Among the staple texts of those who deny the Holocaust are the writings of Carlos Porter. One of his articles "War Crimes Trials" can be found on the CODOH website. It claims to discuss the 1907 Annex to the Hague Convention dealing with the laws of war. It is so highly regarded in the denier community that it has been cited by deniers as authoritative on the subject. A close examination of Porter's work, however, demonstrates that it is inaccurate both as to the text of the Convention and the factual conclusions that are derived from the distorted citations. This analysis will deal with both of those issues. It is only fair to judge an author's work by his intentions. In this case Porter informs us exactly what those intentions are: "This, then, is the Convention which the Germans and Japanese were alleged to have violated in 10,000 trials. What does the Convention say exactly?" The purpose of Porter's article, therefore, was not to present edited paraphrases but the text, exact and complete. He fails miserably. Porter's deletions and paraphrases not only contradict his stated purpose but many substantially alter the meaning of the provisions. It is doubly dishonest in that Porter presents little more than his paraphrases followed by an announcement of what he states they mean. Supporting evidence is virtually non-existent and, in its absence, all a reader has to rely upon is Porter's version of the text. What follows is a comparison between Porter's paraphrases and the text of the Hague Convention. Every Article of that Convention mentioned by Porter and Porter's complete description of that Article are printed here so that any reader may compare the two texts to determine whether Porter, as he claims, relates "exactly" what the Convention states: PREAMBLE, ARTICLE 3: The Porter version: Art. 3: "Belligerants violating the Convention may be made to pay compensation". The actual text: "Art. 3. A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces." REGULATIONS, ARTICLES 1 and 2: The Porter version: "Articles 1 and 2 prohibit guerrilla warfare, stating that belligerants must be "commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates... have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance... carry arms openly... and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war". The actual text: "Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions: To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance; To carry arms openly; and To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."" "Art. 2. The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war." REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 5: The Porter version: Art. 5: "Prisoners... cannot be confined except as an indispensable measure of safety, and only while the circumstances which necessitate the measure continue to exist." The actual text: Art. 5. Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress, camp, or other place, and bound not to go beyond certain fixed limits, but they cannot be confined except as in indispensable measure of safety and only while the circumstances which necessitate the measure continue to exist." REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 6: The Porter Version: "Article 6 states that belligerants may utilize the labour of prisoners of war, officers excepted, for the public service, for private persons or their own account." The actual text: "Art. 6. The State may utilize the labour of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted. The tasks shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with the operations of the war." "Prisoners may be authorized to work for the public service, for private persons, or on their own account." "Work done for the State is paid for at the rates in force for work of a similar kind done by soldiers of the national army, or, if there are none in force, at a rate according to the work executed." "When the work is for other branches of the public service or for private persons the conditions are settled in agreement with the military authorities." "The wages of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position, and the balance shall be paid them on their release, after deducting the cost of their maintenance." REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 7: The Porter Version: Art. 7: "Prisoners of war shall be treated as regards board, lodging, and clothing on the same footing as the troops of the Government who captured them". The actual text: "Art. 7. The Government into whose hands prisoners of war have fallen is charged with their maintenance." "In the absence of a special agreement between the belligerents, prisoners of war shall be treated as regards board, lodging, and clothing on the same footing as the troops of the Government who captured them." REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 8: The Porter version: "Article 8: "Prisoners of war are subject to the laws, regulations and orders in force of the State in whose power they are. Any act of insubordination justifies the adoption towards them of such measures of severity as may be considered necessary". The actual text: "Art. 8. Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations, and orders in force in the army of the State in whose power they are. Any act of insubordination justifies the adoption towards them of such measures of severity as may be considered necessary." "Escaped prisoners who are retaken before being able to rejoin their own army or before leaving the territory occupied by the army which captured them are liable to disciplinary punishment." "Prisoners who, after succeeding in escaping, are again taken prisoners, are not liable to any punishment on account of the previous flight." REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 20: The Porter version: "Art. 20: "After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners shall be carried out as quickly as possible". The actual text: Art. 20. "After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shall be carried out as quickly as possible." REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 23: The Porter version: "Finally, article 23 (h) prohibits declaring "abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party" and "Article 23 (3) prohibits weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering." The actual text: "Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -" "To employ poison or poisoned weapons;" "To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;" "To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;" "To declare that no quarter will be given;" "To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;" "To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;" "To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;" "To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war." REGULATIONS, ARTICLES 25, 27, and 56: The Porter version: Articles 25, 27 and 56 prohibit bombardment "by whatever means" of undefended cities, cultural monuments, etc... The actual text: "Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited." "Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes." "It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand." Art. 56. "The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property." REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 32: The Porter version: "Art. 32: "A person is regarded as a parlementaire who has been authorized by one of the belligerants to enter into communications with the other... he has a right to inviolability"." The actual text: "Flags of Truce" "Art. 32. A person is regarded as a parlementaire who has been authorized by one of the belligerents to enter into communication with the other, and who advances bearing a white flag. He has a right to inviolability, as well as the trumpeter, bugler or drummer, the flag-bearer and interpreter who may accompany him." "Art. 33. The commander to whom a parlementaire is sent is not in all cases obliged to receive him." "He may take all the necessary steps to prevent the parlementaire taking advantage of his mission to obtain information." "In case of abuse, he has the right to detain the parlementaire temporarily." "Art. 34. The parlementaire loses his rights of inviolability if it is proved in a clear and incontestable manner that he has taken advantage of his privileged position to provoke or commit an act of treason." REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 43: The Porter version: "Article 43 requires collaboration with occupation governments. "The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country". The actual text: "Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 46: The Porter version: Article 46: "Private property cannot be confiscated". The actual text: Art. 46. "Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected." "Private property cannot be confiscated." Although Porter claims that he wishes to present "exactly" what is written in the Convention, he does exactly the opposite. Of the section of the Preamble to the Convention and 14 of the Regulations to which Porter refers only two (Articles 20 and 43) are accurate representations of the text of the convention. Porter's other citations are replete with substantial modifications that change the meaning of the article which he presents. In several cases an inaccurate paraphrase is presented as a direct quote. Porter, further, ignores any Article which contradicts his thesis that the Third Reich committed no war crimes. For example: "Art. 18. Prisoners of war shall enjoy complete liberty in the exercise of their religion, including attendance at the services of whatever church they may belong to, on the sole condition that they comply with the measures of order and police issued by the military authorities." Porter was correct in one respect: as with any statute or treaty, it is important to determine what the Hague Convention "exactly" states. Unfortunately he does not deliver on his promise. A ten-year-old with average intelligence could have done a creditable job of cut-and-paste to present "exactly" what the text states; Porter didn't. His presentation is so bad that the only word that fits is "fraud." Just as a ten-year-old of average intelligence could have done a better job than Porter, the same child could have exposed Porter for the fraud he is. Even a random check would have revealed that 13 of the 15 substantive "quotations" presented by Porter are in error. Obviously CODOH made no check of the easily available primary sources when they published the article. The problems with the text of the 1907 Convention is only the=20 beginning of the problems with "War Crimes Trials." Porter's laconic=20 conclusions are dependent on his edited readings of the text and his=20 factual assumptions. Many of Porter's unsupported allegations are=20 simply not correct. The second part of this article, therefore, is an=20 analysis of some of Porter's contentions. It is by no means complete;=20 there are clear errors such as Porter's interpretation of Article 43=20 are not included. Some of this would be no more than repetition. The=20 examples provided do represent an analysis of Porter's shoddy and=20 misleading techniques. Porter's "War Crimes Trials" is, in fact,=20 poorly written, poorly reasoned and inaccurate at various points and=20 the theme of "War Crimes Trials" is embodied in Porter's=20 unsubstantiated accusations. Porter's problems with facts begin with the first part of the article=20 where he discusses the applicability of the Convention. He states,=20 for example: "The United States never ratified this convention, which, thus, never=20 became "international law" in any war involving the United States." This is, as anyone who has examined the primary documents knows, a=20 misrepresentation. While the U.S. did not ratify the Convention, it=20 entered a separate convention signed by the president of the U.S. on=20 July 27, 1929. It should be noted that Germany was, as well, a=20 signatory to that Convention which did little more than repeat the=20 provisions of the 1907 Annex. Porter is even less honest when he deals with the specific provisions=20 of the Convention. One of the most egregious examples is Porter's=20 analysis of Article 6 in which he states: "Article 6 states that=20 belligerants may utilize the labour of prisoners of war, officers=20 excepted, for the public service, for private persons or their own=20 account." To which Porter comments: "German and Japanese "slave=20 policy" was perfectly legal insofar as it applied to members of=20 resistance groups or lower ranking military personnel." Leaving aside the point that both Germany and Japan required officers=20 to do slave labor, an examination of the Article in question shows a=20 far different text than Porter represents. The actual text is: "Art. 6. The State may utilize the labour of prisoners of war=20 according to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted. The tasks=20 shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with the=20 operations of the war." Note how Porter deletes material from the original text which modifies=20 it in a significant manner. It is well-known, for example, that Speer=20 utilized slave labor for war work. By deleting the important modifier=20 Porter fraudulently misrepresents what is allowed. This pattern of=20 deception also includes the elision of the clauses that follow the=20 initial statement and which explain it. They are: "Prisoners may be authorized to work for the public service, for=20 private persons, or on their own account." "Work done for the State is paid for at the rates in force for work of=20 a similar kind done by soldiers of the national army, or, if there are=20 none in force, at a rate according to the work executed." "When the work is for other branches of the public service or for=20 private persons the conditions are settled in agreement with the=20 military authorities." "The wages of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position,=20 and the balance shall be paid them on their release, after deducting=20 the cost of their maintenance." Thus it can be seen that Porter has deliberately mischaracterized the=20 meaning of the provision. It is not a provision which allows slave=20 labor as he asserts. It is, rather, a provision that allows POWs to=20 enter a labor market unrelated to war production and receive wages for=20 their work. Needless to say, the nazis failed to abide by the=20 provisions of Article 6 in their use of slave labor. This pattern is repeated in Porter's analysis of Articles 1 and 2=20 which deal with partisan warfare. This example is quite important for=20 it is the basis for the claims of the deniers that partisan warfare=20 is, per se, unlawful. The meaning of the two articles was crucial to=20 the purpose of the Convention. This was recognized by the drafters=20 and signatories who, as part of the preamble to the Regulations of the=20 Convention, wrote: "It should be noted that until a more complete code of the laws of war=20 has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to=20 declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by=20 them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection=20 and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result=20 from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of=20 humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience." "They declare that it is in this sense especially that Articles 1 and=20 2 of the Regulations adopted must be understood." This important statement of principle enunciated by the signatory=20 powers about the interpretation of these sections is entirely ignored=20 by Porter. Pay close attention to what Porter writes and compare it=20 to the actual text of these Regulations. "War Crimes Trials" states: =20 "THE ANNEX TO THE 4th HAGUE CONVENTION"=20 =20 "Articles 1 and 2 prohibit guerrilla warfare, stating that=20 belligerants must be "commanded by a person responsible for his=20 subordinates... have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a=20 distance... carry arms openly... and conduct their operations in=20 accordance with the laws and customs of war". Porter not only fails to understand these articles, he reports them=20 inaccurately and in a distorted fashion. When we the actual language=20 of these two articles is examined it is clear that they have exactly=20 the opposite meaning from that given by Porter, the actual text is: "Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to=20 armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the=20 following conditions: To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;=20 To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance; To carry arms openly; and=20 To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of=20 war. In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or=20 form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."" "Art. 2. The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied,=20 who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to=20 resist the invading troops without having had time to organize=20 themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as=20 belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws=20 and customs of war." Note that contrary to Porter's modified version, the articles do not=20 prohibit guerilla movements but specifically allow them if certain=20 conditions are met. Because of his creative editing it is made to=20 appear as though Article 1 prohibits partisan warfare and gives as a=20 reason that real "belligerants" have certain attributes which,=20 presumably, partisan groups do not possess. As can be seen from the=20 language which Porter deletes, the actual meaning of the provision is=20 that guerilla are legitimate as long as they meet certain=20 requirements. Porter's distorted description of Article 2 is even more misleading. =20 Without quoting a single word from the article, Porter declares that=20 it prohibits guerilla warfare. The article actually expands the=20 definition of legitimate belligerents where military control has not=20 been established. In that case, which would have applied to much of=20 the Ukraine for example, two of the requirements for a guerilla group=20 to be classified as legitimate belligerents are eliminated. Porter uses a similar, but slightly different technique, in his=20 analysis of Article 32. "War Crimes Trials" states in its entirety: =20 "Art. 32: "A person is regarded as a parlementaire who has been=20 authorized by one of the belligerants to enter into communications=20 with the other... he has a right to inviolability"." Based upon this=20 incomplete rendition of Article 32 and the complete deletion of=20 article 33, Porter asserts: "The detention of Rudolph Hess was=20 illegal." The text of the Convention is, however, significantly different from=20 the Porter version. The complete text of the Convention provisions=20 concerning parlementaires states: "Flags of Truce" "Art. 32. A person is regarded as a parlementaire who has been=20 authorized by one of the belligerents to enter into communication with=20 the other, and who advances bearing a white flag. He has a right to=20 inviolability, as well as the trumpeter, bugler or drummer, the=20 flag-bearer and interpreter who may accompany him." "Art. 33. The commander to whom a parlementaire is sent is not in all=20 cases obliged to receive him." "He may take all the necessary steps to prevent the parlementaire=20 taking advantage of his mission to obtain information." "In case of abuse, he has the right to detain the parlementaire=20 temporarily." "Art. 34. The parlementaire loses his rights of inviolability if it=20 is proved in a clear and incontestable manner that he has taken=20 advantage of his privileged position to provoke or commit an act of=20 treason." It can be seen from the actual text that there are two requirements=20 for a person to be qualified as a "parlementaire." The first of these=20 (reported by Porter) is that a parlementaire must be authorized to=20 conduct his negotiations. This cannot apply to Hess. He was clearly not authorized to enter=20 communications with Great Britain. William Shirer in "The Rise and=20 Fall of the Third Reich" that Hitler was "mystified" at Hess' actions=20 (page 835) and the official communiqu=E9 on this incident announced "It=20 seemed that Party Comrade Hess lived in a state of hallucination, as a=20 result of which he felt he could bring about a understanding between=20 England and Germany." (quoted by Shirer, page 838) There is no=20 indication that Hess was authorized to deal on behalf of the Third=20 Reich. In fact, Hess did not claim such a status, relying instead on=20 his position as a cabinet minister (Shirer, page 835). Nor did Hess have the purpose of negotiating with his opponent as is=20 the basic function of a parlementaire. He wanted to negotiate with=20 the Duke of Hamilton rather than the government and his intent was to=20 provoke an insurrection against the authorities with which a=20 parlementaire would negotiate. As Ivonne Kirkland (former First=20 Secretary of the British Embassy in Berlin) reports: "Finally, as we were leaving the room, Hess delivered a parting shot.=20 He had forgotten, he declared, to emphasize that the proposal could=20 only be considered on the understanding that it was negotiated by=20 Germany with an English government other than the present on. Mr.=20 Churchill, who had planned the war since 1936, and his colleague who=20 had lent themselves to his war policy, were not persons with whom the=20 Fuehrer could negotiate." (quoted by Shirer, page 386) Not only did Hess not meet the basic requirements for parlementaire=20 status in that he was not authorized to make the trip and he=20 specifically denied that he was attempting to negotiate with his=20 opponent, but he failed to meet the other requirement as well. Porter deletes the clause of the Convention which requires of a=20 parlementaire that he: "advances bearing a white flag." This, again,=20 is a significant omission. It is obvious that a legalistic=20 interpretation of this provision would be unfair. It is silly to=20 expect an airplane to be displaying a flag and it can be argued that,=20 even had Hess provided himself with one, his plane crashed in flames.=20 But there was nothing to prevent Hess from complying with the spirit=20 of this clause. That is, notify his opponent in advance and ask for a=20 parlay. He did not make such a notification which could have been=20 done by radio from his airplane. Further he abuses the concept of a=20 parlementaire in that he gave a false name ("Alfred Horn" Shirer,=20 page 835). This vitiated any claim to be a legitimate parlementaire. This provisions concerning parlementaires are a continuation of the=20 medieval laws regarding the status of the herald and the white flag is=20 not just a technical requirement. It constitutes the manner in which=20 a legitimate parlementaire announces himself. It is the duty of the=20 parlementaire to announce his status before he approaches the opponent=20 so that the opponent has, as stated in Article 33 (which Porter=20 ignores) the option of refusing to receive the parlementaire. It is at this point that Article 33 (deleted by Porter) becomes=20 crucial. That Article provides that the opponent has the right to=20 refuse the approach of the parlementaire. Hess did not allow the=20 British to exercise this right. Instead, unannounced, Hess popped up=20 in Scotland requesting to meet with a military officer of no great=20 rank (the Duke of Hamilton was not a general officer, he was "a wing=20 commander in the RAF" Shirer, page 835) and demanding that the British=20 government (to which the negotiations of a legitimate parlementaire=20 must be addressed) be dissolved. Since Hess met none of the conditions of a legitimate parlementaire,=20 the provision of Article 32 concerning his "inviolability" cannot be=20 applied and the treatment of Hess as a prisoner of war was justified.=20 If, as some deniers assert, the Porter version of the Convention=20 should be accepted as authoritative the reader has no opportunity to=20 make a complete analysis of the claim. The simple reason that a=20 reader was not provided with this opportunity is that Porter decided=20 to present an abridged and modified version of the Convention which=20 distorted its meaning. Another example of this patent dishonesty can be found in Porter's=20 analysis of Article 3. Porter represents the text of Article 3 of the=20 regulations as being: "Art. 3: "Belligerants violating the Convention may be made to pay=20 compensation." Please note that this is represented as the complete text of Article=20 3. This is NOT the actual text of the Convention. It is: "Art. 3. A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said=20 Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation.=20 It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part=20 of its armed forces." Not only is the text far different from the representation but there=20 is a crucial difference in meaning which Porter creates. The text=20 clearly refers to "a belligerent party" as, from the context of the=20 second sentence (deleted by Porter), means the nation conducting the=20 war. In Porter's version this becomes "belligerants" which refers not=20 only to the parties but could be interpreted to apply to individuals=20 as well. Relying on this mendacious rendering of the text, Porter announces: =20 "This is self-explanatory. No trials were contemplated." This is, at best, a rather audacious assertion. The first and most=20 obvious reason is that -- except in Porter's fraudulent version -- no=20 reference is made to individuals. The text refers only to the=20 liabilities of the state. And, certainly, it contemplates some sort=20 of trial to determine liability. In fact, that was exactly what was=20 done after World War I. A fine account of the action against Germany=20 by the United States for sabotage conducted in this country prior to=20 its entry into World War I can be found in "Sabotage at Black Tom"=20 Jules Witcover (Chapel Hill; 1989; ISBN 0-912697-98-9). If Porter's point -- as the theme of "War Crimes Trials" and Porter's=20 terse comment would indicate -- is that Article 3 did not contemplate=20 trials of individual war criminals, he is, likewise in error. The=20 crucial question is what Article 3 was meant to do. Porter can only=20 be correct if Article 3 was drafted to provide an exclusive remedy for=20 war crimes. If, on the other hand, it was drafted to either create a=20 cause of action or to codify an existing right, Porter's statement=20 cannot stand. Start with an analogy. There is no right under Anglo-American common=20 law to sue for the death of an individual. All such lawsuits are=20 brought under specific statutory enactments known and "wrongful death=20 and survival" statutes. None of these statutes mention criminal law.=20 If Article 3 only creates or codifies a cause of action, Porter's=20 argument would be similar to a drunken driver who killed somebody=20 asking to have the criminal case against him dismissed on the grounds=20 that the wrongful death and survival statutes make no mention of=20 criminal penalties. A major impediment to the claim that Article 3 creates an exclusive=20 remedy is, simply, that the Convention makes no such statement. The=20 standards of statutory interpretation prohibit the inference of such=20 restrictions. Had the drafters wished to restrict the remedies of an=20 aggrieved party, they would have said so. In fact, the drafters went=20 out of their way to indicate that the text of the Convention was=20 neither complete or restrictive in nature: "According to the views of the High Contracting Parties, these=20 provisions, the wording of which has been inspired by the desire to=20 diminish the evils of war, as far as military requirements permit, are=20 intended to serve as a general rule of conduct for the belligerents in=20 their mutual relations and in their relations with the inhabitants." "It has not, however, been found possible at present to concert=20 regulations covering all the circumstances which arise in practice;" "On the other hand, the High Contracting Parties clearly do not intend=20 that unforeseen cases should, in the absence of a written undertaking,=20 be left to the arbitrary judgment of military commanders." "Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the=20 High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases=20 not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and=20 the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the=20 principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages=20 established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and=20 the dictates of the public conscience." Further it cannot be argued that the trial of war criminals was a=20 concept unique to the trial of the nazis after World War II or unknown=20 to international law. Articles 227 through 230 of the Treaty of=20 Versailles called for such trials of war criminals. As Telford Taylor=20 wrote in "The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials" (1992; ISBN=20 0-316-83400-9): "Under Article 227 the Kaiser was to be tried before a "special=20 tribunal" of five judges, one each from the United States, Great=20 Britain, France, Italy, and Japan. He was not to be charged with=20 responsibility for war crimes but with "a supreme offence against=20 international morality and the sanctity of treaties." The three=20 ensuing articles called for trials of "persons accused of having=20 committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war" before=20 "military tribunals" of the aggrieved nations, and required the German=20 government to "hand over" the individuals so accused to any of the=20 "Allied and Associated Powers" so requesting. Provisions comparable=20 to Articles 228-230 were included in later peace treaties with=20 Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria." (paperback edition, page 16) There are, therefore, several reasons to conclude that Porter's=20 conclusion about Article 3 is in error but, more important is his=20 dishonest behavior in re-writing Article 3 and presenting it as the=20 actual text of the Convention. His failure to accurately present=20 Article 3 should call into question the credibility of his work. This brief analysis demonstrates that "War Crimes Trials" is replete=20 with deliberate distortions, fraudulent representations of the text of=20 the Conventions, and factual errors. Porter's work is not only a=20 failure but a rather dismal one. Porter's technique of misquotation=20 and factual error would not be tolerated in any legitimate academic=20 community or any other setting where factual accuracy is required. It=20 would never survive the process of legitimate peer review. It is only=20 in the shadow world of the lunatic fringe where efforts like "War=20 Crimes Trials" could find acceptability. It is only the credulous and=20 those with a specific agenda who can consider "War Crimes Trials" as=20 either convincing or authoritative. The inescapable conclusion is=20 that the process of writing "War Crimes Trials" was dishonest and the=20 process of publishing it was defective or dishonest. "War Crimes=20 Trials" is so flawed that it is utterly worthless as a reference. * * * * * The complete text of the Hague Conventions cited here can be accessed=20 at: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm End article YFE
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012