{"id":62919,"date":"2015-08-24T12:15:56","date_gmt":"2015-08-24T11:15:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=62919"},"modified":"2015-08-24T14:16:47","modified_gmt":"2015-08-24T13:16:47","slug":"is-the-new-u-s-law-of-war-manual-actually-hitlerian","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2015\/08\/is-the-new-u-s-law-of-war-manual-actually-hitlerian\/","title":{"rendered":"Is the New U.S. \u2018Law of War Manual\u2019 Actually \u2018Hitlerian\u2019?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Obama U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has quietly issued its important Department of Defense – Law of War Manual, June 2015<\/a> and, unlike its predecessor, the 1956 U.S. Army Field Manual<\/em>, which was not designed to approve of the worst practices by both the United States and its enemies in World War II, or after 9\/11, this new document has been alleged specifically to do just that: to allow such attacks as the United States did on Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in Iraq and elsewhere.<\/p>\n

First here will be a summary of previous news reports about this historically important document; then, extensive quotations from the actual document itself will be provided, relating to the allegations in those previous news reports. Finally will be conclusions regarding whether, or the extent to which, those earlier news reports about it were true.<\/p>\n

EARLIER REPORTS ABOUT THE MANUAL:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The document was first reported by DoD in a curt press release on June 12th, with a short-lived link to the source-document, and headlined, \u201cDoD Announces New Law of War Manual.\u201d<\/a> This press release was published and discussed only in a few military newsmedia, not in the general press.<\/p>\n

The document was then anonymously reported on June 25th, at the non-military site,<\/p>\n

http:\/\/respect-discussion.blogspot.com\/2015\/06\/the-usa-writes-their-own-version-of.html<\/a>,<\/p>\n

under the headline, \u201cThe USA writes their own version of \u2018International Law\u2019: Pentagon Rewrites \u2018Law of War\u2019 Declaring \u2018Belligerent\u2019 Journalists as Legitimate Targets.\u201d<\/p>\n

That news article attracted some attention from journalists, but no link was provided to the actual document, which the U.S. DoD removed promptly after issuing it.<\/p>\n

A professor of journalism was quoted there as being opposed to the document\u2019s allegedly allowing America\u2019s embedded war journalists to kill the other side\u2019s journalists. He said: \u201cIt gives them license to attack or even murder journalists that they don\u2019t particularly like but aren\u2019t on the other side.\u201d<\/p>\n

Patrick Martin at the World Socialist Web Site, then headlined on August 11th, \u201cPentagon manual justifies war crimes and press censorship,\u201d<\/a> and he reported that the Committee to Protect Journalists was obsessed with the document\u2019s implications regarding journalists. A link was provided to the document, but the link is dead.<\/p>\n

Then, Sherwood Ross headlined at opednews on August 13th, \u201cBoyle: New Pentagon War Manual Reduces Us to \u2018Level of Nazis\u2019,\u201d<\/a> and he interviewed the famous expert on international law, Francis Boyle, about it, who had read the report. Ross opened: \u201cThe Pentagon\u2019s new Law of War Manual(LOWM) sanctioning nuclear attacks and the killing of civilians, \u2018reads like it was written by Hitler\u2019s\u00a0Ministry of War,\u2019<\/strong> says international law authority Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois at Champaign.\u201d Ross continued: \u201cBoyle points out the new manual is designed to supplant the 1956 U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 written by Richard Baxter, the world\u2019s leading\u00a0authority on the Laws of War. Baxter was the Manley O. Hudson Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a Judge on the International Court\u00a0of Justice. Boyle was his top student.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ross did not link to the actual document. The only new information he provided about it consisted of Boyle\u2019s opinions about it.<\/p>\n

Though the DoD removed the document, someone had fortunately already copied it into the Web Archive, and I have linked to it there, at the top of the present article, to make the source-document easily accessible to the general public. The document is 1,204 pages. So, finally, the general public can see the document and make their own judgments about it. What follows will concern specifically the claims about it that were made in those prior news articles, and will compare those claims with the relevant actual statements in the document itself. Reading what the document says is worthwhile, because its predecessor, the Army Field Manual, became central in the news coverage about torture and other Bush Administration war-crimes.<\/p>\n

THE DOCUMENT:<\/strong><\/p>\n

First of all, regarding \u201cjournalists,\u201d the document, in Chapter 4, says: \u201c4.24.2 Journalists and other media representatives are regarded as civilians;471\u00a0i.e., journalism does not constitute taking a direct\u00a0part in hostilities such that such a person would be deprived of protection from being made the\u00a0object of attack.472.\u201d<\/em> Consequently, the journalism professor\u2019s remark is dubious, at best, but probably can be considered to be outright false.<\/p>\n

The charge by the international lawyer, Professor Boyle, is a different matter altogether.<\/p>\n

This document says, in Chapter 5: \u201c5.3.1 Responsibility of the Party Controlling Civilian 5.3.1 Persons and Objects. The party controlling civilians and civilian objects has the primary responsibility for the protection of\u00a0civilians and civilian objects.13[13\u00a0See\u00a0\u00a0J. Fred Buzhardt, DoD General Counsel, Letter to Senator Edward Kennedy, Sept. 22, 1972. \u2026] The party controlling the civilian population generally has the\u00a0greater opportunity to minimize risk to civilians.14[14\u00a0\u00a0FINAL\u00a0\u00a0REPORT ON\u00a0 THE PERSIAN\u00a0\u00a0GULF\u00a0\u00a0WAR \u00a0614. \u2026] Civilians also may share in the responsibility\u00a0to take precautions for their own protection.15[15\u00a0U.S. Comments on the International Committee of the Red Cross\u2019s Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law in the Gulf Region, Jan. 11, 1991. \u2026]\u201d<\/em> This is directly counter to what Professor Boyle was alleged to have charged about the document.<\/p>\n

The document continues: \u201c5.3.2 Essentially Negative Duties to Respect Civilians and to Refrain From Directing Military Operations Against Them. In general, military operations must not be directed against\u00a0enemy civilians.16\u00a0In particular:<\/em><\/p>\n