“In the strict sense, LOAC is the directive our government gives to our military to adhere to these laws, including many situational specifications. Is this correct, or have I missed something?”

I went to officers training school during the Vietnam war, and I cannot remember anything being taught about the laws of war except that I was obligated to provide only name, rank, and serial number if captured, and was given a “capture card” that identified me as a member of the armed forces of a country that had signed the Geneva Convention (this at least identified me as a legitimate combatant). IOW, I was not given any training at all on the laws of war.

The US has always exceeded the laws in its treatment of enemy combatants. At the end of WW-II, as part of the repatriation process, the government asked EPWs (enemy prisoners of war) to write a statement on how they were treated. One German prisoner who was interned in the US wrote that his advice to anyone in the next war was to join the side opposite the US, get captured, and spend the duration in one of its EPW camps. Other things from my own research are, for example, the capturing nation must feed its prisoners at least at the same level as it feeds its own troops in the field, and it must hold them in an area with a climate similar to that where they were captured. Have you heard of our troops getting fed as well as the terrorist captives? Also from my own research, the US teaches its own “rules of engagement” (ROE) in the academies. Here again, the ROE go far beyond what is required by Geneva. For example, hiding among the civilian population and buildings is against the laws of war. If you as an American soldier are receiving fire from an enemy combatant (legitimate or not) in an otherwise protected building, such as a church, you can legitimately return fire as long as your target is the enemy and not the building. If the building is damaged in the process, that’s just unfortunate … and the reason for the law prohibiting hiding in a protected building. Under the ROE, you cannot return fire. In my opinion, this is a mistake for several reasons; the main one is the more America does to correct its faults, the worse (not better) the remaining imperfections appear. (I notice that Israel has gotten itself in the same predicament during the war against Hammas last year.)
And I think that is precisely why we got to where we are in the whole Guantanamo debacle.

Thanks for the good info. I had no idea that Geneva required the whole population to be taught the laws of war.

Thank you for the reference. The statement, “…exaggerated, well-meaning
attitudes are perilous to the survival of the law of war, as they germinate seeds which undermine the legal system to the detriment of those who deserve to enjoy traditional privileges, such as regular soldiers and civilians,” and the subsequent sentences, capture the essence of what I understand the purpose of the LOAC.

Interesting link on how little jurist know of the Law or War, and how that is, itself a violation of these laws. According to this source, “There is an obligation under all the 1949 Geneva Conventions to teach the law of war so that the “entire population” is aware of the rules.”

Interesting proposition. However, as I understand it, LOAC is policy, not law in the strict sense. UCMJ is U.S. law, the Geneva Conventions are International Law, and both of these are incorporated within LOAC. In the strict sense, LOAC is the directive our government gives to our military to adhere to these laws, including many situational specifications. Is this correct, or have I missed something?

“Armed conflict places large numbers of civilians [and other protected non-combatants] on all sides of a conflict in grave situations where the risks of death, suffering, loss, and other depredations are extremely high. This is especially so when combatants disguise themselves unlawfully as protected noncombatant civilians. LOAC has long been designed to mitigate the risks to civilians by clearly distinguishing lawful combatants (such as uniformed military personnel under a responsible chain of command, who carry arms openly, and who are obliged to, and do, follow international law) from unlawful combatants (such as members of the Taliban who en masse do not meet the four criteria of lawful belligerency and who en masse have willfully and continually failed to follow LOAC, and al-Qaeda who en masse are stateless and whose right to take up arms is not recognized under international law); [and who all correctly deserve the name ‘hostes humani generis,’ the common enemies of mankind].” (Emphasis added) – “Al-Qaeda and Taliban unlawful combatant detainees, unlawful belligerency, and the international laws of armed conflict,” Air Force Law Review, Spring, 2004, by Joseph P. Bialke

The inescapable conclusion is that it is not the US that is responsible for however many deaths that have occurred because of the war, but that of the unlawful combatants; and they are responsible for every last one of them – on both sides.

Since LOAC also covers the treatment of unlawful combatants, by extension, these organizations have also inadvertently justified the need for the Guantanamo detention facility and even “torture” to extract information from these “stateless” terrorists.