The Website of Carlos Whitlock Porter
WAR CRIMES TRIALS (WITH REPLY TO YALE F. EDEIKEN)
By Carlos W. Porter
Approximately 10,000 “War Crimes Trials” have been held since 1945. Trials of Japanese military personnel ended in 1949, yet “war crimes trials” of Germans and Eastern Europeans continue to date.
Almost invariably, the charge is “violation of the laws and customs of war”, derived, in turn, from international conventions signed at the Hague in 1899 and 1907.
That these trials have little or no basis in law is clear from the wording of the treaties which are said to have been violated.
Let us take a typical example, the Hague Declaration (IV, 3) of 1899 on the Use of Expanding Bullets, dated July 29, 1899.
The Convention states,
“The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.
“The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
“It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the contracting Powers, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-contracting Power”.
IMPORTANT NOTE: This is called an “all-participation clause”.
The United States never ratified this convention, which, thus, never became “international law” in any war involving the United States. This was because American troops were busy using expanding bullets against Filipinos whom they had just “liberated” from the Spanish.
American refusal to ratify this convention meant, not only that the United States was free to continue using expanding (or dum-dum) bullets legally in all wars, but from the moment the United States entered any conflict, all other belligerents were free to use them as well.
[NOTE: Dum dum bullets, first manufactured by the British at Dum Dum, India, are of advantage only in jungle warfare against primitive tribes, where the danger is of sudden rushes of large numbers at close quarters. They are not used in European warfare because they are inaccurate and tend to foul guns. If they offered an advantage, they would be used regardless of any treaty. ]
There are fourteen Hague Conventions, almost all of which contain similar clauses, and for this reason have had little or no application since 1907.
The Fifth Hague Convention Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land of 18 October 1907, for example, states:
Art. 20: “The provisions of the present Convention do not apply except between Contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention”.
This Convention was never ratified by Great Britain, and never applied after August 4, 1914.
Art. 1: “The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable”. Nevertheless, the British and Americans never tired of quoting this clause against the German and Japanese despite their own violations of the neutrality of Iceland, Greenland, Persia, Iraq, Portuguese Timor, and the planned violation of Scandinavian neutrality.
The Third Hague Convention Respecting the Opening of Hostilities, article 1, states:
“The contracting powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war”.
The problem here is that the “warning” may be as little as one minute, and no verbal formula is required. Poland received two ultimatums and was the first to mobilize. America received a formal declaration 25 minutes late, of which it had actual knowledge 10 days beforehand.
However, the basis of nearly all “war crimes trials” has been the Fourth Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. In the words of Telford Taylor, Chief Counsel and Representative of the United States for the Prosecution of War Crimes at Nuremberg:
“An Annex to the Convention,” consisting of 56 articles, sets forth various requirements and limitations with respect to the conduct of hostilities, the treatment of prisoners of war, and the exercise of authority over the occupied territory of a hostile state”.
This, then, is the Convention which the Germans and Japanese were alleged to have violated in 10,000 trials.
What does the Convention say exactly?
Art. 2: “The provisions... of the present Convention do not apply except between contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention”.
This condition has remained unfulfilled since August 1, 1914. Non-signatories during WWII included Italy, Greece, and the national states of Yugoslavia. Communist Russia repudiated all Czarist agreements and never made any pretence of obeying the Hague or Geneva Conventions.
Art. 3: "A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation."
-- This is self-explanatory. No trials were contemplated.
THE ANNEX TO THE 4th HAGUE CONVENTION
The Annex to the Convention was the real basis for nearly all of these 10,000 trials. This is the Convention which defines “war crimes” and “war criminals”...
Articles 1 and 2 prohibit guerrilla warfare, stating that belligerents must be “commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates... have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance... carry arms openly... and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war”.
-- The European and Asian resistance movements were ILLEGAL.
Article 43 requires collaboration with occupation governments. “The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country”.
-- The “collaborators” shot, hanged, or imprisoned after WWII were acting in compliance with international law.
Article 23 (3) prohibits weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. Napalm, phosphorous, jellied gasoline, etc. are ILLEGAL.
Articles 25, 27 and 56 prohibit bombardment “by whatever means” of undefended cities, cultural monuments, etc...
-- The fire bombings of Dresden and civilian areas of Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc., were ILLEGAL.
Article 6 states that belligerents may utilize the labor of prisoners of war, officers excepted, for the public service, for private persons or their own account. German and Japanese “slave policy” was perfectly legal in so far as it applied to members of resistance groups or lower ranking military personnel.
Article 8: “Prisoners of war are subject to the laws, regulations and orders in force of the State in whose power they are. Any act of insubordination justifies the adoption towards them of such measures of severity as may be considered necessary”.
-- So much for the “mistreatment of prisoners” which formed the basis of so many war crimes trials.
Article 46: “Private property cannot be confiscated”.
-- The post-WWII expulsions and confiscations were ILLEGAL. The provisions of the Versailles Treaty which confiscated the private property of all German citizens resident outside Germany, including missionaries on South Sea islands, who were expelled and sent home penniless, were ILLEGAL.
Art. 5: “Prisoners... cannot be confined except as an indispensable measure of safety, and only while the circumstances which necessitate the measure continue to exist”, and
Art. 20: “After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners shall be carried out as quickly as possible”.
-- The prolonged detention of German and Japanese prisoners by the British, French, Russians and Americans for years after the war was ILLEGAL.
Art. 7: “Prisoners of war shall be treated as regards board, lodging, and clothing on the same footing as the troops of the Government who captured them”.
The conditions of detention in “Eisenhower’s death camps” were ILLEGAL whatever the death rate. (See Other Losses by James Bacque).
Art. 32: “A person is regarded as a parlementaire who has been authorized by one of the belligerents to enter into communications with the other... he has a right to inviolability”.
-- The detention of Rudolph Hess was ILLEGAL.
Finally, article 23 (h) prohibits declaring “abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party”.
If these treaties have any application at all (which is doubtful), the real war criminals were the Americans, the British, the French, and the Russians.
The illegalities of “war crimes” proceedings include the admissibility of oral and written hearsay; the introduction of the concept of “conspiracy” into international law (unknown prior to 1945); the total lack of any pre-trial inquest or forensic evidence; and trial before a court itself composed of actual “war criminals”.
To return to the writings of Telford Taylor:
“The issues surrounding the war crimes trials are numerous and complex; discussion and criticism of what was done should be welcomed by all who hope for a continuing development of international law... but what should have been done instead is a problem generally ignored by those who condemn what was done in fact”
The alternative is a fair trial before an impartial court under existing procedures and proper rules of evidence.
FOOTNOTES:
(*) “The Legality of the Trials”, in “Trials at Nuremberg”, History of the Second World War, Volume 8, No. 7 3/6, Purnell & Sons, 1969.
[THE FOLLOWING IS A "REFUTATION" OF THE ABOVE BY MR. YALE F. EDEIKEN, A PRACTITIONER BEFORE THE BAR OF PENNSYLVANIA. ]
[MY COMMENTS ARE IN SQUARE BRACKETS. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE REPETITION; I HAVE FOUND THAT CERTAIN SUBTLE BUT VERY IMPORTANT POINTS ARE OVERLOOKED UNLESS REPEATEDLY STRESSED.]
THE FORENSIC SINS [!] OF CARLOS PORTER
by Yale F. Edeiken
[COMMENT: Note the constant introduction of quasi-religious terminology and neologisms: "sin", "denier", etc. -C.P.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fo ren sic adj. 1. of, characteristic of, or suitable for a law court, public debate, or formal argumentation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the staple texts of those who deny the Holocaust are the writings of Carlos Porter [!]. One of his articles "War Crimes Trials" can be found on the CODOH website. It claims to discuss the 1907 Annex to the Hague Convention [COMMENT: There are 14 Hague Conventions; see below. -C.P.] dealing with the laws of war, and this essay is so highly regarded in the denier community [!] that it has been cited by deniers [!] as authoritative on the subject of the [!] Hague Convention [!]. A close examination of Porter's work, however, demonstrates that it is inaccurate both as to the text of the [!] Convention [!] and the conclusions that are derived from the distorted citations. This analysis will deal with both of those issues.
It is only fair to judge an author's work by his intentions. In this case Porter informs us exactly what those intentions are:
"This, then, is the Convention which the Germans and Japanese were alleged to have violated in 10,000 trials. What does the Convention say exactly?"
The purpose of Porter's article, therefore, was not to present edited paraphrases but the text, exact and complete
[COMMENT: There are 14 Hague Conventions (actually 17 including those drawn up in 1899), forming a stack of A5 photocopies approximately 1inch thick. Was it my intention to reproduce the full text of Hague IV in 2 pages? If so, why did I number my paragraphs 2, 3, and then 1, 2, 43? -C.P.]
He fails miserably. [!] Porter's deletions [!] and paraphrases [!] not only contradict his stated purpose [!] but many substantially alter the meaning of the provisions. It is doubly dishonest [!] in that Porter presents little more than his paraphrases [!] followed by an announcement of what he states they mean. Supporting evidence is virtually non-existent [!] and, in its absence, all a reader has to rely upon is Porter's version of the text.
[COMMENT: I have read this material and provided a concise summary of the arguments derived therefrom, as presented in the defense summations of war crime trials generally and Nuremberg, Tokyo, and the Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss in particular (those with which I am most familiar). If an exception be made for Rudolf Hess, the merest glance at a few hundred or a thousand pages of defense summation in any of these trials will reveal, not only the arguments enumerated by myself, but many others, backed up in turn by dozens of references to recognized authorities in international law: Fenwick, Wheaton, Wharton, Woolsey, Grotius, Smith, Higgins, Hyde, Hill, Hall, Hackman, Hull, Miller, Twiss, Phillimore, Wilson, Maurice, Wigmore, Hudson + Fuller, Flory, Lawrence, Winfield, Glueck, Blackstone, Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, Bellot, Moore, Scott, Nippold, Singer, Roemer; Gallaudet, Main, Finch, Dickinson, Brierley, Black, Cobbet, Feilchenfeld, etc. These are the arguments which have been presented, whether Mr. Edeiken likes it or not. I have also read thousands of pages of prosecution summation, and they do a much better job of it than Mr. Edeiken. For Mr. Edeiken to pretend that his points of view are the only ones possible, is nothing short of ludicrous. The difference is that where I present a concise, succinct summary in 2 pages, Mr. Edeiken requires 17 pages simply to cause confusion. He found two mistakes: a very short paraphrase represented as a direct quote, the only error being the use of quotation marks (article 3 of the body of Hague IV); and a misspelling. - C.P.]
The problems with the text of the 1907 Convention
[COMMENT: There are 14 Hague Conventions, as noted above. - C.P.]
are only the beginning of the problems with "War Crimes Trials." Porter's laconic [!] conclusions are dependent on his edited readings of the text and his factual assumptions. Many of Porter's unsupported allegations [!] are simply not correct [!]. The second part of this article, therefore, is an analysis of some of Porter's contentions. It is by no means complete; there are clear errors [!] such as Porter's interpretation of Article 43 that are not included. As many of Porter's errors are similar in nature, explaining all of them would be repetitious.
The examples provided do represent an analysis of Porter's shoddy [!] and misleading [!] techniques. Porter's "War Crimes Trials" is, in fact, poorly written [!], poorly reasoned [!] and inaccurate [!] at various points. The theme of "War Crimes Trials" is embodied in Porter's unsubstantiated accusations [!].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Porter's problems with facts [!] begin with the first part of the article where he discusses the applicability of the Convention
[COMMENT: WHICH CONVENTION? Mr. Edeiken starts out, it should be noted, by confusing the 1899 Convention on the Use of Expanding Bullets with the 1907 Fourth Hague Convention on Land Warfare].
He states, for example:
"The United States never ratified this convention, which, thus, never became "international law" in any war involving the United States."
[COMMENT: As noted above, this is in reference to the 1899 Hague Convention on the Use of Expanding Bullets. - C.P.]
This is, as anyone who has examined the primary documents knows, a misrepresentation. While the U.S. did not ratify the Convention,
[COMMENT: WHICH CONVENTION? Mr. Edeiken now hops to Hague IV of 1907, as if they were the same. IS IT THE CONTENTION OF MR EDEIKEN THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEVER RATIFIED THE FOURTH HAGUE CONVENTION ON LAND WARFARE OF OCTOBER 18 1907, THAT I MAKE THAT CLAIM, AND THAT SUCH A CLAIM WOULD BE CORRECT? WHEN I READ SOMETHING LIKE THIS, I BEGIN TO WONDER WHETHER A WRITER KNOWS ANYTHING. No doubt Mr. Edeiken made this mistake because the electronically scanned versions of the Hague Conventions posted on the Yale University website recommended by Mr. Edeiken delete the signatures, ratifications, adhesions and reservations (4 pages), which are crucial to an understanding of the twentieth century. For example, Serbia was not a signatory to Hague IV. The Germans maintained that Serbian participation in WWI invoked the all-participation clause rendering Hague IV inapplicable, and that German introduction of gas warfare during WWI was therefore legal. The intention was to break the stalemate, capture Paris, and win the war, as in 1870. - C.P.]
it entered a separate convention [?] signed by the president [sic] of the U.S. on July 27, 1929. [!]
[SUMMARY SO FAR: Mr. Edeiken takes a comment on the 1899 Convention on the Use of Expanding Bullets as applying to the 1907 Convention on Land Warfare (Hague IV), which it does not, then hops to one of the 1929 Geneva Conventions to get around what he imagines to be the problem of non-ratification by the U.S.. He provides no references to the "convention signed by the president of the U.S. on 27 July 1929", apart from the date. He is referring, somewhat dubiously, to the 1929 Geneva Prisoner of War Convention (not to be confused with the 1929 Geneva Convention on the Amelioration of Sick and Wounded among Armies in the Field). The 1929 Geneva Prisoners of War Convention of War Convention does not contain an all-participation clause, but applies between the signatories only.
ONCE AGAIN: Mr. Edeiken confuses the Hague Convention on the Use of Expanding Bullets of July 29, 1899 -- not ratified by the U.S. -- with the Fourth Hague Convention on Land Warfare of October 18, 1907 -- ratified by the U.S. on November 27, 1909 -- then introduces an irrelevant discussion of the 1929 Geneva Prisoner of War Convention to get around what he imagines to be the problem of non-ratification; that is not the problem. The problem with the Fourth Convention is the "all-participation clause" -- i.e., that the Convention applies only between signatories to the Convention, and then only when all participants in a conflict are signatories to the Convention -- as noted above and below -- to which Mr. Edeiken has no answer. If the "all-participation clause" means what it says, then none of the Hague Conventions were in application during either World War, and neither the Germans nor the Allies can be found guilty of violating their provisions. If the "all-participation clause" does NOT mean what it says, then the Allies, on the plain terms of Hague IV, were guilty of more atrocities and "war crimes" than the Germans and Japanese put together, indeed many times over. The question, put crudely, is:
Q: "Hague IV Convention on the wall, who's the worst war criminal of all?"
A: "Thou art, my Queen" -- you, the Allies. - C.P.]
[COMMENT OF SECONDARY IMPORTANCE: Note as well that the President of the United States cannot possibly have signed the 1929 Geneva Prisoner of War Convention on July 27, 1929; that is because Mr. Edeiken has gotten the date of signature of the 1929 Geneva Prisoner of War Convention by the national delegations in Geneva -- July 27, 1929 -- mixed up with the date of ratification by the U.S. Senate; these are two different dates. For example, the Fourth Hague Convention on Land Warfare of October 18, 1907 -- which Mr. Edeiken says was never ratified at all, having confused it with the 1899 Convention on the Use of Expanding Bullets -- was ratified by the United States on November 27, 1909, two years later, and the 1929 Geneva Prisoner of War Convention on August 4, 1932. If treaties were referred to by their ratification dates alone, there would be 50 different dates for every treaty. Since Mr. Edeiken never refers to any treaty by its full and correct name, the effect of his writing is confusing to say the least. - C.P.]
Pursuant to this treaty
[COMMENT: Which treaty? Again, he is apparently referring to the 1929 Geneva Prisoner of War Convention, although he does not say so, and appears not to know which is which. Of the 19 different treaties involved at this point, most contain all-participation clauses. The electronically-truncated versions of these treaties posted on the Internet and recommended by Mr. Edeiken delete the signatures, ratifications, adhesions, and reservations, which are essential. The Geneva Conventions did not contain an all-participation clause, but applied between the signatories only. - C.P.]
American forces were instructed to abide by all articles of the various Geneva and Hague Conventions.
[COMMENT: If the Americans were instructed to comply with these treaties, then why did they not do so? Were the Germans bound by the Fourth Hague Convention, while the Allies were not? Or does Mr. Edeiken pretend that the deliberate fire-bombing of civilians and undefended cities, the utilization of millions of German prisoners of war for slave labor for years -- even decades -- after the war, the conditions in "Eisenhower's Death Camps", etc. etc. were LEGAL? - C.P.]
It should be noted that Germany was, as well, a signatory to the 1929 Convention
[COMMENT: Which Convention? ANSWER, my Queen: The 1929 Geneva Prisoner of War Convention. - C.P.]
which did little more than repeat the provisions of the 1907 Annex
[COMMENT: of the Fourth Hague Convention on Land Warfare].
[COMMENT: Apart from the confusion, this is just not true. Japan ratified the Fourth Hague Convention on Land Warfare, but refused to ratify the 1929 Geneva Prisoner of War Convention because it required a HIGHER STANDARD OF LIVING FOR PRISONERS OF WAR THAN COULD BE PROVIDED FOR JAPANESE SOLDIERS OR CIVILIANS. The most significant provision of the 1929 Geneva Prisoner of War Convention is article 63 [ "SENTENCE MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST A PRISONER ONLY BY THE SAME COURTS AND ACCORDING TO THE SAME PROCEDURE AS IN THE CASE OF PERSONS BELONGING TO THE ARMED FORCES OF THE DETAINING POWER"], which Mr. Edeiken dare not mention, because, interpreted fairly, it would have rendered all post-war "war crimes trials" impossible. Article 64 guarantees the RIGHT OF APPEAL; article 66 stipulates that DEATH SENTENCE MAY NOT BE CARRIED OUT IN LESS THAN THREE MONTHS. - C.P.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Porter is even less honest when he deals with the specific provisions of the Convention
[COMMENT: We now hop back to the Fourth Hague Convention on Land Warfare, or Hague IV. - C.P.]
One of the most egregious examples is Porter's analysis of Article 6 in which he states: "Article 6 states that belligerants [sic]
[MEA CULPA: My misspelling of the word "belligerent" was due to an unconscious association with the French "gérant" -- "commercial manager" -- in view of the fact that "war is a racket". - C.P.]
may utilize the labor of prisoners of war, officers excepted, for the public service, for private persons or their own account." To which Porter comments: "German and Japanese 'slave policy' was perfectly legal insofar as it applied to members of resistance groups or lower ranking military personnel."
Leaving aside the point that both Germany and Japan required officers to do slave labor [COMMENT: Note the qualifier: INSOFAR AS], an examination of the Article in question shows a far different text than Porter represents. The actual text is:
"Art. 6. The State may utilize the labor of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted. The tasks shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with the operations of the war."
Note how Porter deletes material from the original text which modifies it in a significant manner. It is well-known, for example, that Speer - the director of war production - utilized slave labor for war work. It was one of the charges brought against him at Nuremberg. Another indisputable example is the rubber plant at Monowitz (Auschwitz III) which was staffed by slave labor. By deleting the important modifier Porter fraudulently misrepresents what is allowed.
[COMMENT: Note the manner in which one party to Hague IV of 1907 is to be held to provisions written during the horse-and-buggy era, while the other is free to expand the provisions of that same treaty, unilaterally and arbitrarily, into the atomic age! Note the manner in which the Allies constantly pretend that everything is "war production" when it suits them. The Germans maintained that "war production" meant the production of munitions and explosives; the Allies maintained that it included more or less everything. Farmers ploughing their fields with horses were "legally" machine-gunned on the grounds that "there are no civilians in this war; even the farmers are raising food for the war effort"; at the same time, Allied prisoners of war working in German industry not involving the production of bombs or explosives, etc. -- in at least some cases, voluntarily, for pay, minus taxes, plus German social insurance -- were said to be involved in "war production", thus constituting a "war crime"; the atomic bombings etc. etc. were, of course, alleged to be LEGAL. Prisoners of war in Germany were free to volunteer to work in industry, under the same conditions as German workers (wages, social security, taxes), in which case they were released from POW camps; they could not be forced to do so (Nuremberg Trial transcript IMT XVIII 496-98 [XVIII 542-44 in the German language volumes). - C.P.]
This pattern of deception [!] also includes the elision of the clauses that follow the initial statement and which explain it. They are:
"Prisoners may be authorized to work for the public service, for private persons, or on their own account.
"Work done for the State is paid for at the rates in force for work of a similar kind done by soldiers of the national army, or, if there are none in force, at a rate according to the work executed.
"When the work is for other branches of the public service or for private persons the conditions are settled in agreement with the military authorities.
"The wages of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position, and the balance shall be paid them on their release, after deducting the cost of their maintenance."
Thus it can be seen that Porter has deliberately mischaracterized the meaning of the provision. It is not a provision which allows slave labor as he asserts. It is, rather, a provision that allows POWs to enter a labor market unrelated to war production [COMMENT: DEFINITION PLEASE], and receive wages for their work. Needless to say, the Nazis failed to abide by the provisions of Article 6 in their use of slave labor. [!]
[COMMENT: Did the Allies pay their "slave laborers" after the war? - C.P.]
This pattern is repeated in Porter's analysis of Articles 1 and 2 which deal with partisan warfare [!]. This example is quite important for it is the basis for the claims of the deniers [!] that partisan warfare is, per se, unlawful [!][!][!]. The meaning of the two articles was crucial to the purpose of the Convention [HAGUE IV]. This was recognized by the drafters and signatories who, as part of the preamble to the Regulations of the Convention, wrote:
It should be noted that [COMMENT: The quotation begins here] "Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.
"They declare that it is in this sense especially that Articles 1 and 2 of the Regulations adopted must be understood."
[COMMENT: Mr. Edeiken is now hopping back and forth between the body of the Fourth Hague Convention, which he refers to as the "Preamble", and the Annex to the same; they are not identical. The quotation above is from the BODY of the Fourth Hague Convention, followed by Articles 1 and 2 of the same, which DO NOT REFER TO PARTISAN WARFARE. Article 1 of the body states: "The contracting Powers shall issue instructions to their armed land forces which shall be in conformity with the Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the present Convention." Article 2 of the body is the all-participation clause: "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." Hague IV was specifically repudiated by Soviet Russia, and never ratified by Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, or the national states of Yugoslavia, and therefore never applied during either World War.
What is surprising is that the Fourth Hague Convention has not been entirely forgotten, like all the other Hague Conventions. Nobody accuses the Germans of violating the following (for example):
- Hague Convention of July 29, 1899 (III) For the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention (all-participation clause article 11);
- Hague Declaration of July 29, 1899 (IV, I) Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons (all-participation clause page 2, paragraph 1);
- Hague Declaration (IV, 2) of July 29, 1899 Concerning Asphyxiating Gases (all-participation clauses paragraphs 4 and 5);
- Hague Convention (V) of October 18, 1907 Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (all-participation clause article 20);
- Hague Convention (VI) of October 18, 1907 Relating to the Status of Enemy Merchant Ships at the Outbreak of Hostilities (all-participation clause article 6);
- Hague Convention (VII) of October 18, 1907 Relating to the Conversion of Merchant Ships into War-ships (all-participation clause article 7);
- Hague Convention (VIII) of October 18, 1907 Relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines (all-participation clause article 7);
- Hague Convention (IX) of October 18, 1907 Concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War (all-participation clause article 8);
- Hague Convention October 18, 1907 (X) For the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention (all-participation clause article 18);
- Hague Convention (XI) of October 18, 1907 Relative to Certain Restrictions with Regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War (all-participation clause article 9);
- Hague Convention (XIII) of October 18, 1907 Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War (all-participation clause article 28);
- Hague Declaration of October 18, 1907 (XIV) Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons (all-participation clause page 2, paragraph 1), etc. etc..
Since the Allies never complied with the Fourth Hague Convention during the war -- or the 1929 Geneva Prisoner of War Convention after the war -- the question now arises: why was the Fourth Hague Convention not simply forgotten, like all the others? Answer: BECAUSE EVEN A SOVIET-STYLE "SHOW TRIAL" LIKE NUREMBERG REQUIRES SOME SORT OF BASIC LEGAL TEXT. IN THE SOVIET UNION, THE BASIC TEXT WOULD BE THE SOVIET CONSTITUTION, WHICH GUARANTEES FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS, AND RELIGION, BUT WHICH TWISTS THEM INTO MEANING THEIR EXACT OPPOSITE. Ironically, the 1899 and 1907 Hague conferences which gave rise to these conventions were convened and sponsored by "His Majesty, the German Emperor, King of Prussia". So much for these magnificent accomplishments of the civilized mind. - C.P.]
This important statement of principle [!] enunciated by the signatory powers about the interpretation of these sections is entirely ignored by Porter. [!]
[COMMENT: Note the manner in which Mr. Edeiken implies that sentences occurring on pp. 2-3 of the photocopy, in the body, are immediately followed by sentences occurring on pp. 8-9 of the photocopy, in the Annex, in an attempt to convince us that one of the principal purposes of the Fourth Hague Convention was expressly to permit partisan warfare. This is done so smoothly that I did not even notice it at first; yet the same person complains of my "elisions" and "mendacity"! Having forgotten to quote articles 1 and 2 of the body, he now hops over to articles 1 and 2 of the Annex. - C.P.]
Pay close attention to what Porter writes and compare it to the actual text of these Regulations. "War Crimes Trials" states:
THE ANNEX TO THE 4th HAGUE CONVENTION
Articles 1 and 2 prohibit guerrilla warfare, stating that belligerants [sic] must be "commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates... have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance... carry arms openly... and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Porter not only fails to understand these articles, he reports them inaccurately and in a distorted fashion [!]. When the actual language of these two articles is examined it is clear that they have exactly the opposite meaning [!?] from that given by Porter [!]. The actual text is:
"Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
"To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
"To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance [!];
"To carry arms openly [!]; and
"To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war [!].
"In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."
"Art. 2. The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly [!] and if they respect the laws and customs of war [!]."
Note that contrary to Porter's modified version, the articles do not prohibit guerilla [sic] movements but specifically allow them if certain conditions are met [!]. Because of his creative editing it is made to appear as though Article 1 prohibits partisan warfare [!] and gives as a reason that real "belligerants" have certain attributes which, presumably, partisan groups do not possess [!]. As can be seen from the language which Porter deletes, the actual meaning of the provision is that guerillas [sic] are legitimate as long as they meet certain requirements [!][!].
[COMMENT: The point being precisely that these requirements were NOT met, the only exception being in some cases towards the end of the war in France. In the Soviet Union, partisans were treated as prisoners of war if captured in the company of uniformed combatants. International law discriminates against smaller, weaker, and poorer countries which cannot maintain large standing armies and modern armaments. The intention is to prevent situations in which "terror can open the lips that terror has sealed". Americans should know as well as anyone that if uniformed soldiers are ambushed by guerrillas near a village, the village will be burnt down to force the villagers to report future ambushes beforehand. To take another example: the IRA has never had more than an estimated 400 active members at any one time, yet it kept 15-25,000 British soldiers tied down in the Six Counties for almost 30 years. Could it have done so if its members had "carried arms openly" and worn a "fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance"? Actually, the IRA do very well in this situation, because they must be treated as "criminals" in a situation which is not a "war"; if it were a "war", the British would fire-bomb every city in Ireland, burning hundreds of thousands of civilians to death ("women and children first", in the manner of savage tribes). Of course, only the Irish are "terrorists". -C.P.]
Porter's distorted description of Article 2 is even more misleading [!]. Without quoting a single word from the article, Porter declares that it prohibits guerilla [sic] warfare [!]. The article actually expands the definition of legitimate belligerents where military control has not been established. In that case, which would have applied to much of the Ukraine for example, two of the requirements for a guerilla [sic] group to be classified as legitimate belligerents are eliminated.
[COMMENT: When and where in the Ukraine, or anywhere else in the Soviet Union or South East Asia, did the partisans wear a "fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"? - C.P.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Porter uses a similar, but slightly different technique, in his analysis of Article 32. "War Crimes Trials" states in its entirety:
"Art. 32: A person is regarded as a parlementaire who has been authorized by one of the belligerants [sic] to enter into communications with the other... he has a right to inviolability."
Based upon this incomplete rendition of Article 32 and the complete deletion of article 33, Porter asserts: "The detention of Rudolph Hess was illegal."
The text of the Convention is, however, significantly different from the Porter version. The complete text of the Convention provisions concerning parlementaires states:
"Flags of Truce
"Art. 32. A person is regarded as a parlementaire who has been authorized by one [COMMENT: ONE] of the belligerents to enter into communication with the other, and who advances bearing a white flag. He has a right to inviolability [!], as well as the trumpeter, bugler or drummer, the flag-bearer and interpreter who may accompany him.
"Art. 33. The commander to whom a parlementaire is sent is not in all cases obliged to receive him."
[COMMENT: In which case, he should presumably be returned to his own lines without hindrance. - C.P.]
"He may take all the necessary steps to prevent the parlementaire taking advantage of his mission to obtain information.
"In case of abuse, he has the right to detain the parlementaire temporarily. [!!!] "
[COMMENT: For FOUR YEARS??? - C.P.]
"Art. 34. The parlementaire loses his rights of inviolability if it is proved in a clear and incontestable manner that he has taken advantage of his privileged position to provoke or commit an act of treason [!]."
It can be seen from the actual text that there are two requirements for a person to be qualified as a "parlementaire." The first of these (reported by Porter) is that a parlementaire must be authorized to conduct his negotiations.
This Regulation cannot be applied to Hess. He was clearly not authorized to enter communications with Great Britain. William Shirer writes in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich [!] that Hitler was "mystified" at Hess's actions (page 835) and the official communiqué on this incident announced "It seemed that Party Comrade Hess lived in a state of hallucination, as a result of which he felt he could bring about a understanding between England and Germany." (quoted by Shirer, page 838) There is no indication that Hess was authorized to deal on behalf of the Third Reich. In fact, Hess did not claim such a status, relying instead on his position as a cabinet minister (Shirer, page 835).
[COMMENT: Did the British government, in 1940, really know what William L. Shirer was going to write about Rudolf Hess in 1960? How reliable is William L. Shirer, on this subject or any other? Who is William L. Shirer to know what was in Hitler's mind in 1940? Does this sort of technicality really justify Hess' treatment for 46 years, or even 4 years? What makes Shirer an authority on international law? Since Mr. Edeiken claims to possess a law degree, couldn't he at least quote a law book? See also Sauckel's Exploitation Speech ]
Nor did Hess have the purpose of negotiating with his opponent as is the basic function of a parlementaire. He wanted to negotiate with the Duke of Hamilton - a comparatively low ranking officer in the RAF - rather than the government and his intent was to provoke an insurrection against the authorities with which a parlementaire is to communicate. As Ivonne Kirkland (former First Secretary of the British Embassy in Berlin) reports:
[COMMENT: As usual, Eideken is making a mistake here, the correct name is Ivonne Kirkpatrick -C.P. ]
"Finally, as we were leaving the room, Hess delivered a parting shot. He had forgotten, he declared, to emphasize that the proposal could only be considered on the understanding that it was negotiated by Germany with an English government other than the present one. Mr. Churchill, who had planned the war since 1936, and his colleague who had lent themselves to his war policy, were not persons with whom the Fuehrer could negotiate." (quoted by Shirer, page 386) [COMMENT: See above.]
Not only did Hess not meet the basic requirements for parlementaire status in that he was not authorized to make the trip
[COMMENT: If the British acted correctly, why did they seal the records for seventy-five years? It is entirely possible that, in view of the failure of Hess's mission, Hitler merely pretended that Hess was insane; a similar tale is told about Mussolini's rescue from Gran Sasso. Otto Skorzeny was reportedly told that the Third Reich could not fail; if he failed, it would be alleged that he was insane, and that the rescue attempt had been undertaken without authorization. - C.P.]
and he specifically denied that he was attempting to negotiate with his opponent
[COMMENT: Hague IV simply states "with the other". I REPEAT: IF THE BRITISH ACTED CORRECTLY, WHY DID THEY SEAL THE RECORDS FOR 75 YEARS? WERE 50 MILLION PEOPLE KILLED FOR REASONS KNOWN ONLY TO THE BRITISH, AND WHICH THEY REFUSE TO REVEAL TO THE WORLD? - C.P.]
but he failed to meet another requirement as well.
[COMMENT: I knew it; the white flag. - C.P.]
Porter deletes the clause of the Convention which requires of a parlementaire that he "advances bearing a white flag." This, again, is a significant omission [!]. It is obvious that a legalistic interpretation of this provision would be unfair. It is silly to expect an airplane to be displaying a flag and it can be argued that, even had Hess provided himself with one, his plane crashed in flames. But there was nothing to prevent Hess from complying with the spirit of this clause. That is, notify his opponent in advance and ask for a parlay
He did not make such a notification which could have been done by radio from his airplane. Further he abuses the concept of a parlementaire in that he gave a false name ("Alfred Horn") (Shirer, page 835). [COMMENT: Shirer again! -C.P.] This vitiated any claim to be a legitimate parlementaire.
The provisions concerning parlementaires are a continuation of the medieval laws regarding the status of the herald and the white flag is not just a technical requirement. It constitutes the manner in which a legitimate parlementaire announces himself. It is the duty of the parlementaire to announce his status before he approaches the opponent so that the opponent has, as stated in Article 33 (which Porter omits) the option of refusing to receive the parlementaire [!].
It is at this point that Article 33 (also deleted by Porter) becomes crucial. That Article provides that the opponent has the right to refuse the approach of the parlementaire. Hess did not allow the British to exercise this right [!]. Instead, unannounced, Hess popped up in Scotland requesting to meet with a military officer of no great rank (the Duke of Hamilton was not a general officer, he was "a wing commander in the RAF" (Shirer, page 835) [!] and demanding that the British government (to which the negotiations of a legitimate parlementaire must be addressed) be dissolved.
Since Hess met none of the conditions of a legitimate parlementaire, the provision of Article 32 concerning his "inviolability" cannot be applied and the treatment of Hess as a prisoner of war was justified. If, as some deniers [!] assert, the Porter version of the Convention should be accepted as authoritative the reader has no opportunity to make a complete analysis of the claim. The simple reason that a reader was not provided with this opportunity is that Porter decided to present an abridged and modified version of the Convention which distorted its meaning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example of this patent dishonesty can be found in Porter's analysis of Article 3. Porter represents the text of Article 3 of the regulations as being:
"Art. 3: Belligerants [sic] violating the Convention may be made to pay compensation."
[MEA CULPA: THE QUOTATION HAS BEEN CORRECTED. The meaning remains unchanged. - C.P.]
Please note that this is represented as the complete text of Article 3. This is NOT the actual text of the Convention. It is:
"Art. 3. A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces."
Not only is the text far different from Porter's representation but there is a crucial difference in meaning which Porter creates. The text clearly refers to "a belligerent party" as, from the context of the second sentence (deleted by Porter), means the nation conducting the war. In Porter's version this becomes "belligerants" [sic] which refers not only to the parties but could be interpreted to apply to individuals as well. The drafters of the Convention used the word "belligerents" to mean individuals in Article 2 of the Regulations. It is clear that the meaning forced upon this article by Porter's editorial change was specifically rejected by the drafters who specified that this Regulation applied to "a belligerent party."
Relying on this mendacious [!] rendering of the text, Porter announces: "This is self-explanatory. No trials were contemplated."
This is, at best, a rather audacious assertion.
[COMMENT: It is also one of commonest arguments made by the defence in any "war crimes trial". A cursory examination of pre-WWII standard texts on international law, for example:
- Wheaton's International Law, with notes by Richard Henry Dana, 1866 edition, centennial edition reprinted in 1936;
- International Law, by Berthold Singer, 1918;
- Handbook of International Law, by George Grafton Wilson, 3 rd Edition, 1939;
- The Sources of International Law, by George A. Finch, published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1937;
- Cases on International Law, by Charles G. Fenwick, Callaghan and Co., 1935;
- International Law, A Treatise, vol. 2, Disputes, War and Neutrality, by L. Oppenheim, published by Longmans, Green and Co., 1935;
- A Handbook of Public International Law, by T.J. Lawrence, 11 th Edition by Percy H. Winfield (Lawrence died in 1925), published by MacMillan and Co., Ltd, 1938;
reveals that the word "Trial" rarely, if ever, even appears in the index! It does not appear in the index to any of the books listed above, which were selected entirely at random. There are, it is true, many trials mentioned in the texts, but on totally unrelated matters, for example, international prize courts, the seizure and condemnation of contraband, etc. (i.e., blockade running). The word "Trial" began to appear in texts on international law only in about 1943 or 1944, at Soviet insistence (see Wheaton's International Law, 7 th English edition, vol. 2, War, published by Stevens and Sons Ltd, London, 1944, "Trials of War Offenders", p 242). Doubts as to the competence of the Soviets -- and even the Americans -- to try the National Socialists began to appear in texts on international law as early as 1948 (see International Law, by Chas. G. Fenwick, 3 rd edition, published by Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., New York, 1948, "Nuremberg trials", p. 673). It is therefore quite correct to state that prior to WWII, "no trials were contemplated".
As for partisan or guerrilla warfare, A Handbook of Public International Law by T.J. Lawrence, 11 th edition by Percy H. Winfield, 1938, states flatly, on p. 111,
"Non-combatants are exempt from personal injury knowingly and wantonly inflicted, and from pillage, provided that they submit to the lawful demands of the enemy and observe the regulations laid down by him. But when individuals act at one time as harmless civilians and at another as fighting men, interchanging the parts as occasion requires, they may be put to death, if caught.
"The peaceful inhabitants of territory under the enemy's occupation (see Pt. III, Ch. IV), are liable to be called upon to perform any service that is not distinctly military in its character; but they may not be compelled to take part in operations of war directed against their own country. Contributions and requisitions may be levied on them in certain circumstances; and they must not, under pain of death, give assistance or information to their own side."
Similar statements may be found in most -- if not all -- of the other texts mentioned. ]
The first and most obvious reason is that - except in Porter's fraudulent version - no reference is made to individuals.
[COMMENT: If there is no reference to individuals, how can there be any trials of individuals? - C.P.]
The text refers only to the liabilities of the state [!]. And, certainly, it contemplates some sort of trial to determine liability. In fact, that was exactly what was done after World War I.
[COMMENT: What exactly are we talking about? Compensation? "War guilt"? "War crimes" in the sense of "atrocities"? "War crimes" in the sense of the "planning, preparation, and waging of war in violation of international treaties and assurances", etc.? The trials held in Leipzig etc. were for standard atrocities. - C.P.]
A fine account of the action against Germany by the United States for sabotage conducted in this country prior to its entry into World War I [!? - C.P.] can be found in "Sabotage at Black Tom" by Jules Witcover (Chapel Hill, 1989).
[COMMENT: Surely we are not to be treated to the "Zimmerman telegram" all over again, are we? - C.P.]
If Porter's point - as the theme of "War Crimes Trials" and Porter's terse [!] comment would indicate - is that Article 3 did not contemplate trials of individual war criminals, he is, likewise in error.
[COMMENT: How can this be so if there is no reference to individuals? In any case, a "war crime", traditionally, was an atrocity committed in the field or against prisoners. It did not mean "willing membership in a Conspiracy or Common Plan to Wage Aggressive War", etc. etc. - C.P.]
The crucial question is what Article 3 was meant to do. Porter can only be correct if Article 3 was drafted to provide an exclusive remedy [!] for war crimes [?][COMMENT: DEFINITION, PLEASE! - C.P.]. If, on the other hand, it was drafted to either create a cause of action or to codify an existing right, Porter's statement cannot stand. [!]
Consider an analogy. There is no right under Anglo-American common law to sue for the death of an individual [!].
[COMMENT: The insurance companies, banks, and industrial concerns being sued by rapacious "Hoaxoco$t survivors" will be very glad to hear of that, not to mention the tobacco companies and gun manufacturers, etc. etc. being sued by champertous Jewish "contingency lawyers". - C.P.]
All such lawsuits are brought under specific statutory enactments known as "wrongful death and survival" statutes.
[COMMENT: Proof that Mr. Edeiken has a law degree: an irrelevant display of irrelevant learning for obfuscation purposes. - C.P.]
None of these statutes mention criminal law [!][?] If Article 3 only creates or codifies a cause of action [!], as Porter claims [!], his argument would be similar to a drunken driver who killed somebody asking to have the criminal case against him dismissed on the grounds that the wrongful death and survival statutes make no mention of criminal penalties.
[COMMENT: Does this kind of pettifogging really answer the questions at issue? - C.P.]
A major impediment to the claim that Article 3 creates an exclusive remedy is, simply, that the Convention makes no such statement. The standards of statutory interpretation prohibit the inference of such restrictions. Had the drafters wished to restrict the remedies of an aggrieved party, they would have said so.
[COMMENT: The exact opposite is the truth. Otherwise, either signatory to a treaty could unilaterally increase the obligations of the other party to one's own benefit. - C.P.]
In fact, the drafters went out of their way to indicate that the text of the Convention was neither complete or restrictive in nature:
[COMMENT: Presumably to be supplemented by future treaties; see above. - C.P.]
"According to the views of the High Contracting Parties, these provisions, the wording of which has been inspired by the desire to diminish the evils of war"
[COMMENT: If that is the intent, then why did the Allies commit the most atrocities? - C.P.],
"as far as military requirements permit, are intended to serve as a general rule of conduct for the belligerents in their mutual relations and in their relations with the inhabitants.
"It has not, however, been found possible at present to concert regulations covering all the circumstances which arise in practice;
"On the other hand, the High Contracting Parties clearly do not intend that unforeseen cases should, in the absence of a written undertaking, be left to the arbitrary judgment of military commanders.
"Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience."
Further it cannot be argued that the trial of war criminals [COMMENT: DEFINITION PLEASE] was a concept unique to the trial of the Nazis after World War II or unknown to international law. Articles 227 through 230 of the Treaty of Versailles [!] called for such trials of war criminals. As Telford Taylor wrote in The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials (1992):
[COMMENT: The Treaty of Versailles was never ratified by the United States. As for Taylor, see ANATOMY OF A NUREMBERG LIAR. - C.P.]
Under Article 227 the Kaiser was to be tried before a "special tribunal" of five judges, one each from the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan. He was not to be charged with responsibility for war crimes but with "a supreme offence against international morality and the sanctity of treaties."
[COMMENT: A crime unknown to international law then as now. The First World War was caused by German fulfilment of international treaty obligations and assurances to Austria, resulting in declarations of war by Russia and France. The Kaiser was not an absolute monarch. What is "international morality"? "State A may consider X a murderer, while State B may consider it murder to execute X"! Source: Dr. Takayanagi, Tokyo Trial transcript, p. 42,251. - C.P.]
The three ensuing articles called for trials of "persons accused of having committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war" before "military tribunals" of the aggrieved nations, and required the German government to "hand over" the individuals so accused to any of the "Allied and Associated Powers" so requesting. Provisions comparable to Articles 228-230 were included in later peace treaties with Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria." (paperback edition, page 16)
[COMMENT: Were these provisions a correct interpretation of the Fourth Hague Convention? If so, why did the Dutch refuse to surrender the Kaiser for Trial? - C.P.]
There are, therefore, several reasons to conclude that Porter's conclusion about Article 3 [COMMENT: Of the body of Hague IV, not the Annex] is in error but, more important is his dishonest behavior [!] in re-writing Article 3 [!] and presenting it as the actual text of the Convention [!]. His failure to accurately present Article 3 [!] should call into question the credibility of his work.
[MEA CULPA: Same error as above. THE QUOTATION HAS BEEN CORRECTED. The meaning remains unchanged. - C.P.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is, by no means, an exhaustive analysis of the defects in the arguments that Porter presents. There are similar defects in his analysis of Regulations 25, 27, and 56 and Regulation 43 [COMMENT: Of the Annex to Hague IV]. In the former case, based upon his paraphrased version, Porter asserts that the bombing of Dresden was improper [!].
[COMMENT: Does this person maintain the contrary? See my comment on Butcher Harris. - C.P.] *
He failed to report or comment on the provision of this Regulation which places an absolute duty to indicate [!] or mark [!] such possible targets [!].
[COMMENT: How do we do that? Paint it red, like Clint Eastwood in "HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER"? Draw a circle around it on a map and mail a copy to 10 Downing Street by registered mail with return receipt? Install gigantic electrical displays visible from altitudes of 30,000 feet stating "THIS WAY TO UNDEFENDED CITY (with arrow?)]
In the case of a city, that requires the declaration of a city as an "open city." [!][COMMENT: Who says? - C.P.]
This was not done in any of the cases cited by Porter.
[COMMENT: Do these hair-splitting distinctions really give the Allies the right to burn hundreds of thousands of women and children to death in the deliberate "carpet bombings" of civilian districts with phosphorous and jellied gasoline after dropping heavy explosives to destroy the fire mains? Is this the intention of the Fourth Hague Convention? If the indiscriminate mass bombing of civilians is LEGAL, as clearly alleged here, then why was it declared a "war crime" when allegedly practised by the Germans and Japanese? - C.P.]
Porter's analysis of Regulation 43 - which, he states, mandates cooperation with occupying powers - is based on his assumption that the Hague Convention is the exclusive law [!] covering what was done by the Nazis during their occupation. Whatever the provisions of the Hague Convention the valid laws of a sovereign entity can take a rather jaundiced view of citizens who attach themselves to an invader and engage - as was the case with the Nazi occupation - [in] murder, plunder, and treason. In fact, the prosecutions of collaborators were not based on the Hague Convention but on national criminal law.
[COMMENT: Much of it ex-post facto and based on no objective law whatsoever; or does this person claim that the postwar "purges" in France, for example, were legal? Or the trial of Pierre Laval, which lasted about 15 minutes? How about the hundreds of Waffen SS-men sentenced to death in absentia and shot within 24 hours after their return home to Belgium after years of captivity in the Soviet Union? Or the hundreds of "slave laborers" returning by boat to Antwerp after the war who were simply thrown off the docks and drowned? (NOTE: One minute they're "slave laborers", the next minute they're "traitors".) How about the women put in the animal cages at Antwerp Zoo? The thousands of torture-murders in southern France? etc. etc. - C.P.]
Porter also fails to state that such co-operation is dependent on the acts of the occupying power being lawful.
[COMMENT: Note the manner in which this person hops back and forth between a moralistic disregard for legal trivialities and technicalities, and a hair-splitting legalistic disregard for all moralsand human suffering, no matter what the degree of cruelty, when it suits him. The Germans shall comply punctiliously , while the Allies shall be free to expand their prerogatives (and atrocities) to infinity. How about the actions of the Allied occupation forces -- mass looting, rapes, etc.? - C.P.]
Regulations 48 and 49 - as well as Regulation 43 - are clear that it is the affirmative duty of the occupying power to administer the territory in a legimate [sic] manner.
"Art. 48. If, in the territory occupied, the occupant collects the taxes, dues, and tolls imposed for the benefit of the State, he shall do so, as far as is possible, in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence in force, and shall in consequence be bound to defray the expenses of the administration of the occupied territory to the same extent as the legitimate Government was so bound.
"Art. 49. If, in addition to the taxes mentioned in the above article, the occupant levies other money contributions in the occupied territory, this shall only be for the needs of the army or of the administration of the territory in question."
It should require no reference to demonstrate that the Nazis did not follow these requirements. They murdered
[COMMENT: Where? Oradour-sur-Glane? The Germans are supposed to have burned over 500 people to death in a church, but
there were no signs of fire. The villagers were conducting partisan operations from the shelter of the village, and were killed by the explosion of their own illegal arms cache. During a recent visit, a child asked why the confessional did not burn. The answer was “shut up, you little fool”. - C.P.],
they plundered, and, in the eastern territories, they attempted to eliminate [!] and displace the native population
[COMMENT: What about the millions of Germans, including families, deported to the interior of the Soviet Union to slave for decades, the thousands of German factories expropriated lock, stock, and barrel, the six thousand German aviation and rocket scientists deported to the Soviet Union after the war, etc. etc. If these actions are illegal DURING wartime, what makes them legal AFTER THE WAR, when performed by the British, Americans, or the Soviets? - C.P.]
As such the requirement for co-operation with legitimate efforts to administer an occupied territory [incomplete sentence; sic].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final point that must be made is a comparison between Porter's paraphrases [!] and the text of the Hague Convention to demonstrate that these errors [!] were, in fact, a major portion of his essay. Every Article of that Convention mentioned by Porter and Porter's complete description of that Article are printed below so that any reader may compare the two texts to determine whether Porter, as he claims, relates "exactly"[!] what the Convention states, and whether there was a consistent - rather than occasional - misrepresentation of the Hague Convention:
PREAMBLE, ARTICLE 3
Porter: [?]
Actual:
"Art. 3: Belligerants [sic] violating the Convention may be made to pay compensation. Art. 3. A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces."
REGULATIONS, ARTICLES 1 and 2
[Mr. Edeiken now indulges himself in the nizkoprophagic confusion technique of quoting the same things you do, even it makes no difference, but making sure their quotes are longer than yours. See Nizkoprophagists Refute Porter on Human Soap . Since the comparisons prove nothing, and since I was unable to copy them in columns, they have been deleted. - C.P.]
Porter: [?]
Actual: [!]
"Articles 1 and 2 prohibit guerrilla warfare, stating that belligerants [sic] must be "commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates... have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance... carry arms openly... and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
"To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
"To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance; [!][!][!]"
[COMMENT: Presumably a "fixed emblem" means more than a mere armband which can be put on before an attack and thrown away afterwards. WHEN AND WHERE DID PARTISANS AND GUERRILLAS EVER COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
To carry arms openly; [!] and"
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID PARTISANS AND GUERRILLAS EVER COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
"To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war [!]."
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID PARTISANS AND GUERRILLAS EVER COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
"In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."
"Art. 2. The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly [!] and if they respect the laws and customs of war. [!]"
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID PARTISANS AND GUERRILLAS EVER COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 5
Porter:
Actual:
"Art. 5: Prisoners... cannot be confined except as an indispensable measure of safety [!], and only while the circumstances which necessitate the measure continue to exist [!]. Art. 5. Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress, camp, or other place, and bound not to go beyond certain fixed limits, but they cannot be confined except as in indispensable measure of safety [!] and only while the circumstances which necessitate the measure continue to exist [!]."
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE ALLIES COMPLY WITH THESE ARTICLES? - C.P.]
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 6
Porter:
Actual:
"Article 6 states that belligerants [sic] may utilize the labor of prisoners of war, officers excepted, for the public service, for private persons or their own account. Art. 6. The State may utilize the labor of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted. The tasks shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with the operations of the war.
"Prisoners may be authorized to work for the public service, for private persons, or on their own account.
"Work done for the State is paid for at the rates in force for work of a similar kind done by soldiers of the national army, or, if there are none in force, at a rate according to the work executed.
"When the work is for other branches of the public service or for private persons the conditions are settled in agreement with the military authorities.
"The wages of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position, and the balance shall be paid them on their release, after deducting the cost of their maintenance."
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE ALLIES COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 7
Porter:
Actual:
"Prisoners of war shall be treated as regards board, lodging, and clothing on the same footing as the troops of the Government who captured them [!]."
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE ALLIES COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
"Art. 7. The Government into whose hands prisoners of war have fallen is charged with their maintenance."
"In the absence of a special agreement between the belligerents, prisoners of war shall be treated as regards board, lodging, and clothing on the same footing as the troops of the Government who captured them."
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE ALLIES COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 8
Porter:
Actual:
"Article 8: Prisoners of war are subject to the laws, regulations and orders in force of the State in whose power they are. Any act of insubordination justifies the adoption towards them of such measures of severity as may be considered necessary. Art. 8. Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations, and orders in force in the army of the State in whose power they are. Any act of insubordination justifies the adoption towards them of such measures of severity as may be considered necessary.
"Escaped prisoners who are retaken before being able to rejoin their own army or before leaving the territory occupied by the army which captured them are liable to disciplinary punishment.
"Prisoners who, after succeeding in escaping, are again taken prisoners, are not liable to any punishment on account of the previous flight."
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 20
Porter:
Actual:
"Art. 20: After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners shall be carried out as quickly as possible."
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE ALLIES COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
"Art. 20. After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shall be carried out as quickly as possible."
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE ALLIES COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 23
Porter:
Actual:
Finally, article 23 (h) prohibits declaring "abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party" and "Article 23 (3) prohibits weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering."
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE ALLIES COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
"Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
"To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
"To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;"
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE ALLIES COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
"To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defense, has surrendered at discretion;"
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID PARTISANS, GUERRILLAS, SOVIETS, OR EVEN THE AMERICANS, BRITISH, AND FRENCH, ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
"To declare that no quarter will be given;"
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE PARTISANS AND SOVIETS ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE? See STALINS VERNICHTUNGSKRIEG by Joachim Hoffmann]
"To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE ALLIES COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
"To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
"To destroy [!] or seize [!] the enemy's property [!], unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;"
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE ALLIES COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
"To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party."
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE ALLIES COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
"A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war."
REGULATIONS, ARTICLES 25, 27, and 56
Porter:
Actual:
Articles 25, 27 and 56 prohibit bombardment "by whatever means" of undefended cities, cultural monuments, etc... Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE ALLIES COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
"Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes."
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE ALLIES COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand."
[COMMENT: Does this minor technicality really justify the Allied fire bombings of millions of civilians in "fire storms" 40 miles high (Hamburg), "carpet bombings" covering hundreds of square miles (examples too numerous to mention), and so on, in a policy initiated for the sole purpose of bringing America into the war ? See also BOMBING VINDICATED by Spaight. - C.P.]
[COMMENT RELATING TO "BUTCHER HARRIS" AND "INTERNATIONAL MORALITY" DELETED ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT MAY BE DEEMED OFFENSIVE. - C.P.]
Art. 56.] The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion [!], charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property [!].
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE ALLIES COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 32
Porter:
Actual:
Art. 32: A person is regarded as a parlementaire who has been authorized by one of the belligerants [sic] to enter into communications with the other... he has a right to inviolability. Flags of Truce
"Art. 32. A person is regarded as a parlementaire who has been authorized by one [!] of the belligerents to enter into communication with the other, and who advances bearing a white flag. He has a right to inviolability, as well as the trumpeter, bugler or drummer, the flag-bearer and interpreter who may accompany him.
"Art. 33. The commander to whom a parlementaire is sent is not in all cases obliged to receive him.
"He may take all the necessary steps to prevent the parlementaire taking advantage of his mission to obtain information.
In case of abuse, he has the right to detain the parlementaire temporarily." [COMMENT: FOR FOUR YEARS? - C.P.]
"Art. 34. The parlementaire loses his rights of inviolability if it is proved in a clear and incontestable manner that he has taken advantage of his privileged position to provoke or commit an act of treason."
[COMMENT: Treason to whom? Was Rudolf Hess a British subject, or have I missed something? - C.P.]
[ Actually, this is a reference to " war treason "; see The Meaning of "'War Crime" and 'War Criminal" in Pre-1945 International Law by C.W. Porter ]
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 43
Porter:
Actual:
Article 43 requires collaboration with occupation governments. "The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country."
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE ALLIES COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
" Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country."
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE ALLIES COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 46
Porter:
Actual:
Article 46: "Private property cannot be confiscated". [Art. 46.] "Family honour [!] and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected."
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE ALLIES COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
"Private property cannot be confiscated."
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE ALLIES COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? - C.P.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Porter claims that he wishes to present "exactly" what is written in the Convention, he does exactly the opposite [!]. Of the Preamble to the Convention and 14 of the Regulations to which Porter refers, only two (Articles 20 and 43) are accurate representations of the text of the convention. Porter's other citations are replete with substantial modifications and deletions which change the meaning of the article which he presents. In several cases an inaccurate paraphrase is presented as a direct quote. Porter, further, ignores any Article which contradicts his thesis that the Third Reich committed no war crimes. [COMMENT: DEFINITION PLEASE]. For example neither Regulations 18 or 50, both crucial to the trials of war criminals [COMMENT: When? Where? I have never heard of this] was cited. They state:
"Art. 18. Prisoners of war shall enjoy complete liberty in the exercise of their religion [!], including attendance at the services of whatever church [!] they may belong to, on the sole condition that they comply with the measures of order and police issued by the military authorities."
[COMMENT: WHEN AND WHERE DID THE SOVIETS, FOR EXAMPLE, COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE? Does "complete liberty of religion" include the right to starve and freeze in open holes in the ground for months, dying of dysentery, in the complete absence of any shelter or adequate food? See OTHER LOSSES and CRIMES AND MERCIES by James Bacque, or GRUESOME HARVEST, by Keeling. Or does this writer contend that what would have been a crime in wartime is no crime at all if committed by the victors after the war? - C.P.]
"Art. 50. No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible."
[COMMENT: Perhaps this is why the British, French and Americans preferred to shoot hostages: the Germans had nothing left with which to pay any "pecuniary penalty". Perhaps this is why entire factories were dismantled and shipped to the Soviet Union or the United States, complete with documentation in violation of all patents; perhaps this is why six thousand rocket scientists, and at least five million ordinary Germans, were kidnapped for slave labor for years after the war by the Soviets or French; see THE LAST BATTLE by David Irving, ARE THE RUSSIANS TEN FEEL TALL? by Werner Keller, etc. etc.. - C.P.]
Porter was correct in one respect: as with any statute or treaty, it is important to determine what the Hague Convention "exactly" states. Unfortunately he does not deliver on his promise [!]. A creditable job of cut-and-paste [COMMENT: It is "cut-and-paste" which sent Mr. Edeiken on his wild-goose chase to Geneva] to present "exactly" what the text states is not a difficult task; Porter didn't do such a job. [COMMENT: I respectfully submit that to do so would substantially strengthen my case. - C.P.] He decided, instead, to edit and paraphrase the provisions of the Hague Convention and ignore any provision which contradicted his agenda [!]. [COMMENT: This person prefers to concentrate on German crimes while ignoring Allied crimes and atrocities; which is worse? - C.P.] Porter's presentation is so inaccurate [!] that, in many cases it is impossible to determine the intended meaning [!] of the Hague Convention and, in many cases promotes a defective interpretation [!] of that treaty. [COMMENT: Does this mean that the Americans complied with the Convention, while the Germans did not? - C.P.]
Just as Porter did a shoddy job of cut-and-paste [COMMENT: I prefer the photocopies from the CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE, with signatures, ratifications, adhesions, and reservations, published in 1915] it would have been a simple matter to check the accuracy of his work. Even a random check would have revealed that 13 of the 15 substantive "quotations" presented by Porter are in error. Obviously CODOH made no check of the easily available primary sources [!] when they published the article [!].
This brief analysis demonstrates that "War Crimes Trials" is replete with deliberate distortions [!], fraudulent representations [!] of the text of the Conventions, and factual errors [!]. Porter's work is not only a failure [!] but a rather dismal one [!]. Porter's technique of misquotation [!] and factual error [!] would not be tolerated in any legitimate academic community [!] or any other setting where factual accuracy is required. [!] It would never survive the process of legitimate peer review [!]. It is only in the shadow world of the lunatic fringe [!] of those who deny the Holocaust [!] where efforts like "War Crimes Trials" find acceptability [!]. And it is only the credulous and those with a specific agenda [!] who can consider "War Crimes Trials" as either convincing or authoritative [!].
The inescapable conclusion is that the process of writing "War Crimes Trials" was defective [!] or dishonest [!] and the process of publishing it was defective or dishonest [!]. "War Crimes Trials" is so flawed [!] that it is utterly worthless [!] except as an example of a failed attempt [!] to defend the depredations of the Nazis.
[COMMENT: If it is not legitimate to defend the "depredations of the Nazis", then why did the Americans bother to hold any trials? The statements I made in this article did not originate with myself, nor did I dream them up myself in a fit of moon-struck lucubration. With the exception of Rudolf Hess, every point I have made was presented countless times by American lawyers assigned to the defense of accused "war criminals", both German and Japanese; these points are the subject of argument in countless thousands of pages of the Tokyo Trial transcript, the Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss (where the defense lawyers were all Americans), and, to some lesser extent, the First Nuremberg Trial (in which the defense lawyers were all German), as well as in hundreds or even thousands of other trials. Of these lawyers, who sacrificed themselves doing a thankless job for many, many years, the best, in my opinion, were Major W. Ben Bruce Blakeney and William L. Logan, George F. Blewett, and George A. Furness. There were many, many, other American, German, and Japanese defense lawyers, hundreds upon hundreds, who defended their clients passionately, brilliantly, with endless erudition, sarcasm, and anger. The defense arguments in these trials, often absolutely irrefutable (for example: "WOULD IT NOT BE BLIND TO THE REALITIES OF THE COMMUNITY OF NATIONS TO THINK THAT THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT, WHETHER POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, OR MILITARY, CAN POSSIBLY BE CONDUCTED, IF AN OFFICER OF STATE HAS TO DECIDE FOR HIMSELF IN EVERY CASE AS TO WHETHER THE COMMAND OF HIS GOVERNMENT IS IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, TREATIES, AGREEMENTS, AND ASSURANCES, LEST HE SHOULD SOME DAY BE DECLARED A WAR CRIMINAL BY AN ALIEN JUDGE?") * were simply ignored in the judgements. Their sincerity cannot be doubted. For example, during the trial of Admiral Toyoda (20 volumes, available at the Peace Palace of the Hague) Major W. Ben Bruce Blakeney said of Lt. General Honma (who had already been hanged): "I hold him in affectionate respect and memory". Why would he say such a thing in an unrelated trial if it were not true? William L. Logan compared the tribunal in the trial of Admiral Toyoda to Caligula "posting his decrees on a high pole so that none might know the offences for which they might be sentenced to death".
In the Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss, one of the defense attorneys, a Southerner, said that if his grandfather were still alive, he would be a "war criminal" too, because "he once guarded some Yankee prisoners to keep them from escaping": ipso facto proof of "willing participation or membership in the Conspiracy or Common Plan."
All these trials contain countless hundreds of quotations and references from classical authorities on national and international law. Why doesn't Mr. Edeiken look them up if he is so interested? Did the atomic bombings really constitute an "advance in international law", while the alleged indiscriminate bombings of Chinese cities by the Japanese were a "war crime"? Were the fire bombings of paper cities filled with women and children an act of "heroism", while the beheading of 7 American bomber personnel under Japanese law was a "war crime"?
One can imagine the screams of indignation if the Germans or Japanese had abrogated the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention by simply declaring prisoners of war to be "Disarmed Enemy Personnel" (DEPs) and therefore no longer subject to the protection of the Convention, as was done by General Eisenhower.
In 1861 Abraham Lincoln declared a naval blockade of the Confederate coastline, and simultaneously announced his intention to hang all Confederates as "rebels". He was informed by the British government that if he wished to hang all Confederates as "rebels", he was quite entitled to do so (since "rebellion", "conflict", and "war" were quite distinct things in classical international law), but that blockade was an act of war requiring a declaration of war, and that once a state of war came into being, he was required to treat Confederate prisoners as prisoners of war: "he was not entitled to combine the conditions of peace and war to his own benefit". The plan to hang all Confederate prisoners of war was in fact only abandoned when Jefferson Davis threatened to retaliate on a "man-for-man" basis. [Source: 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, "WAR" and related articles].
Retaliation against prisoners of war was prohibited by the 1929 Geneva Prisoner of War Convention for the first time in history, and it is this feature which is usually considered its most important
It is clear that Mr. Edeiken knows how to sue somebody in an accident case, but he appears to know relatively little about the matter at hand, and nothing whatever of revisionist history. It is not my contention that the Germans and Japanese never violated any provisions of treaties and conventions signed in 1899 and 1907 [!]; nor do I defend everything they ever did.
IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT A COMPLETE READING OF THE TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS IN QUESTION STRENGTHENS MY CASE RATHER THAN WEAKENING IT, THE ASSEVERATIONS OF MY LEARNED COLLEAGUE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING.
CARLOS W. PORTER
JUNE 20, 2000
* Dr. Takayanagi, Tokyo Trial transcript pp. 42,213. - C.P.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FURTHER READING:
[NOTE: Some of the following are available in many editions, having been regularly published and updated for up to 150 years. For "war crimes trials" research purposes, the most useful are probably those published between 1900 and 1940 or 45. - C.P.]
- Anderson, Chandler P., American Journal of International Law;
- Andso, Niskuke, Surrender, Occupation, and Private Property in International Law: Evaluation of U.S. Practice in Japan. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991;
- Bassiouni Cherif M. and Ned Vanda, A Treatise on International Criminal Law;
- Black, Henry Campbell, A Dictionary of Law Containing the Terms and Phrases, 1891;
- Blewett, George F., "VICTOR'S INJUSTICE", American Perspective 4:3 Summer 1950, pp 282-292;
- Brierley, Burdick W., The Law of Nations, an Introduction to the International Law of Peace, 1949;
- Brierley, Burdick W., The Prospect for International Law, 1945;
- Brierley, Burdick W., The Outlook for International Law, 1945;
- Cobbett, Pitt, Cases and Opinions in International Law, 1913;
- Dickinson, Edwin, Equality of States in International Law, 1920;
- Edmunds, Sterling, International Law Applied to the Treaty of Peace;
- 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Blockade", "Contraband", "Guerrilla", "International Law", "Neutrality", "Peace", "Peace Conferences", "Rebellion", "Secession", "War", etc.;
- 1922 Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Germany", "Peace Conference", "Poison Gas Warfare", "World War"; many miscellaneous articles;
- Evans, Lawrence Boyd, Leading Cases on International Law, 1922;
- Feilchenfeld, E. International Law of Belligerent Occupants, 1942;
- Fenwick, Chas. G, International Law, 1948;
- Fenwick, Chas. G, Cases on International Law, 1935;
- Finch, George A., The Sources of International Law, 1937;
- Flory, Prisoners of War, 1942;
- Furness, George A. "NOTES OF SPEECH BY GEORGE A. FURNESS", Asiatic Society of Japan (Bulletin), VI June 1976;
- Fuehr, Alexander: The Neutrality of Belgium: A Study of the Belgian Case under Its Aspects in Political History and International Law, 1915;
- Hackworth, Green Haywood, Digest of International Law, 1943;
- General Index to International Law Situations, Topics, and Discussions, 10 vol., 1901-1910, published in 1912 (Washington);
- Gallaudet, Edward H. Manual of International Law, 1901;
- Hall, William Edward, Treatise on International Law, 1904;
- Higgins, A Treatise on International Law;
- Holls, Frederick W., The Peace Conference at The Hague and its Bearing on International Law, 1900;
- Hull, William I. The Two Hague Conferences and Their Contribution to International Law, 1908;
- Hudson, Manley O., Cases and Materials on International Law, 1936;
- Hyde, Chas C. International Law, 1922;
- Lawrence, T.J., Documents Illustrative of International Law, 1914;
- Lawrence, T.J., Principles of the Law;
- Main, Henry Summer, International Law: A Series of Lectures etc.;
- Markun, Leo, Principles of International Law;
- Moore, John Bassett, A Digest of International Law 1906;
- Naval War College of the United States, various publications;
- Nippold, Otfried, Development of International Law After the World War, 1923;
- Oppenheim & Lauterpacht, International Law;
- Oppenheim, Lassa Francis Lawrence, The Future of International Law, 1921;
- Phillimore, Commentaries on the Law;
- Phillimore, Commentaries upon International Law;
- Politis, Nicolas, New Aspects of International Law, 1928;
- Roemer, William Francis, The Ethical Basis of International Law, 1929;
- Singer, Berthold, International Law, 1918;
- Scott, James Brown, International Classics of International Law, 1930 (39 vol.);
- Scott, James Brown, Recommendations on International Law etc., 1916;
- Soule, C.C. + McCauley, C., International Law for Naval Officers, 1936;
- Stockton, Chas. A, Outlines of International Law, 1924;
- Suter, Keith, International Law of Guerrilla Warfare, 1984;
- THE TOKYO WAR CRIMES TRIAL, Pritchard-Zaide, Garland Publishing, 22 volumes, 1985;
- Twiss, The Law of Nations;
- Vollenhofen, C. Van, Scope and Content of International Law, Leiden, 1932;
- Walker, T.A., Science of International Law;
- Westlake, International Law;
- Wheaton, Henry, International Law, 1944;
- Woolsey, Theodore Dwight, Introduction to the Study of International Law, 1899;
- Wharton, Francis, Digest of the International Law of the United States;
- Wright, Quincey, Research in International Law Since the War, 1930;
- Wilson, George Grafton, International Law, 1922;
- Wilson, George Grafton, Handbook of International Law, 1939;
- Winfield, Principles of the Law;
- DISSENTIENT JUDGEMENT OF JUSTICE PAL, International Tribunal for the Far East, Published by Kokusho Kankokai, Inc., 2-10-5, Shimura, Intabashi-ku, Tokyo, 174-0056 JAPAN
Fax: 813-5970-7427
Price: 32,000 yen (+ tax)
"When time shall have softened passion and prejudice, when Reason shall have stripped the mask from misrepresentation, then Justice, holding evenly her scales, will require much of past censure and praise to change places" p. 701, Justice R.B. PAL.
Note: Mr. Edeiken was recently arrested and fined for assaulting an officer of the law during a courthouse brawl; perhaps the carelessness and confusion of his legal writings reflect an impulsive state of mind.
Return to ARTICLES PAGE
Return to CONTENTS PAGE