- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Rather, we would simply accept the fact that we would become war criminals by defending ourselves in that manner, and try to defend ourselves without killing innocent civilians. --BM
Well it seems you fell into my much more subtle trap ...
I specifically stipulated that Canada had withdrawn from the GCs and the HCs and refused to be bound by their tenets before the conflict even began.
For example, imagine Canada suddenly became belligerent, withdrew its name from the GCs, Hague Conventions, etc., invaded the US and said, "We will give no quarter to any of your citizens or your military. Anyone who is captured will be executed on the spot. --jschultz
As such, we are not legally bound by the GCs or the HCs in a conflict with them. All of the HCs and GCs specifically say that they only apply between High Contracting Powers.
For example, 1907 - Hague Convention IV (The Laws and Customs of War on Land), Art. 2: The provisions contained in the Regulations referred to in Article 1, as well as in the present Convention, do not apply except between Contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.
And Common Article 2 of the GCs: ... the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties ...
You argument would be correct if evil Canada had remained Party to the HCs and GCs, but they did not, so your legal argument that we are in violation of the HCs or GCs is incorrect. Without the HCs or GCs in force, I don't know if there is some more basic laws of war that could then be applied to us and Canada in our conflict.
