In the Aug 7 issue, William Rees writes, “The person or group that starts a war (the aggressor) is responsible for all its consequences…” Rees also wrote, and editor/publisher Bob Boon used the headline: “Once unleashed, wars tend to create their own necessities and rules.”
These two assertions are grotesque errors of fact. Mr. Rees would like readers to think his two contentions shift responsibility for WWII’s Pacific Theater atrocities to the Japanese -- and even justify US atomic massacres at Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- as if some new, war-created rule permitted them. As a retired career Air Force officer, Mr. Rees certainly knows that laws of war long preceded WWII.
He knows because the Air force requires is members to learn these rules. The US Air Force’s combat service manual, “International Law -- The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations” (I have the revised 1976 version), says: “Because of its importance to the international community, to the US, and to the DOD, individual service members should understand the law of armed conflict”(p.1-9); and, “The Armed Forces of the US will insure that programs to prevent violations of the law of war to include training and dissemination as required by the Geneva Conventions and by Hague Convention IV, are instituted and implemented.” (p.1-8).
The Air Force manual names 15 treaties “to which the US is a party” including: the Hague Convention IV of 1907; the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925; and the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War of 1949 -- updating the three Geneva Conventions of 1864, 1906 and 1929. (pp.1-7 and 1-8)
The manual’s binding Air Force requirements say without qualification -- flatly contradicting Mr. Rees -- that the four Geneva Conventions require obedience to their provisions regardless of who started the war. “The law of armed conflict applies equally to all parties to an armed conflict, whether or not the international community regards any participant as the ‘aggressor’ or ‘victim’.” (p.1-4)
The Air Force clearly and unequivocally pledges strict adherence to the laws of war, many enacted prior to Japan’s WWII aggression. “It is especially important,” the manual states, “that treaties, having the force of law equal to laws enacted by the Congress of the United States, be scrupulously adhered to by the US Armed Forces.” (p.1-7)
The President himself said Sept. 24, 2009, “International law is not an empty promise, and treaties must be enforced.”
And the purpose of these laws of war? The Air Force quotes the US Supreme Court: “Its purpose to protect civilian populations and prisoners of war…” (p.15-2)
“Civilians are generally protected under the law of armed conflict in various ways as discussed later…” (p.3-4) The word “generally” in the context of Treaty Law is not a diminutive like “mostly” or “in most cases,” but means “all inclusive” and “without exception.”
As the manual states, “Article 2 requires parties to the [four Geneva] Conventions to adhere to the provisions at all times in their relations even when other parties to the conflict are not also parties to the Conventions. . . .” (p.11-2) This provision applies of course to the President’s current terror bombing of individuals and small groups.

US atom bomb, though new in 1945, still unlawful

The Air Force manual notes that, “Any weapon may be put to an unlawful use.” (p.6-1) Even if it is not outlawed by name, “a new weapon or method of warfare maybe illegal, per se, if it is restricted by international law including treaty or international custom.” (p.6-7)
“[T]he legality of new weapons or methods of warfare is determined by whether the weapon’s effects violate the rule against unnecessary suffering or its effects are indiscriminate as to cause disproportionate civilian injury or damage to civilian objects.” (p.6-7)
After the July 16, 1945 atom bomb test in Alamogordo, New Mexico, the generals and scientists well knew the overwhelmingly indiscriminate destruction they had weaponized.
No one should suspect that senior military officers in the Pacific didn’t know what the bombs would do. Writing of the 74,000 dead at Nagasaki, Gen. Leslie Grove, head of the Manhattan Project, said: “I was considerably relieved when I got the bombing report which indicated a smaller number of casualties than we had expected.”
Today’s US hydrogen bombs -- declared useless even by war criminals like Kissinger -- are still protected by the vanishing shield of “ended the war,” “saved lives” and “rules don’t apply” propaganda. The historical record proves otherwise. Shame on the Reader for pretending the discredited pretexts still hold.

-- John LaForge for Nukewatch, nuclear watchdog and environmental action group in Wisc.