Movies and Films
This is the forum for Movie and Film discussions. Again, our topic is naval warfare in WWII for the most part.
Re: U-156 & Red Cross
Posted by:
ThomasHorton
()
Date: September 04, 2009 05:22PM
Your interpretation of article 2 of the 1913 reference is interesting. I think I can understand your interpretation. However I am not sure I can agree with it.
You are quite correct that a ship can't be in violation of a treaty, it would be the commanding officer. But Article 2 of the 1913 reference does not address immunities during a rescue operation. The commanding officer of the U-156 still had the capability, separate from the intent, of continuing to be a viable military threat and thereby a viable military target.
Even with the personnel on deck, the crew of the U-156 could have fired their defensive weaponary at the attacking aircraft. The crew could have fired the offensive deck gun, if a suitable target were in range. This would indicate,in my opinion, that the U-156 still maintained offensive and defensive capability no matter how effective or ineffective that capability may be.
Concering your interpretation of article 25 of the 1922 reference,
I can understand your position. It is interesting how two people can interprete a treaty differently. This is one of the issues with treaties, different peopel can interpret them differently and who is to say who is right or wrong?
It is my position that article 25 of the 1922 reference deals with capability and not commander intent. However, my interpretation may not be the only viable interpretation.
I would like to discuss another statement you made.
"In other words the law which seems to apply to the element of the case has to be construed as to the specific facts/elements of the single case."
Why does it have to be construed as to the specific facts/elements of the single case? Is there a part of a treaty that indicates this? This would make adhearing to or not adhearing to treaties much more difficult as any side could claim special circumstances (commander intent for one) to support their claim.
The common sense of what you wrote is very clear and I agree with it. However, when interpreting treaties common sense may not apply. It is the letter of the law/treaty that applies. Do you have a citation that supports your statement that "In other words the law which seems to apply to the element of the case has to be construed as to the specific facts/elements of the single case."
That would be a very important reference for this discussion.
Respectfully,
Thomas
You are quite correct that a ship can't be in violation of a treaty, it would be the commanding officer. But Article 2 of the 1913 reference does not address immunities during a rescue operation. The commanding officer of the U-156 still had the capability, separate from the intent, of continuing to be a viable military threat and thereby a viable military target.
Even with the personnel on deck, the crew of the U-156 could have fired their defensive weaponary at the attacking aircraft. The crew could have fired the offensive deck gun, if a suitable target were in range. This would indicate,in my opinion, that the U-156 still maintained offensive and defensive capability no matter how effective or ineffective that capability may be.
Concering your interpretation of article 25 of the 1922 reference,
I can understand your position. It is interesting how two people can interprete a treaty differently. This is one of the issues with treaties, different peopel can interpret them differently and who is to say who is right or wrong?
It is my position that article 25 of the 1922 reference deals with capability and not commander intent. However, my interpretation may not be the only viable interpretation.
I would like to discuss another statement you made.
"In other words the law which seems to apply to the element of the case has to be construed as to the specific facts/elements of the single case."
Why does it have to be construed as to the specific facts/elements of the single case? Is there a part of a treaty that indicates this? This would make adhearing to or not adhearing to treaties much more difficult as any side could claim special circumstances (commander intent for one) to support their claim.
The common sense of what you wrote is very clear and I agree with it. However, when interpreting treaties common sense may not apply. It is the letter of the law/treaty that applies. Do you have a citation that supports your statement that "In other words the law which seems to apply to the element of the case has to be construed as to the specific facts/elements of the single case."
That would be a very important reference for this discussion.
Respectfully,
Thomas