0
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.
What else can I help you with?
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.
When did Hideki Tojo win the awards?
Hideki Tojo, the Prime Minister of Japan during much of World War II, was not widely recognized with formal awards in the same way as military personnel or civilians. However, he was honored within Japan's military hierarchy and received various promotions and commendations during his career. After Japan's defeat in World War II, Tojo was tried for war crimes and executed in 1948, and thus any awards he might have received during his lifetime were overshadowed by his post-war legacy.
Who was the supreme General of the Japanese emperor army?
The supreme general of the Japanese emperor's army during World War II was General Hideki Tojo. He served as Prime Minister from 1941 to 1944 and was a key military leader, overseeing Japan's military operations during much of the war. Tojo was later tried and executed for war crimes after Japan's defeat in 1945.
What were some of the bad things that Hideki Tojo did?
Hideki Tojo, as Prime Minister of Japan during World War II, was instrumental in the militarization of Japan and the expansionist policies that led to widespread aggression in Asia, including the invasion of China and the attack on Pearl Harbor. His administration was responsible for numerous war crimes, including the brutal treatment of prisoners of war and civilians in occupied territories. Additionally, Tojo's regime was involved in the exploitation and enslavement of women, such as the establishment of "comfort stations" for military personnel. After Japan's defeat, he was tried and executed for his role in the war and crimes against humanity.
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
How does Puerto Rico deal with crimes?
With law enforcement officers and at times, the military.
Who was charged with war crime and prosecuted at the Nuremberg trials?
germans
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.
