Special forces soldier's book causes storm in Denmark

[katkat]

Source: Telegraph UK

One passage in the book that has caused particular controversy is Mr Rathsack’s description of an undercover mission where his unit was dressed in Afghan clothing while carrying concealed weapons – a breach of the Geneva convention.

Daniel Nielsen, a reporter from The Copenhagen Post, said: “It is the major news story and it has been for the past two weeks. It has certainly bumped the upcoming climate change conference off the front pages.

“At one point it mentions the US because he worked in Afghanistan under US command. Then there are chapters and chapters about different missions he has been on.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/6221728/Special-forces-soldiers-book-causes-storm-in-Denmark.html

---

Kiss off the Geneva Convention in yet another way. Torture, this, whatever.

[Wilms]

1. At least the Danes seem to have a vibrant press.

I'm still surprised by Denmarks participation in these wars.

[dbmk]

2. Me, not so much. Sadly.

To add a little more to the story, the military tried to stop the book being published because they claim passages in it might harm their work and endanger future missions.

One newspaper started challenging them on it, on grounds of freedom of speech, and in the end decided to print the entire book in their paper - breaking the authors copyright for the greater cause of free speech (according to them) - and effectively stopping a potential court decision to stop the publishing of the book, as its contents was now publicly available.

So now the paper will probably have to pay the publisher for essentially stealing the book. And the military have said they might sue the soldier for releasing information that he was not allowed to release. Except they probably can't because the paper did it before soldier could, and you can't be sued for releasing information that is already publicly available. :)
So the paper might have to answer to that - though they would not have been under oath to keep that information secret. Should be a fantastic legal mess.

[sofa king]

3. That's a fascinating story.

Here in the U.S., Senator Mike Gravel stood the world on its end by reading 4100 pages of the Pentagon Papers into the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, of all things, and thus ensuring they would be printed in the Congressional Record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

Once it was on the record, Senator Gravel was immune from prosecution, thanks to Article I, Section 6. But Daniel Ellsberg and his associates were, and they were put on trial, despite the fact that everything they released was now public record.

Of course, the usual suspects weren't about to let justice proceed unsullied, so Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt (with the usual cloud of expat Cubans) planned yet another illegal, covert operation to burglarize an office, this time that of Daniel Ellsberg's psychologist. (Old trick: if you can't fight the message, call the messenger crazy.) Again they screwed up, found nothing, and eventually got caught for it through testimony during Ellsberg's trial, which led to the resignations of H.R. Haldeman and John Dean, and guilty pleas for Egil Krough and Charles Colson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

Ellsberg later claimed that Liddy had plans to kill or severely injure him at a public event, again using the Republican Party's Cuban goons.

[JonQ]

4. I could be mistaken on this

but I didn't think the GC actually forbid that behavior.

It merely states that if you do those things then you are no longer protected by its rules.

So if they'd been caught and executed after surrendering that would not have been a violation of the GC.

[FarCenter]

5. Being out of uniform when there is not a war going on may be different

Certainly, soldiers of the states involved in declared wars can be executed as spies if they are not in uniform.

However, since there is no war going on, and since the Taliban and Al Qaeda are not recognized states able to declare war, it is not so clear.

There are Geneva Conventions dealing with irregular warfare, and I think that soldiers not in uniform may have to be treated as any irregular enemy combatant.

[No Elephants]

6. I started to read one of the Geneva Conventions once, but I died of boredom before

I got very far.

Anyhoo: Do you know offhand if "enemy combatant" is actually a term that appears in the Geneva Conventions (in those words), or did Bushco invent it?

[FarCenter]

7. Combatants is a term used in articles 44 and 45 of Protocol 1

Art 44. Combatants and prisoners of war

1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he
carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities .

6. This Article is without prejudice to the right of any person to be a prisoner of war pursuant to Article 4 of the Third Convention.

7. This Article is not intended to change the generally accepted practice of States with respect to the wearing of the uniform by combatants assigned to the regular, uniformed armed units of a Party to the conflict.

8. In addition to the categories of persons mentioned in Article 13 of the First and Second Conventions, all members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as defined in Article 43 of this Protocol, shall be entitled to protection under those Conventions if they are wounded or sick or, in the case of the Second Convention, shipwrecked at sea or in other waters.


Art 45. Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities

1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

2. If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an offence arising out of the hostilities, he shall have the right to assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial tribunal and to have that question adjudicated. Whenever possible under the applicable procedure, this adjudication shall occur before the trial for the offence. The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the proceedings in which that question is adjudicated, unless, exceptionally, the proceedings are held in camera in the interest of State security. In such a case the detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.

3. Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol. In occupied territory, any such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention.

---

You might want to look at Protocol II.