cnm, et al,
There are a couple of things that need to be considered, before you start throwing accusations around of collective punishment.
Collective punishments have an honourable Aryan heritage after all.
(ANCILLARY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY) Food for Thought ---
• The theory of a conspiracy before the fact. This is where the family incites or assists another family member to commit a crime
(or knowingly aids someone who has committed a crime).
• The theory of a conspiracy after the fact. This is where the family helps a criminal after a crime has been committed; including harboring a fugitive from justice.
• The theory of providing material support for terrorism or subversive activity to protected persons that commits an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, or guilty of espionage, serious acts of sabotage, subversion against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons.
• Theory of Conspiracy wherein the family plotted or help plan to do something unlawful or harmful against the Occupying Power.
• The theory of incitement, persuading, encouraging, instigating, or funding of an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, or guilty of espionage, serious acts of sabotage, subversion against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons.
(COMMENT)
The idea of prohibiting "collective punishments" is actually articulated
Article 50, Hague Regulation of 1907; and is generally represented by Rules 102 and 103 in Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
Look at this carefully and the language it uses and you will get an idea of the intent.
• "inflicted upon the population,"
• "they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible."
Nothing prohibits the Occupying Power from taking action against those that were conspiratorially involved, in which there is a connection between the crime and the property associate with it.
The intent of the Collective Punishment prohibition was to eliminate taking groups of random people and summarily executing them
(standing them up against a wall and shooting them to make a point) for terrorist, insurgent and other asymmetric activity.
The prohibition does not prevent the Occupation Power from taking such action that may be essential for safety and security. Nor does it prevent all conspiratorial members and associates to the crime from being subject to penalties.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
SECURITY MEASURES. INTERNMENT AND ASSIGNED RESIDENCE. RIGHT OF APPEAL
ARTICLE 78 [ Link ]
If the Occupying Power considers it necessary, for imperative reasons of security, to take safety measures concerning protected persons, it may, at the most, subject them to assigned residence or to internment.
Decisions regarding such assigned residence or internment shall be made according to a regular procedure to be prescribed by the Occupying Power in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention. This procedure shall include the right of appeal for the parties concerned. Appeals shall be decided with the least possible delay. In the event of the decision being upheld, it shall be subject to periodical review, if possible every six months, by a competent body set up by the said Power.
Protected persons made subject to assigned residence and thus required to leave their homes shall enjoy the full benefit of
Article 39 of the present Convention.
Most Respectfully,
R
