11.07.2015 Views

Analyzing the “Photographic Evidence” of the Nanking Massacre

Analyzing the “Photographic Evidence” of the Nanking Massacre

Analyzing the “Photographic Evidence” of the Nanking Massacre

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

soldiers from civilians. Again, this is a universally accepted in military history. Mostrecently, American troops conducted similar operations during <strong>the</strong> war in Iraq.Investigation <strong>of</strong> five to sixthousand Chinese regular soldierswho attempted <strong>the</strong>ir escape byblending among <strong>the</strong> refugeesinside <strong>the</strong> city walls.”Mainichi-ban shina jihen gahō,no. 14, 21 December 1937, p. 23.In <strong>the</strong> course <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> “mop-up” operation, <strong>the</strong> Japanese screened out a number <strong>of</strong>Chinese soldiers, whose status as combatants was determined to be illegal. Anundeniable fact is that on <strong>the</strong> Yangzi shore <strong>the</strong> Japanese military executed severalthousand <strong>of</strong> those who were rebellious. The question is whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong> executionconducted by <strong>the</strong> Japanese army was legally justifiable.Legitimate combatants who have become prisoners <strong>of</strong> war (POW) are under <strong>the</strong>protection <strong>of</strong> international conventions which govern <strong>the</strong>ir treatment. They are immunefrom capital punishment unless <strong>the</strong>y violate laws or regulations. Killing <strong>of</strong> such POWswithout legitimate cause would indeed constitute an unlawful “massacre.”Those former Chinese soldiers who were arrested in <strong>the</strong> safety zone, however,were not entitled to <strong>the</strong> privileges as POWs because <strong>the</strong>y did not meet any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fourqualifications <strong>of</strong> belligerents as stipulated in <strong>the</strong> Hague convention <strong>of</strong> 1907. These fourqualifications were:1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;3. To carry arms openly; and4. To conduct <strong>the</strong>ir operations in accordance with <strong>the</strong> laws and customs <strong>of</strong> war.Those who did not satisfy <strong>the</strong>se qualifications were deemed to be illegitimate combatantsand are not eligible for <strong>the</strong> protection under <strong>the</strong> international law. This principle is stillupheld in <strong>the</strong> 1949 Geneva Convention on <strong>the</strong> treatment <strong>of</strong> POWs.It is meaningful here to quote a U.S. government’s statement with respect to itstreatment <strong>of</strong> Al-Qaeda and Taliban warriors who were detained at <strong>the</strong> U.S. military basein Guantanamo, Cuba. Defense Secretary Ronald H. Rumsfeld said <strong>the</strong> following in <strong>the</strong>Defense Department’s news briefing on February 8, 2002 (DoD News) ;29

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!