0
Should Military personnel be tried for war crimes based on military orders?
Wiki User
∙ 10y ago
Yes, violations of the Law of Armed Conflict can not be defended by "I was just following orders".
You cannot defend yourself by saying you were following orders that are illegal to begin with. If you followed an order that you know is to be illegal, you're just as guilty as your officers that commanded you to. If an officer gave me an order to shoot a disarmed and surrendered enemy combatant and I did, I'm just as guilty as my officer telling me to. It's not that hard.
Wiki User
∙ 10y ago
Wiki User
∙ 14y agoThat's why the US Military had the "Articles of War" prior to 1951, and have the "Uniform Code of Military Justice" (UCMJ) today; to use when needed.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Who was the only military leader charged with convicted and sentenced to death for war crimes during the Civil War?
Henry Wirz
When does civilian law supersede military law?
Civilian law is typically always in place. Military law is only invoked in extreme emergencies. However, military personnel are always subject to military law. The Adjutant General will negotiate with the civilian authorities if there is any situation where it is not definite as to which takes precedence. Actually, in the United States, no military person (or, for that matter, anyone other than the Judical Branch) can arbitrarily decide to enforce military law in a place where it is not currently in place. Not even the President can decide to apply military law in a place where civil law is currently in force (indeed, this is one of the major contentious issues around the classification of terrorists as "enemy combatants", and the legality of this move is still being subject to litigation). The misnowmer "martial law" does not actually apply Military Law, but rather enforce a certain subsection of civilian law. For instance, let's say that there is major rioting in a city, and the National Guard is called in to restore order, and "martial law" is declared by the city's major (or perhaps, the state governor). Members of the National Guard are subject to Military law, and any infractions they commit will naturally be covered by military trial. HOWEVER, should a National Guardsman capture a looter (or other criminal), they are then prosecuted under CIVILIAN LAW, even though "martial law" was declared. Martial law in this case is a specific subsection of civilian law, which criminalizes certain activities which are normally permissible under ordinary civilian law. Back to the original question: as Congress is the creator of both military and civilian law, it can decide whether civilian or military law applies in a situation where the military normally has first jurisdiction. There are a myriad number of places this can occur, so naming them all is not possible. In addition, the Constitution is still the highest law of the land, and is supreme over both military and civilian law. Do note that many crimes are not covered by military law, but only civilian law, so it is entirely possible for a person normally subject to military jurisdiction to be prosecuted by civilian authorities without military acquiecence. For example, Insider Trading is a civilian crime, with no military equivalent, so it would be entirely possible to charge a military serviceperson on a military base with this civilian crime.
How many Nazis were charged with war crimes?
At the "Nuremburg Trials", 19 were convicted of war crimes.At the "Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals", 143 defendants were found guilty.Numerous other Nazis - especially those attached to concentration camps were also found guilty of war crimes and/or crimes against humanity but most of them would not qualify as "Nazi leaders" - more like "mid-level and subordinates" or simply military.Other military leaders were tried for war crimes for extreme measures during the "Battle of the Bulge" - arguably the last major German offensive when they were trying regain the initiative.For example: GeneralSepp Dietrich, commander of the 6th SS Panzer Army, his chief of staff, General Fritz Krämer, Lieutenant General Hermann Prieß, commander of the I SS Panzer Corps and Colonel Joachim Peiper, commander of the 1st SS Panzer Regiment - the core element of Kampfgruppe Peiper, which conducted the Malmedy massacre - were found guilty of war crimes. These would be considered more "military leaders" than "Nazi Leaders".
What crimes against humanity did Ariel Sharon commit?
None. Ariel Sharon led the war against well-armed terrorist combatants in Lebanon, 1982-85. This was a necessary military undertaking, to protect Israel's citizens who were being deliberately targeted by terrorist acts. So I think your question should be directed against the terorists.
Who has jurisdiction on a military installation located in a foreign country?
Jurisdiction on foreign soil is determined by the SOFA (support of forces agreement) that is signed by the countries involved. In most cases, the country that has the installation on foreign soil will maintain jurisdiction within the confines of the installation. In cases of crimes committed by host nation citizens within the installation the SOFA will define the jurisdiction. Military members will always be subject to the UCMJ abroad as well as at home.
Who will try military crimes?
Military courts.
Should Accused terrorists should be treated as military criminals or treated as civilians committing a crime?
There actions may well be construed as war crimes and should be dealt with by the military.
Who is tried in military tribunals?
Military tribunals are generally used to try military personnel accused of violating military laws and regulations. This includes members of the armed forces who are alleged to have committed crimes such as desertion, insubordination, or other offenses that fall under military jurisdiction. In certain circumstances, civilians, including foreign nationals, may also be tried in military tribunals if they are accused of committing offenses against the military or in situations where civilian courts are deemed inappropriate.
What is the differences between military tribunals and court-martial?
A military tribunal is where a military court has jurisdiction over enemy combatants, or people who are in military custody or have been accused of war crimes. Courts martials have jurisdiction over its own military members.
What is the difference between military tribunals and court martial?
A military tribunal is where a military court has jurisdiction over enemy combatants, or people who are in military custody or have been accused of war crimes. Courts martials have jurisdiction over its own military members.
Is it true crimes committed by persons in military service are ordinarily prosecuted in proceedings before courts-martial?
Yes,crimes committed by people in military service are ordinarily prosecuted before a courts-martial
Who was charged with war crime and prosecuted at the Nuremberg trials?
germans
How does Puerto Rico deal with crimes?
With law enforcement officers and at times, the military.
What are court-martial?
Courts martial are military courts. When soldiers commit crimes such as desertion of duty, collaboration with the enemy etc., they are not tried in civilian courts, they are tried in special military courts, under military rules.
What are courts- martial?
Courts martial are military courts. When soldiers commit crimes such as desertion of duty, collaboration with the enemy etc., they are not tried in civilian courts, they are tried in special military courts, under military rules.
Can former strippers be in the military?
As long as you have not commited any major crimes or felonies, probably.
Numerous states are revising their penal codes Which major categories of substantive crimes do you think should be considered for revision?
The death penalty is archaic and does not deter crime-it should be abolished. Many drug sentences are far to harsh for the crimes they punish. There should also be better treatment of military veterans who commit crimes.
