In new settlements.
Paid for, facilitated, aided and abetted.
By U.S. taxpayers.
Exactly as Adolph Hitler did, in Poland.
Confiscating farms.
On his neighbor’s land.
Ousting their owners.
And delivering the stolen farms to German settlers.
Like Israel, Adolf Hitler also claimed the same.
His nation, too, needed living room (Lebensraum).
Israel escalated their violent military oppression.
Of the occupied peoples of Palestine.
During these recent decades.
An “aggression.”
To quell their agitation.
At the crimes against them.
By their military occupier.
This, in self-defense.
Israel claims.
To defend their aggression.
________________
Self defense
Ministries {page 333}:
Defending aggression
{p.333} It brought ruin to Germany
and a world-wide distrust
in the ability of its people
to govern themselves
as a peace-loving, and useful, nation.
Because of this record, the road back is long, and arduous, and beset with difficulty.
The attempt, which has been made to create the fiction and fable that the Third Reich acted in self-defense and was justified in its acts toward its neighbors, has no foundation and is, in fact, a disservice to the German people.
* * *
{p.334} The defense insists that the invasion of Norway was justified because of French and British plans to land expeditionary forces there, in violation of Norwegian neutrality, and, therefore, Germany acted in self-defense.
We may repeat the statement that having initiated aggressive wars, which brought England and France to the aid of the Poles, Germany forfeited the right to claim self-defense, but there are other and cogent facts which make this defense unavailable.
Long before the discovery of alleged British and French plans, and before any such plans existed, the Third Reich commenced to support and subsidize Quisling and his movement for the purpose of gaining control of the Norwegian Government and therefore of Norway.
* * *
{p.335} The German excuse for the attack on Greece is that England had landed certain troop elements in aid of Greece’s defense against Italy and that as a matter of self-defense Germany was compelled to intervene, but an aggressor may not loose the dogs-of-war and thereafter plead self-defense.
The only justification offered for the German invasion of Yugoslavia is the coup d’état which overthrew the government which had signed the Anti-Comintern Pact, and the fear that Yugoslavia would remain neutral only until such time as it might join the ranks of Germany’s enemies.
* * *
We think there is no doubt whatsoever that every country in Europe except {p.336} its Axis partners hoped for German defeat as the one insurance for its own safety, but such hopes cannot justify the German action against them.
The claim of self-defense is without merit.
That doctrine is never available either to individuals or nations who are aggressors.
The robber, or the murderer cannot claim self-defense, in attacking the police to avoid arrest or those who, he fears, disapprove of his criminal conduct and hope that he will be apprehended and brought to justice.
The invasion of Austria, the invasion of Bohemia and Moravia, and the attack on Poland were in violation of international law.
And, in each case, by resorting to armed force, Germany violated the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
It thereby became an international outlaw and every peaceable nation had the right to oppose it without itself becoming an aggressor, to help the attacked and join with those who had previously come to the aid of the victim.
The doctrine of self-defense and military necessity was never available to Germany as a matter of international law, in view of its prior violations of that law.
That the United States abandoned a neutral attitude toward Germany, long before Germany declared war, is without question.
It hoped for Germany’s defeat, gave aid and support to Great Britain and to the governments of the countries which Germany had overrun.
Its entire course of conduct, for over a year before December 11 1941, was wholly inconsistent with neutrality and that it had no intention of permitting Germany’s victory, even though this led to hostilities, became increasingly apparent.
However, in so doing, the United States did not become an aggressor; it was acting within its international rights in hampering and hindering with the intention of insuring the defeat of the nation which had wrongfully, without excuse, and in violation of its treaties and obligations embarked on a coldly calculated program of aggression and war.
But such intent, purpose, and action does not remove the aggressive character of the German declaration of war of December 11 1941 {on the U.S.}.
A nation which engages in aggressive war
invites the other nations of the world
to take measures, including force,
to halt the invasion and to punish the aggressor,
and if by reason thereof
the aggressor declares war on a third nation,
the original aggression carries-over and give the character of aggression to the second, and succeeding, wars.
We hold that the invasions and wars
described in paragraph 2 of the indictment against Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the United Kingdom and France, Denmark and Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, Yugoslavia and Greece, {p.337} the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United States of America
were unlawful and aggressive, violated international law, and were crimes within the definition of the London Charter and Control Council Law No. 10.
Our task is to determine which, if any, of the defendants, knowing there was an intent to so initiate, and wage, aggressive war, consciously participated in either plans, preparations, initiations of those wars, or — so knowing, participated, or aided in carrying them on.
* * *
{p.342} Planning, preparing, initiating, or waging aggressive war with its attendant horror, suffering, and loss is a crime which stands at the pinnacle of criminality. For it, there is no justification, or excuse.
• The Ministries Case, 14 N.M.T. 308-942 (opinion), at 333-337, 342 (paragraphing, boldface, added) (U.S. Military Tribunal 4, Nürnberg Germany, trial, 6 January – November 18 1948, judgment, April 11-13 1949), volumes 12-14, Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 (“Nuernberg, October 1946–April 1949”) (15 volumes, U.S. GPO, Washington D.C., 1949-1953) (“the green series”) {SuDoc: D 102.8, ditto, LCCN: 49045929, 97071903, OCLC: 12799641, UC, WorldCat}, posted by the U.S. Library of Congress on January 31 2008: volume 12 {60.8mb.pdf, source}, volume 13 {49.6mb.pdf}, volume 14 {56.6mb.pdf}.
–CJHjr
________________
Reprisals
Palestinian suicide bombers, targeting Israeli civilians.
Kassam rockets, launched from Gaza, targeting a nearby town in Israel.
These attacks, targeting Israeli civilians.
Are they “terrorism”?
As U.S./Israeli officials endlessly assert?
Or, instead, are they lawful?
Lawful, law enforcement actions, by long-suffering, patient, victims, of endless, violence by Israel, and its complicit partner, the U.S., endless unlawful targeting, by Israel, killing thousands of Palestinian civilians.
Are they lawful?
Yes.
Is the official, formal, considered, view, of the U.K./U.S. governments.
If Israel’s targeting is unlawful.
Then the Palestinian suicide bombers, and the Kassam rockets, are lawful reprisals, lawful targeting of Israeli civilians, a lawful response to terrorism, by Israel, and by the U.S., Israel’s complicit partner.
To wit:
U.K. {page 420}:
Chapter 16
Enforcement of the Law of Armed Conflict
F. Reprisals
Nature of Reprisals
16.16 Reprisals are extreme measures to enforce compliance with the law of armed conflict by the adverse party. They can involve acts which would normally be illegal, resorted to after the adverse party has itself carried out illegal acts and refused to desist when called upon to do so. They are not retaliatory acts or simple acts of vengeance. Reprisals are, however, an extreme measure of coercion, because in most cases they inflict suffering upon innocent individuals. {p.421}
Nevertheless, in the circumstances of armed conflict, reprisals, or the threat of reprisals, may sometimes provide the only practical means of inducing the adverse party to desist from its unlawful conduct.
Conditions for Reprisal Action
16.17 In order to qualify as a legitimate reprisal, an act must comply with the following conditions when employed:
a. It must be in response to serious and manifestly unlawful acts, committed by an adverse government, its military commanders, or combatants for whom the adversary is responsible. 50
b. It must be for the purpose of compelling the adversary to observe the law of armed conflict. Reprisals serve as an ultimate legal sanction or law enforcement mechanism. Thus, if one party to an armed conflict breaches the law but then expresses regret, declares that it will not be repeated, and takes measures to punish those immediately responsible, then any action taken by another party in response to the original unlawful act cannot be justified as a reprisal.
c. Reasonable notice must be given that reprisals will be taken. What degree of notice is required will depend upon the particular circumstances of the case.
d. The victim of a violation must first exhaust other reasonable means of securing compliance before reprisals can be justified.
e. A reprisal must be directed against the personnel or property of an adversary.
f. A reprisal must be in proportion to the original violation. Whilst a reprisal need not conform in kind to the act complained of, it may not significantly exceed the adverse party’s violation either in degree or effect. Effective but disproportionate acts cannot be justified as reprisals on the basis that only an excessive response will forestall further violations.
g. It must be publicized. Since reprisals are undertaken to induce an adversary’s compliance with the laws of armed conflict, any action taken as a reprisal must be announced as such and publicized so that the adversary is aware of the reason for the otherwise unlawful act and of its own obligation to abide by the law. 51
h. As reprisals entail state responsibility, they must only be authorized at the highest level of government. 52 {p.422}
i. Reprisal action may not be taken or continued after the enemy has ceased to commit the conduct complained of.
Unlawful Reprisals
16.18 Reprisals are never lawful if directed against any of the following:
a. the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked, medical personnel and chaplains, medical units, establishments and transports; 53
c. protected persons and their property. 55
16.19 Additional Protocol I extends the categories of persons and objects against whom reprisals are prohibited to:
a. civilians and the civilian population; 56
c. historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples; 58
d. objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works; 59
e. the natural environment; 60
f. works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes, and nuclear electrical generating stations. 61
16.19.1 However, on ratification of Additional Protocol I, the United Kingdom made the following statement:
The obligations of Articles 51 to 55 are accepted on the basis that any adverse party against which the United Kingdom might be engaged will itself scrupulously {p.423} observe those obligations. If an adverse party makes serious and deliberate attacks, in violation of Article 51 or Article 52 against the civilian population or civilians or against civilian objects, or, in violation of Articles 53, 54 and 55, on objects or items protected by those Articles, the United Kingdom will regard itself as entitled to take measures otherwise prohibited by the Articles in question to the extent that it considers such measures necessary for the sole purpose of compelling the adverse party to cease committing violations under those Articles, but only after formal warning to the adverse party requiring cessation of the violations has been disregarded and then only after a decision taken at the highest level of government. Any measures thus taken by the United Kingdom will not be disproportionate to the violations giving rise thereto and will not involve any action prohibited by the Geneva Conventions of 1949 nor will such measures be continued after the violations have ceased. The United Kingdom will notify the Protecting Powers of any such formal warning given to an adverse party, and if that warning has been disregarded, of any measures taken as a result.
16.19.2 This means that reprisals taken in accordance with the statement are permissible by and against the United Kingdom. 62 However, commanders and commanders-in-chief are not to take reprisal action on their own initiative.
Requests for authority to take reprisal action must be submitted to the Ministry of Defence and require clearance at Cabinet level. 63
50 See the findings of the Italian Military Tribunal in the Ardeatine Cave Massacre Case (Trial of Kappler) (1948) AD 471, 473.
51 See the Bruns Trial (1948) 3 WCR 21-22.
53 GC I, Art 14; GC II, Art 16; GC III, Art 13; AP I, Art 20.
55 GC IV, Art 33. For a definition of ‘protected person’ in this context, see para 9.17.
58 AP I, Art 53(c). See also a similar provision, though with a different definition of ‘cultural property’, in the Cultural Property Convention 1954 (CPC), Art 4(4). The UK has not yet ratified this Convention.
61 AP I, Art 56. The UK made a separate statement on ratification in respect of this article, in the following terms: ‘The United Kingdom cannot undertake to grant absolute protection to installations which may contribute to the opposing Party’s war effort, or to the defenders of such installations, but will take all due precautions in military operations at or near the installations referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 56 in the light of the known facts, including any special marking which the installation may carry, to avoid severe collateral losses among the civilian populations; direct attacks on such installations will be launched only on authorisation at a high level of command’. See also para 5.30.
62 Although the Yugoslav Tribunal has stated that attacks on civilians by way of reprisal can never be justified (Prosecutor v Kupreskić, ICTY Case No IT-95-16 of 14 January 2000 {799kb.pdf, source} at part V of para 20) {see note below}, the court’s reasoning is unconvincing and the assertion that there is a prohibition in customary law flies in the face of most of the state practice that exists. The UK does not accept the position as stated in this judgment.
63 Statement, set out in para 16.19.1, by UK on ratification of AP I.
• The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, paragraphs 16.16-16.19, pages 420-423, from chapter 16 (“Enforcement of the Law of Armed Conflict”), section F (“Reprisals”) {183kb.pdf} (U.K. Ministry of Defense, July 1 2004, Oxford University Press, 2004) {oup, amazon} {BL, LCCN: 2004559969, OCLC: 56067172, WorldCat}, quoting, the formal “reservation” by the United Kingdom, U.K. reservation (m) (“Re: Article 51-55”) (¶ 16.19.1), reserving the right, and asserting it’s lawful, in a reprisal, to target and attack civilians and civilian objects, in otherwise violation of articles 51 (civilians), 52 (civilian objects), 53 (cultural objects and of places of worship), 54 (objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population), 55 (the natural environment), and U.K. reservation (n) (“Re: Article 56 and 85, paragraph 3c”) (note 61), reserving the right, and asserting it’s lawful, to target and attack generally (not only as a reprisal) “dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations,” in violation of article 56 (works and installations containing dangerous forces) and article 85(3)(c) (“grave breaches ... launching an attack against works or installations containing dangerous forces”). These are 2 of 16 reservations/declarations, asserted by the United Kingdom, when it ratified Protocol I (1977) (targeting+) to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (U.K. ratification, declaration, reservation, text, deposited January 28 1998.
• Protocols I and II (1977), to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, enacted into U.K. domestic law, Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act 1995 {1.01mb.pdf} (1995 c.27, July 19 1995) (U.K. Public General Acts, 1995 Chapter 27). U.K. ratification (deposited January 28 1998) implemented into U.K. domestic law, The Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act 1995 (Commencement) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1505 (C.30) (U.K. Statutory Instruments, 1998 No. 1505 (C.30), June 24 1998), effective (“coming into force”) July 20 1998). The 16 U.K. reservations/declarations, their text, certified into U.K. domestic law, The Geneva Conventions Act (First Protocol) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1754, July 21 1998). Protocols I and II extended to Diego Garcia (BIOT: “British Indian Ocean Territory”), The Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act (Overseas Territories) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/1076, April 17 2002, effective May 1 2002, deposited July 2 2002).
• Geneva Conventions of 1949, enacted into U.K. domestic law, Geneva Conventions Act 1957 {3.19mb.pdf} (1957 c.52, July 31 1957) (U.K. Public General Acts, 1957 Chapter 52).
U.S. {page 177}:
Chapter 8
Remedies for Violation of International Law
495. Remedies of Injured Belligerent
In the event of violation of the law of war, the injured party may legally resort to remedial action of the following types: ...
e. Reprisals.
* * *
497. Reprisals
a. Definition. Reprisals are acts of retaliation in the form of conduct which would otherwise be unlawful, resorted to by one belligerent against enemy personnel or property for acts of warfare committed by the other belligerent in violation of the law of war, for the purpose of enforcing future compliance with the recognized rules of civilized warfare. For example, the employment by a belligerent of a weapon the use of which is normally precluded by the law of war would constitute a lawful reprisal for intentional mistreatment of prisoners of war held by the enemy.
b. Priority of Other Remedies. Other means of securing compliance with the law of war should normally be exhausted before resort is had to reprisals. This course should be pursued unless the safety of the troops requires immediate drastic action and the persons who actually committed the offenses cannot be secured. Even when appeal to the enemy for redress has failed, it may be a matter of policy to consider, before resorting to reprisals, whether the opposing forces are not more likely to be influenced by a steady adherence to the law of war on the part of their adversary.
c. Against Whom Permitted. Reprisals against the persons or property of prisoners of war, including the wounded and sick, and protected civilians are forbidden (GPW, art. 13; GC, art. 33). Collective penalties and punishment of prisoners of war and protected civilians are likewise prohibited (GPW, art. 87; GC, art. 33). However, reprisals may still be visited on enemy troops who have not yet fallen into the hands of the forces making the reprisals.
d. When and How Employed. Reprisals are never adopted merely for revenge, but only as an unavoidable last resort to induce the enemy to desist from unlawful practices. They should never be employed by individual soldiers except by direct orders of a commander, and the latter should give such orders only after careful inquiry into the alleged offense. The highest accessible military authority should be consulted unless immediate action is demanded, in which event a subordinate commander may order appropriate reprisals upon his own initiative. Ill-considered action may subsequently be found to have been wholly unjustified and will subject the responsible officer himself to punishment for a violation of the law of war. On the other hand, commanding officers must assume responsibility for retaliative measures when an unscrupulous enemy leaves no other recourse against the repetition of unlawful acts.
e. Form of Reprisal. The acts resorted to by way of reprisal need not conform to those complained of by the injured party, but should not be excessive or exceed the degree of violence committed by the enemy. {p.178}
f. Procedure. The rule requiring careful inquiry into the real occurrence will always be followed unless the safety of the troops requires immediate drastic action and the persons who actually committed the offense cannot be ascertained.
g. Hostages. The taking of hostages is forbidden (GC, art. 34). The taking of prisoners by way of reprisal for acts previously committed (so-called “reprisal prisoners”) is likewise forbidden. (See GC, art. 33.)
• The Law of Land Warfare {10.3mb.pdf, source}, ¶ 497 (“Reprisals”), pages 177-178, from chapter 8 (“Remedies For Violation of International Law; War Crimes”), section I (“Remedies and Reprisals”) (U.S. Army, Field Manual 27-10, July 18 1956, and amendment dated July 15 1976) {SuDoc: D 101.20:27-10, ditto, LCCN: 56062174, OCLC: 39027139, GPOCat, WorldCat} (boldface added).
U.S. (1863):
Reprisals
27. The law of war can no more wholly dispense with retaliation than can the law of nations, of which it is a branch. Yet civilized nations acknowledge retaliation as the sternest feature of war. A reckless enemy often leaves to his opponent no other means of securing himself against the repetition of barbarous outrage.
28. Retaliation will therefore never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of protective retribution, and moreover cautiously and unavoidably — that is to say, retaliation shall only be resorted to after careful inquiry into the real occurrence and the character of the misdeeds that may demand retribution.
Unjust or inconsiderate retaliation removes the belligerents farther and farther from the mitigating rules of regular war, and by rapid steps leads them nearer to the internecine wars of savages.
• Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, ¶¶ 27-28 (U.S. War Department, “General Orders, No. 100,” Washington D.C., April 24 1863) {LCCN: 10010408, OCLC: 6647087, uc, gwu, WorldCat}, reprinted, The War of the Rebellion {html} (U.S. War Department, 1880-1901), series-3, volume-3 {html} (“Series III--Volume III”) (volume number 124), pages 1 {html} (“Correspondence, Orders, Reports, and Returns of the Union Authorities from January 1 to December 31, 1863”), 148-164 {html: 148-164}, at 151 {html, 70kb.pdf, 186kb.gif} (U.S. Congress 56-1, House Doc. 287, 1899) {SuDoc: W 45.5:V.124, Serial Set: 3964, source, list} (the “Lieber Code”) {source, copy, copy, copy}.
________________
Headquarters Cavalry Command,
Army of Invasion.
In the Field, S.C., February 22, 1865.
Major-General Wheeler,
Commanding, C.S. Cavalry:
General: Yesterday a lieutenant and seven men and a sergeant of a battery were taken prisoners by one of your regiments — if I am correctly informed, a Texas regiment — armed with Spencer carbines and commanded by a lieutenant-colonel.
This officer and his men, after surrendering and being disarmed, were inhumanly and cowardly murdered.
Nine of my cavalrymen were also found murdered yesterday, five in a barn-yard, three in an open field, and one in the road. Two had their throats cut from ear to ear.
This makes in all eighteen Federal soldiers murdered yesterday by your people.
Unless some satisfactory explanation be made to me before sundown, February 23, I will cause eighteen of your soldiers, now my prisoners to be shot at that hour.
And if this cowardly act be repeated, if my people when taken are not treated in all cases as prisoners of war should be, I will not only retaliate as I have already mentioned, but there shall not be a house left standing within reach of my scouting parties along my line of march, nor will I be responsible for the conduct of my soldiers, who will not only be allowed but encouraged to take a fearful revenge.
I know of no other way to intimidate cowards.
I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. Kilpatrick,
Brevet Major-General, Commanding Cavalry.
• Letter dated February 22 1865, J. Kilpatrick (U.S. Army) to J. Wheeler (C.S. Army), printed, The War of the Rebellion {html}, series-1, volume-47 (“Series I--Volume XLVII--In Three Parts”), part-1 {html} (“Part I--Reports”) (volume number 98), pages 1 {html} (“Operations in North Carolina (From February 1), South Carolina, Southern Georgia, and East Florida, January 1--June 30, 1865”), 860 {html, 72kb.pdf, 188kb.gif} (U.S. Congress 54-1, House Doc. 37/1, 1895) {SuDoc: W 45.5:V.98, Serial Set: 3409, source, list}.
• The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies {html} (U.S. War Department, 1880-1901, 129 volumes, 138,579 pages) {SuDoc: W 45.5, Serial Set: (list), LCCN: 03003452, OCLC: 00427057, DL, WorldCat}.
–CJHjr
Source:By CJHjr: Formatting (xhtml/css), bold-face, links, highlighting, text {in braces}, text beside a green bar ( ), text in yellow boxes.
This document is not copyrighted and may be freely copied.
Charles Judson Harwood Jr.
Posted August 31 2006. Updated August 5 2008.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/israel-us-war-blockade-reprisals.html