DOCSLIB.ORG

\U25a0i Rm\U25a0bill

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
\U25a0i Rm\U25a0bill 1 \u25a0I rM\u25a0 Bill \u25a0 • < WAR DEPARTMENT :OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF 1 Rules of an airfare WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1914 \u25a0\u25a0: £, / & )^Jd¥Oiffl^ War Department, Document No. 467. Office ofthe ChiefofStaff. iy ) :.-.! ' ' /<*i J yt Wab Depabtment, Office of the Chief of Staff, Washington, April25, 191%. The following Rules of Land Warfare are approved and here­ with published for the information and government of the armed land forces of the United States. order of the Secretary of War. W. W. WOTHERSPOON, Major General, Chief of Staff. 3 CONTENTS. Page. Preface 5 Abbreviations 8 Chapter I. The laws of war on land 11 Introduction 11 General principles. 14 11. Hostilities 17 The commencement of hostilities 17 111. The• armed_ - forces' ofbelligerents' ' 21 TT r TV . £ OK IV. Prisoners of war— 1 25 Appendix A Form of certificate, newspaper correspondents, etc., accompanying an army.. 35 35 V. The sick, wounded,— and deadT. 38 Appendix A Form of certificate of personnel ofvoluntary aid societies 54 VI. Section I. The conduct ofhostilities 56 Section 11. Stratagems. .. '. 60 Section 111. Espionage and treason 63 Section IV. Bombardments, assaults, and sieges : 66 66 VII. Section I.Intercourse between belligerents 71 Section 11. Capitulations — 76 Appendices A,B, C, and D Forms ofcapit­ ulation 80 80 Section 111. Armistices 88 Appendices A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H— Forms of armistice 94 Section IV. Passports, safe-conducts, safeguards and cartels — 100 Appendices A, B, C Forms of passports, safe-conduct, and safeguard 103 VIII.Militaryauthority over hostile State 105 IX. Treatment of enemy— property 118 Appendix A Form of requisition. X. Penalties for violations ofthe laws of war 129 XI. Neutrality 135 135 Neutral rights —and diities 135 Appendix Form of convention for intern­ ment inneutral territory 146 XII. Automatic submarine contact mines 147 5 CONTESTS, 6 APPENDICES. Page. Appendix No, 1. Convention 111 of The Hague, October 18, 1907, relative to opening of hostilities, withtranslation 151 2. Convention IVof The Hague, October 18, 1907, respecting the laws and customs of waronland withtrans] aiion 153 3. Convention V, respecting the rights and duties of neutral powers and persons in war on land, of The Hague, October 18, 1907, withtranslation \u25a0 ... 165 4. Convention VIII,relative to the' laying of automatic submarine contact mines, of The Hague, October 18, 1907, withtrans­ lationlation.. : \u25a0 170 5. Convention IX, respecting bombardment naval forces in time of war, of The Hague, October 18,' 1907, with transla­ ijj.<jiitiontion. 174 6. Convention XI, relative to the right of capture innaval 'warfare, of The Hague. October 18/1907, with translation '. 177 7. Declaration XIV,prohibiting the discharge of projectiles and explosives from bal­ loons, of The Hague, October 18, 1907, withtranslation. .. 181 8. Table of ratifications and adhesions to the second peace conference at The Hague, in1907 \u0084.:._ 1........ 184 9. International convention for the ameliora­ tion of the condition of the wounded and sick in armies in the field, at Geneva, July 6, 1906, with translation. .' 186 .x.t PREFACE. The accompanying Rules of Land Warfare have been prepared for use of officers of the land forces of the United States. The official translations willbe printed an heavy type for the purpose of distinguishing them from the other portions of the text, much of which is explanatory, and yet a considerable part of which is believed to present the substantive law as to matters upon which The Hague and Geneva conventions are silent or by no means complete. , , Ithas been found essential to make many additions to the textLCAI ofUl TheJ.JUt? Hague-XiagUC and4XIIII.-Geneva'VTtMI^V <l conventionstUUVCIILIUIIfI- (the\UIC latter,JUiLLCL, consist­i;uui3ioi­ ing of 83 articles, is reasonably complete), since these do not deal exhaustively with their subject matter. \u25a0 Itwillbe found that everything" vital contained in G. O. 100, of A. G. O. of April24, .1863, Instructions for the Government of Armies of the. United States in the Field," has been incorpo­ rated in this manual. Wherever practicable the original text has been used herein, 1 because itis believed that long familiarity with this text and its interpretation by otir officers should not be interfered with.ifpossible to avoid doing so. The original text of the several conventions will be fo.und printed in the appendices numbered from 1 to 9. These are ar­ ranged in parallel columns in French and English as ratified by this Government. The text of.the manual which is for the guidance of officers of our Army is the official translation of the French as ratified by the United States Senate and published in the United States Statutes" at Large. Convention No. XI, Relative to the laying of automatic sub­ marine contact mines," is incorporated in the text because of its Value to officers of the coast artillery primarily, and because of its interest as well to officers of the mobile troops. In view of the incomplete and unsatisfactory state of the law upon this subject, as stated in the text of this convention, it was deemed prudent to incorporate in the foot notes the rules prescribed by the Institut de Droit International at their meetings in Paris in 1910, and again" at Oxford in 1913. The latter being incor­ porated in a Manuel dcs Lois de la Guerre Maritime." Inthe preparation of these rules all of the authorities men­ tioned in the abbreviations were consulted, and many others. Every effort was made to give credit, and this was done wher­ ever possible. Especial use was made of The Rules of Land Warfare, prepared by officers of the English Army and Prof." L. Oppenheim, LL. D., and of Prof. Nagao Ariga's book, La Guerre 1 Russo-Japonaise," which deals so carefully and thor­ oughly with the laws and usages of war during one of tlie greatest, wars, of:recent times. • 7 ,!'>' ' 8 RULES OF LAND WARFARE. ABBREVIATIONS OF TITLES OF BOOKS, ETC., REFERRED TO INTHE TEXT. Ariga La Guerre Russo-Japonaise au point dci, vue continental et le droit International. By N. Ariga, ±908. Birkhimer 1Military Government and Martial Law, second edition, 1904. Bonfils 1 Manuel de Droit. International Public. Crimea Reports of the Supreme Court of the United States. Dig. Op. J. A. G Digest of Opinions of the Judge Advocate Generalurtsueruiueuerai .ofoiuj. methe Uniteduiiiieu Statesouuubs Jiiuaj.Army. F.S. R Field Service Regulations of the UnitedL \u25a0 States, 1914. French Manual Conventions interinternationalesInternationales concernant la Guerre sur terre.ter Publiees ensuite de decision dv ConseilCon federal dv 31 octobre, 1910:iQin Gall- . Gallison, United States Supreme Court Re­ porter. Geneve Conference Actes Convention de Geneve. Actes de la Con­ ference de Revision. Geneve, 1906. G. C ' The Geneva Convention of 190&. G. O.100, 18G:> Instructions for the Government of _ the Armies' of the United States in the Field, 1863.ISR3" H. 11l Hague Convention No. 11l of October 18, 1907. H.IV Hague Convention No. IV'of October' 18, 190\u25a0tern?T. \u25a0 Et:y .-_- Hague Convention No. V of October 18, 1907. H.VIII Hague Convention No. VIIIof October 18, 1907.' H. IX__i-l__: 1 Hague Convention No. IX of October 18, ' 1907.' . H. XI Hague Convention No. XI of October 18, 1907. H. D___ 1- .-Hague 'Declaration of 1899. ,_The H.R \u25a0— Rules of Land Warfare contained in annex to Hague Convention No. IV of October 18, 1907. Hall- International' Law, fifth edition. , Hague iaua,' \u25a0 Higglnstiiggins . Theme tiague Peaceirence Conference.v^onicreiice. 1909.' HollandHolland- ' The Laws of War on Land.. 1908. Holls The Peace Conference' at the Hague. 1910. Inst. Int.Law Conventirines Internationales concernant La Guerre sur Terre, Publiees ensuite de decision dv Conseil federal dv, octobre, 1910. Int. Peace Conf. Actes Deuxieme Conference International de la Paix. Aetes et documents. The Hague, . 1907. - Jour. Int.Law The Journal of the Institute of International Law. Kriegsbrauch Kriegsbrauch im Landkriege. Edited by the German Great General Staff (Military Historical Section). Berlin, 1902. Les Lois I^es Lois de La Guerre Contihentale. Lieut. Robert Jacomet. Preface de M. Louis Renault, second edition, .1913. Magoon — .The Law of Civil Government under Mili­ tary Occupation, third edition, 1903. Moore's, Digest A Digest of International Law. By J. B. Moore, Washington, 1906.' RULES OF LAND WARFARE. 9 Op Opinions of the Attorney General of the United States. P. 11. IV Preamble to The Hague Convention No. IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. Pet Peters, United States Supreme Court Re­ porter. Spaight -_ War Rights on Land. 1911. Takahashi International Law applied to the Russo- Japanese War. By S. Takahashi. (Eng­ lish edition.) U. S United States Supreme Court Reports. Wall Wallace, Reports of the Supreme Court of the United States. Westlakc Internationa] Law, part 2, War, 1913. Wilson Wilson on. International Law, H. S. edition, 1910. I Chapter I, THE LAWS OF WAR ON LAND. INTRODUCTION. 1. Hoio regulated. —The conduct of war is regulated by certain well-established" and recognized rules that are usually designated as the laws of war," which comprise the rules, both written and unwritten, for the carrying on of war, both on land and at sea. THE WRITTEN KULKS. 2. Conventions, and treaties. —During the past 50 years many of these rules have been reduced to writingby means of conven­ tions or treaties entered into by the principal civilized nations of the world after full discussion at The Hague, Geneva, Brus­ sels, and St. Petersburg. 3. Those relating to war on land. —The rules contained herein relate to war on land, and the principal written agreements relating to the conduct of war on land are the following, viz:1 1 For full text of these conven Lions, see appendices.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ex Parte Quirin", the Nazi Saboteur Case Andrew Kent
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 66 | Issue 1 Article 3 1-2013 Judicial Review for Enemy Fighters: The ourC t's Fateful Turn in "Ex parte Quirin", the Nazi Saboteur Case Andrew Kent Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Andrew Kent, Judicial Review for Enemy Fighters: The ourC t's Fateful Turn in "Ex parte Quirin", the Nazi Saboteur Case, 66 Vanderbilt Law Review 150 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol66/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Judicial Review for Enemy Fighters: The Court's Fateful Turn in Exparte Quirin, the Nazi Saboteur Case Andrew Kent 66 Vand. L. Rev. 153 (2013) The last decade has seen intense disputes about whether alleged terrorists captured during the nontraditional post- 9/11 conflict with al Qaeda and affiliated groups may use habeas corpus to challenge their military detention or military trials. It is time to take a step back from 9/11 and begin to evaluate the enemy combatant legal regime on a broader, more systemic basis, and to understand its application to future conflicts. A leading precedent ripe for reconsideration is Ex parte Quirin, a World War II-era case in which the Supreme Court held that saboteurs admittedly employed by an enemy nation's military had a right to access civilian courts during wartime to challenge their trial before a military commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Sarily Represent the Views of Either the Judge Advocate General"S School, U
    PRETRIAL RESTRAINTi A COMPARATIVE HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF AMERICAN, BRITISH, AND CANADIAN MILITARY LAW A Thesis Presented to The Judge Advocate General's School, U. S. Army The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the individual student author and do not neces- sarily represent the views of either The Judge Advocate General"s School, U. S. Army, or any other governmental agency. References to this study should include the foregoing statement. by Major Robert W. Letendre, OF102527 April, 1969 SCOPE A comparative historical study of American, British, and Canadian military law with respect to pretrial restraint or imprisonment, with particular emphasis accorded to the historical precedents of the imposition of time limitations for the serving of charges and the bringing to trial of an accused in confinement. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION I II. EVOLUTION OF MILITARY LAW PRIOR TO THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 3 A. Historical Development of Articles o f war 3 B. Limitation on Courts-Martial Juris diction . ■. •• • 6 C. British Articles of War 1689-1749... 12 D. Limitation on Military Pretrial Con finement , 16 III. AMERICAN ARTICLES OF WAR FROM 1775 TO 1875 18 A. American Articles of War 1775-1861. 19 B . Civil War Enactments 30 C. Articles of War 1874 37 IV. AMERICAN MILITARY LAW IN THE 20ch CENTURY.37 A. Articles of War 1916 - 1920 37 B. Articles of War 1921 - 1969 51 V. BRITISH MILITARY LAW 54 A. Military Law of England 1774 - 1969.. 54 B. Military Law of Canada 1867 - 1969... 62 VI. CONCLUSIONS 69 TABLE OF CASES AND STATUTES 76 BIBLIOGRAPHY 79 I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Common Law of War
    Cornell University Law School Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository Cornell Law Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 11-2016 The ommonC Law of War Jens D. Ohlin Cornell Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Jens David Ohlin, "The ommonC Law of War," 58 William & Mary Law Review (2016) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE COMMON LAW OF WAR JENS DAVID OHLIN* ABSTRACT In recent litigation before U.S. federal courts, the government has argued that military commissions have jurisdiction to prosecute offenses against the "common law of war," which the government defines as a body of domestic offenses, such as inchoate conspiracy, that violate the American law of war. This Article challenges that definition by arguing that stray references to the term "common law of war"in historicalmaterials meant something completely different. By examining the Lieber Code, the writings of early natural law theorists, and early American judicial decisions, this Article con- cludes that the "common law of war" referred to a branch of the law of nations that applied during internalarmed conflicts, such as civil wars with non-state actors. This body of law was called "common," not because it was extended or elaboratedby the common law method of judge-applied law, but rather because it was "common" to all mankind by virtue of naturallaw, and thus even applied to internal actors, such as rebel forces, who were not otherwise bound by in- ternational law as formal states were.
    [Show full text]
  • Stacking the Deck Against Suspected Terrorists
    Stacking the Deck against Suspected Terrorists: The Dwindling Procedural Limits on the Government's Power to Indefinitely Detain United States Citizens as Enemy Combatants Nickolas A. Kacprowski* I. INTRODUCTION Jose Padilla is an American citizen.' The United States govern- ment took Padilla into custody on American soil in May 2002, and it has classified him as an enemy combatant, asserting that it can detain him indefinitely without charging him with any crime.2 Yaser Hamdi is also an American citizen who has been detained since Fall 2001, has been classified as an enemy combatant, and has yet to be charged with a crime.3 In Padilla v. Bush4, the District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of New York, like the Hamdi court, decided that because of the present war on terrorism, the government had the authority to classify citizens as enemy combatants. However, unlike the Hamdi court, the Padilla court ruled that, despite the government's classification of Padilla as an enemy combatant, he should be given access to an attor- ney in the prosecution of his habeas corpus petition and that the court would then review the charges and evidence and decide whether the government properly classified Padilla as an enemy combatant.5 Both the Padilla6 and the Hamdi7 courts applied a Supreme Court case from J.D. Candidate 2004, Northwestern University; B.A. Northwestern University, 2001. The author would like to thank his parents, Greg and Diane Kacprowski for a lifetime of love and support. The author recognizes two colleagues and friends at Northwestern, Len Conapinski and David Johanson, for their help with this Note.
    [Show full text]
  • The Civilianization of Military Law
    THE CIVILIANIZATION OF MILITARY LAW Edward F. Sherman* PART I I. INTRODUCTION Military law in the United States has always functioned as a system of jurisprudence independent of the civilian judiciary. It has its own body of substantive laws and procedures which has a different historical deri- vation than the civilian criminal law. The first American Articles of War, enacted by the Continental Congress in 1775,1 copied the British Arti- cles, a body of law which had evolved from the 17th century rules adopted by Gustavus Adolphus for the discipline of his army, rather than from the English common law.2 Despite subsequent alterations by Con- gress, the American military justice code still retains certain substantive and procedural aspects of the 18th century British code. Dissimilarity between military and civilian criminal law has been further encouraged by the isolation of the court-martial system. The federal courts have always been reluctant to interfere with the court-martial system, as ex- plained by the Supreme Court in 1953 in Burns v. Wilson:3 "Military law, like state law, is a jurisprudence which exists separate and apart from the law which governs in our federal judicial establishment. This Court has played no role in its development; we have exerted no super- visory power over the courts which enforce it .... As a result, the court-martial system still differs from the civilian court system in such aspects as terminology and structure, as well as procedural and sub- stantive law. The military has jealously guarded the distinctive aspects of its system of justice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Ex-Parte Quirin and Courts
    Copyright 2008 by Northwestern University School of Law Vol. 103 Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy THE INFLUENCE OF EX PARTE QUIRIN AND COURTS-MARTIAL ON MILITARY COMMISSIONS Morris D. Davis* Professor Greg McNeal was an academic consultant to the prosecution during my tenure as the Chief Prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. We had similar perspectives on many issues, and we still confer on detainee matters. I concur with the views expressed in his essay.1 I write to address two issues Professor McNeal identified and com- ment on how they affect the military commissions. First, I examine the case of the Nazi saboteurs—captured, tried, and executed in the span of seven weeks in 1942—and its influence on the decision in 2001 to resurrect military commissions. Second, I assess the conflicting statutory provisions in the Military Commissions Act and the impact on full, fair, and open tri- als. I. ATTEMPTING TO REPEAT HISTORY Professor McNeal argues that the administration chose military com- missions to protect information collected for intelligence (intel) purposes from disclosure. Safeguarding intel, particularly the sources and methods used to acquire information, was a key factor, but I believe the decision had a broader basis heavily influenced by a precedent-setting trial in 1942 that became the template for the President‘s Military Order of November 13, 2001.2 Shortly after midnight the morning of June 13, 1942, four men left a German submarine and came ashore at Amagansett Beach, New York.3 * Morris D. Davis served as Chief Prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, from September 2005 to October 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuing Civilianization of the Military Criminal Legal System Fredric I
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2017 From Rome to the Military Justice Acts of 2016 and beyond: Continuing Civilianization of the Military Criminal Legal System Fredric I. Lederer William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Lederer, Fredric I., "From Rome to the Military Justice Acts of 2016 and beyond: Continuing Civilianization of the Military Criminal Legal System" (2017). Faculty Publications. 1943. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1943 Copyright c 2017 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs 512 MILITARY LAw REVIEW [Vol. 225 FROM ROME TO THE MILITARY JUSTICE ACTS OF 2016 AND BEYOND: CONTINUING CIVILIANIZATION OF THE MILITARY CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM FREDRIC I. LEDERER* I. Introduction The recent, but unenacted, proposed Military Justice Act of 2016,' the very different and less ambitious, but enacted, Military Justice Act of 2016,2 and congressional actions and proposals to sharply modify the military criminal legal system to combat sexual assault and harassment3 provide both opportunity and necessity to reevaluate the fundamental need for and nature of the military criminal legal system. With the exception of the 1962 amendment to Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to enhance the commander's punishment authority,' the modem history of military criminal law largely is defined by its increasing civilianization. My thesis is that we are close to the point at which that process will no longer meet the disciplinary needs of the modem armed forces, if, indeed, it does today.
    [Show full text]
  • Trial of Unlawful Enemy Belligerents Charles F
    Cornell Law Review Volume 29 Article 7 Issue 1 September 1943 Trial of Unlawful Enemy Belligerents Charles F. Barber Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Charles F. Barber, Trial of Unlawful Enemy Belligerents, 29 Cornell L. Rev. 53 (1943) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol29/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TRIAL OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY BELLIGERENTS CHARLES F. BARBER The Supreme Court introduced a new test of military jurisdiction when it decided in Ex parte Quinn.' that because the Nazi saboteurs were "unlaw- ful enemy belligerents" they were subject to trial by military commission. For a full understanding of the proper place of this newly discovered juris- dictional principle in our military and constitutional law, it will be necessary to examine the Articles of War to determine whether any or all of them are applicable to the trial by military commission of "unlawful enemy bel- ligerents," and if so to decide whether such Articles effect a valid congres- sional limitation upon the power of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. Since these problems involve "unlawful enemy belligerents," it will be appropriate first to examine the meaning of the term.2 I. THE RULES OF WAR When civilized peoples exult at the news that their bombers have devas- tated a great city, one wonders what has become of the "laws of humanity and the dictates of the public conscience," which not so long ago sought to mitigate the severity of war by confining it, so far as possible, to the destruc- tion of the armed forces of the enemy.3 One wonders if the so-called "rules of war" are more than philosophers' revel-ies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oldest North American Military Articles – the Circumstances Surrounding Their Enactment and Their Characteristics1
    CZASOPISMO PRAWNO-HISTORYCZNE Tom LXXII — 2020 — Zeszyt 1 Karol Łopatecki (Białystok) The oldest North American military articles – the circumstances surrounding their enactment and their characteristics1 INTRODUCTION The 16th century and the beginning of the 17th century are the golden age of the development of military articles in Europe. This was the time when this type of normative acts was very frequently published, modified, and it was also a time of their dynamic development. There were attempts to implement the majority of ideas in this area of military affairs by introducing them into military articles. It is worth mentioning that among the innovations, which appeared at the time, were the appearance of norms pertaining to rules of obedience which were patterned on ancient Rome, the introduction of shooting drills as well as of general military drills, and creating proper rules of behaviour in battle, enforcing hygiene rules, etc. The role of all of the aforementioned norms amounted to the following: organization of camp life (garrison); establishing the rules of military engagement; regulating the relations between soldiers and civilian population; shaping the issue of obedience, chain of command, and regulating the significance of an order; the introduction 1 K. Łopatecki, Najstarsze północnoamerykańskie artykuły wojskowe, “Czasopismo Prawno- Historyczne” [Journal of Law and History] [CPH] 2013, t. LXV, issue 1, pp. 175–201. The current version of the article has been prepared as a part of the SONATA research project of Narodowe
    [Show full text]
  • Military Review Staff Colonel Melanie R
    Headquarters, Department of the Army Prepared by Lieutenant General U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Volume LXXXIII — March-April 2003, No. 2 James C. Riley www.cgsc.army.mil/MilRev Commandant, USACGSC [email protected] Professional Bulletin 100-03-3/4 Brigadier General CONTENTS James T. Hirai Deputy Commandant, USACGSC 2 Force Projection Military Review Staff Colonel Melanie R. Reeder 3 Reach: Leveraging Time and Distance Editor in Chief Brigadier General John M. Custer, U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel George F. Chandler, Jr. Managing Editor 12 Putting Knowledge Reachback into Practice Scott W. Lackey, Ph.D., © 2003 Major Richard D. Procell Editor, Latin American Editions 24 Winning War a World Away Vaughn Neeld Colonel Jerry Johnson, U.S. Army, and G. Roger Corey Lieutenant Colonel James O. Kievit, U.S. Army, Retired Editors Nancy Mazzia Books and Features Editor 32 Civilian and Military Cooperation in D. M. Giangreco Complex Humanitarian Operations Design Editor Sarah E. Archer, DrPH, RN Charles A. Martinson III Art and Design Winona E. Stroble 42 Military Commissions, Past and Future Webmaster Lieutenant Colonel Jody Prescott, U.S. Army, and Patricia L. Wilson Major Joanne Eldridge, U.S. Army Secretary Consulting Editors 52 The Palestinian-Israeli Cyberwar Colonel Osmario Zan Colonel Patrick D. Allen, U.S. Army Reserve, and Brazilian Army, Brazilian Edition Lieutenant Colonel Chris Demchak, U.S. Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Ruben Palomeque Argentine Army, Hispano-American Edition Lieutenant Colonel Alejandro Arancibia Chilean Army, Hispano-American Edition 60 Officership By Order of the Secretary of the Army: Eric K. Shinseki 61 Understanding Professional Expertise General, United States Army Chief of Staff and Jurisdiction Lieutenant Colonel Richard A.
    [Show full text]
  • War Crimes Act of 1996
    104TH CONGRESS REPORT 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 104±698 "! WAR CRIMES ACT OF 1996 JULY 24, 1996.ÐCommitted to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. SMITH of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H.R. 3680] [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 3680) to amend title 18, United States Code, to carry out the international obligations of the United States under the Geneva Conventions to provide criminal penalties for certain war crimes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. CONTENTS Page Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 1 Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2 Hearings ................................................................................................................... 9 Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 9 Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 10 Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 10 Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings ............................... 10 New Budget Authority
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Floor Debate on the Uniform Code of Military Justice
    w\ i' / ( k.5 J&l-.t; fl.i-ii2 i - vr -7Y 2374&,(~ c~dal~~~~on~resiionalgi7625 Floor Debate ,A/I +-;!?7-5 on -- 1 2-" The Uniform Code of Military Justice CONGRESSIONAL FLOOR DEBATE ON UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE United States HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (Cong. Record, Vol. 95, Pt. 3, p. 4120) April 7, 1949 PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under Clause 3 of rule XXII, Public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows: By lkr. Brooks: H.R. 4080. A bill to unify, consolidate, revise and codify the Articles of War, the Articles for the Government of the Navy, and the disciplinary laws of the Coast Guard and to enact and establish a Uniform Code of Military Justice; to the Committee on Armed Services. United States HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (Cong. Record, Vol. 95, Pt. 4 p. 5286) April 29, 1949 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under Clause 2 of Rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to tneproper calendar, as follows: Mr. Brooks: Committee on Armed Services, H. R. 4080. A bill to unify, consolidate, revise, and codify the Articles of War, the Articles for the Government of the Navy, and the disciplinary laws of the Coast Guard and to enact and establish a Uniform Code of Military Justice; with amend- ments (Rpt. No. 491). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. United States HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (Cong. Record, Vol. 95, Pt. 5, p. 5718) May 5, 1949 UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE Mr.
    [Show full text]