Returning American veterans have, in some cases, been allegedly involved with or have evidence of war crimes; and some veterans are now assigned to domestic law enforcement.
DemocracyNow reports Wikileaks disclosed pervasive abuse of civilians, likely implicating American military personnel in war crimes:
Although local, state, and federal law enforcement do benefit from having former and current military personnel assigned, there is a reasonable public concern that personnel involved with Geneva violations may similarly mistreat American civilians.
Media Report About Alleged War Crimes Evidence, via Wikileaks
DN: In July 2010, WikiLeaks released the Afghan War Logs, tens of thousands of secret U.S. military communications that laid out the official record of the violent occupation of Afghanistan, the scale of civilian deaths and likely war crimes.
US military communications, according to wikileaks via Democracy Now, points to war crimes.
These incidents include military personnel, contractors, and agents of the United States.
We need to know what happened to those allegedly involved with these war crimes; and their connection to domestic law enforcement.
However, if we keep our heads in the sand long enough, we might avoid asking (a) what the President knew about Geneva compliance issues re local law enforcement; (b) what connection the White House has with dissuading reviews of local law enforcement re Geneva compliance; and (c) what DOJ OLC knew about the use of local law enforcement during overseas Geneva violations. [ WH Connection to NYPD-CIA Surveillance ].
There are public reports of non-isolated incidents overseas where military personnel were present, or aware of, breaches of the laws of war. There is no comprehensive program to properly document alleged war crimes connected with formerly or currently assigned domestic law enforcement.
Military veterans allegedly complicit with war crimes are assigned to roles and missions with direct connection to American civilians. There is a foreseeable chance that abuses committed overseas will continue against other classes of civilians.
There are several programs which sponsor military veterans in law enforcement jobs:
Other alleged offenses include improper compliance with war crimes reporting procedures. Some have not properly complied with Geneva reporting requirements; not provided evidence of alleged war crimes to their military commanders; and are assigned to law enforcement with contact with civilians. Civilians are at risk of being mistreated.
Connection Between Military and Law Enforcement
These are some sample programs showing that law enforcement does like to use former military personnel. In no way are we saying that these programs are complicit with war crimes; only establishing that there is a connection between overseas military activity and domestic law enforcement, which has an interaction with American civilians.
1. Vets to Cops [DOJ]: "The COPS Office is committed to supporting military veterans as they seek to transition into careers as law enforcement officers."
2. A Publication, "Supporting the Integration or Re-Integration of Military Personnel into Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement"
3. Employment assistance for Veterans looking for jobs in law enforcement
These are federal programs which help transition military veterans to law enforcement. However, wikileaks shows us that there are war crimes issues overseas.
It's unclear how "all" those connected with "all" alleged war crimes have been vetted; nor does the uncertainty address -- going forward -- whether the pattern of overseas war crimes will or will not affect American civilians at the hands of former military personnel now assigned to domestic law enforcement.
"Trust us" didn't work on FISA, or the National Security Letters.
It's reasonable to review:
A. What was going on with the details of overseas combat operations;
B. The allegations of war crimes as raised by wikileaks;
C. The possibility that some domestic law enforcement abuse might be connected with their combat experience overseas;
D. Whether there are adequate, independent programs to montor, detect, and successfully prosecute local law enforcement officers who allegedly breached the laws of war;
E. Whether there is an adequate Geneva-enforcement mechanism as it relates to formerly assigned military personnel assigned to domestic law enforcement.
There is also no comprehensive program to monitor domestic law enforcement formerly assigned to units alleged to have breached Geneva overseas; nor an adequate program to properly identify, monitor, and manage formerly assigned military personnel who engaged in war crimes but are now assigned to domestic law enforcement.
Congress has failed to adequately conduct investigations into FISA or Geneva violations. There is no evidence Congress has adequately reviewed the impact of failing to discipline returning veterans before they are assigned to domestic law enforcement. Congress has not adequately drafted nor published procedures to guide civilians in how they interact with formerly assigned military personnel now assigned to domestic law enforcement.
DOJ OLC Memoranda
DOJ OLC memos drafted after 9-11 define the Continental united States as one theater of the war on terror.
One sample memo is here:
US government legal counsel have discussed procedures to implement military control of national emergency events. Legal counsel should include procedures to detect, monitor, and prosecute military personnel involved with unlawful violations of the law when conducting domestic law enforcement duties within the United States.
EFF commented on a disclosed memo related to the domestic use of military force:
DOJ OLC MemoCivilians should be provided timely information through the government, Congress, media, and appropriate legal channels on how to properly report evidence of criminal conduct by military personnel conducting law enforcement duties during states of emergencies.
"[T]he Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations. . ."
There's no record these memos have been withdrawn as they relate to the domestic use of military force; nor in the contention that the military might be used domestically under a "global" war on terror. These issues implicate Geneva in re American civilians.
We need to know whether DOJ OLC memos "like this" are or are not relied on when local law enforcement drafts memos; and how that DOJ OLC memo gives a deferential treatment to law enforcement during interactions with civilians during national security incidents or day to day interactions with civilians.
If law enforcement "got away" with mistreating Afghans or Iraqi civilians, what's the "magic reason" why they would suddenly properly treat similarly situated American civilians in a similar "national security" situation, only stateside?
For details on use of military during domestic operations, more discussion is here: See "Working Group".
Yesterday, AG Holder assigned two US Attorneys to investigate "leaks" related to national security issues. [Details here] AG should explain, inter alia
A. Why are US attorneys not also dedicated to prosecute formerly assigned military personnel now working in domestic law enforcement for alleged breaches of Geneva overseas; and
B. The DOJ procedures to properly collect, safeguard, and archive evidence related to mistreatment of American civilians by formerly assigned military personnel connected with war crimes overseas.
There are questions whether DOJ can independently conduct an investigation, or whether a special counsel should be assigned where there is a potential conflict of interest.
History, From 2005: What Congress Said On A Different Issue Involving DoJ InvestigationsAssignment, Promotion of Alleged War Criminals
As you know, under Department of Justice regulations, the Attorney General must appoint a special counsel when (1) a "criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted," (2) the investigation "by a United States Attorney Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department," and (3) "it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter."1 In the present case, all three requirements have been met.
There are DOJ (federal) programs which sponsor the transition of military veterans to law enforcement. This may raise a potential conflict of interest in asking DOJ to review these issues related to allegations that formerly assigned military personnel engaged in war crimes are inappropriately interacting as domestic law enforcement with American civilians.
Once alleged war criminals have returned to stateside assignment with local, state, or federal law enforcement, personnel can be quickly promoted. This merely suggests that the longer some questionable overseas activity goes unaddressed, the higher in rank some may rise, making it more difficult to independently review these issues internally.
Geneva enforcement applies not just to those directly involved, but other personnel who come in contact with evidence, or overhear conversations related to Geneva breaches. If they won't enforce the laws of war overseas, why should we believe they'll defend the Constitution at home?
This creates a foreseeable oversight problem -- those assigned with duties of domestic law enforcement leadership, budget formulation, and policy setting could have potential conflicts of interest: Bbeing aware of alleged war criminals, but having a greater loyalty to protecting and destroying evidence related to war crimes, especially connected with their own conduct, misconduct, or malfeasance.
The circle of law enforcement-intelligence community associates deserves independent review. As Geneva requires, this electronic review and evidence collection permitted through lawful use of FISA warrants to monitor domestic law enforcement personnel formerly assigned overseas to combat units where alleged breaches of Geneva occurred.
However, there may be a potential conflict interfering with a comprehensive war crimes investigation, possibly a subsequent breach of Geneva. Indeed, personnel assigned to ODNI have influence on intelligence collection against American civilians. It remains to be understood how LE-IC personnel might derail a bonafide investigation into alleged Geneva breaches by local, state, and federal law enforcement when they were formerly assigned to overseas combat theaters.
Can Americans Adequately, Independently Conduct Geneva Compliance Investigations?
There was a lack of interest in enforcing Geneva re rendition, as wikileaks disclosed re the State Department Memos. The potential conflict -- and possible problem within collecting evidence related to alleged Geneva breaches by Geneva -- might prompt a reasonable person to defer to foreign jurisdiction to competently, independently review the evidence within the LE-IC control, access, or span of influence.
ODNI personnel include military and law enforcement personnel. Wikileaks reveals domestic law enforcement was present during interrogations at federal detention facilities at Guantanamo. [For details on local LE at Guantanamo, read here.]
Proper vetting of law enforcement should include procedures to review evidence of prior criminal conduct, especially by domestic law enforcement personnel formerly assigned to combat units overseas. This does not mean law enforcement are guilty until proven innocent, only that the same standard LE applies to the public -- during field interviews, interrogations, and custodial detentions -- should be applied to LE without special favor.
Protection of Civilians
Geneva imposes on governments a duty to protect civilians. The President and DOJ OLC have relied on the AUMF to characterize Geneva as not applicable, even during an international conflict.
It is foreseeable that DOJ OLC and other legal experts have concluded that Geneva protections are not to be afforded to civilians under care of domestic law enforcement.
Civilians should be provided guidance on how to safely, properly, and appropriately retain, report, and forward evidence related to war crimes committed by formerly assigned military personnel now working in domestic law enforcement.
Special attention should be paid to providing guidance to civilians so they do not engage in any unlawful activity, nor take part in any action which might affect the current protections they have under US and international laws of war.
Civilians should not, in violation of the laws of war, be induced to provide information in return for bounties, as these bounties might induce civilians to engage in actions which could deny them of some or all protections they enjoy under the laws of war.
Civilians should not be encouraged to detain law enforcement personnel formerly assigned to military units, as this civilian action might require unlawful use of force, also denying the civilians of protections they enjoy under US and international laws of war.
Congress through the House and Senate Armed Services, Intelligence, and Judiciary Committees should develop oversight procedures to monitor the program to properly collect, retain, and safeguard evidence related to war crimes by personnel now assigned to domestic law enforcement.
DOJ IG and GAO should review AG estimates for manning as dedicated unit within DOJ to collect evidence of war crimes related to returning veterans formerly or currently assigned to domestic law enforcement.
Rules of procedure are mentioned here.
Protection of Civilian Witnesses
Congress should promulgate rules, with the assistance of state legislators, and procedures to protect civilians who interact with alleged war criminals now assigned to domestic law enforcement. There should be special provisions and protections for civilian witnesses who suffer retaliation as witnesses.
Assistance to Civilians Harmed
American civilians should be provided guidance to report evidence of former military veterans -- now assigned to domestic law enforcement -- when, inter alia:
A. There is information they may have engaged in alleged war crimes overseas; or
B. They have reports or evidence that former military personnel assigned to law enforcement have discussed breaches of Geneva overseas against civilians.
DoD should issue guidance to combatant commanders, Department IGs, defense criminal investigators on procedures to gather evidence from current and formerly assigned military personnel now working with domestic law enforcement.
There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. AG should develop credible estimates of evidence volume related to foreseeable war crimes investigations related to personnel now assigned to domestic law enforcement.
Procedures, contracts, leases, and security contracts should be developed to acquire, safeguard, secure, retain, preserve, and archive classified and non-classified evidence related to formerly assigned military personnel formerly or currently assigned to domestic law enforcement.
For example, there are allegations that the US government orchestrated an evidence destruction plan, to suppress and destroy legal memos on prisoner treatment:
"In 2009, Zelikow said that the Bush Administration attempted to collect and destroy all copies of the memo."Discovery
DOJ OLC should forward legal memos to the war crimes investigator related to evidence preservation, destruction, or retention memos.
Formerly, medical records fell within some exceptions to discovery. However, the Patriot Act created exceptions to some immunities, protections, shields granted to Medical records.
Under the Patriot Act, some relevant Medical records of law enforcement personnel include communications with insurance companies. These should be within the same exceptions created by the Patriot Act.
Court should be provided explanations why, despite the Patriot Act, defendants or defendant counsel seek to suppress some medical records.
If defendants or defendant counsel assigned with DOJ OLC choose to suppress medical records, the court should be provided explanations why there are two (2) standards on whether the Patriot Act does or does not apply; and why there are two (2) standards on exceptions to medical records, one for civilians, and a second for formerly assigned military personnel working with law enforcement.
There should be special safeguards, immunities, protections, and lawful incentives for civilians, military, and law enforcement to report evidence of war crimes related to personnel now assigned to domestic law enforcement.
DOJ should provide guidance to law enforcement on how law enforcement personnel will be afforded adequate protections when reporting alleged war crimes information related to formerly assigned military personnel now assigned to domestic law enforcement.
Subsequent Geneva Offenses
Subsequent offenses include evidence destruction, witness tampering, refusals to respond to lawful subpoenas, or misinformation related to the duty to protect civilians from alleged war criminals.
Congress should review and update rules of criminal procedure related to war crimes investigations of formerly assigned military personnel formerly or now working for domestic law enforcement. Sample indictment from Nuremberg here.
Congress should issue policy guidance to the President on appropriate procedures to detain, monitor, and supervise formerly assigned military personnel alleged to have breached Geneva and remain in their current law enforcement positions.
Geneva requires the procedures applicable to detained personnel to match those procedures commonly available to similarly situated personnel. Congress should issue reports on the methods used to glean information during interrogation, to include explanations why one class of civilian detainees is treated differently that other classes of detainees held by US military and law enforcement personnel.
Procedures should be drafted and implemented to properly retrain and forward to the national archives all classified and non-classified evidence related to war crimes, especially information connected with formerly military personnel formerly or now assigned to domestic law enforcement.
Wikileaks reveals a pervasive pattern of military personnel abusing civilians overseas in breach of the laws of war. There are federal programs which sponsor the transition of military personnel to domestic law enforcement.
It stands to reason, in light of these problems highlighted by wikileaks, that there be a program to review alleged war crimes evidence related to domestic law enforcement.
Wikileaks shows us they abused civilians overseas. DOJ OLC defines the continental united states as a theater in this war on terror. It is unlikely local law enforcement would create rules that would investigate activity sanctioned by the US government: Abuse of civilians during combat operations.
Wikileaks also shows us that domestic law enforcement was involved with interrogation of prisoners at Guantanamo. It stands to reason that there should be questions related to what they knew, observed as domestic law enforcement when engaged in these federal interrogation programs.
Law enforcement likely gleaned lessons from federal detention and interrogation programs and would apply them during interrogation of civilians. Its unclear whether these planned law enforcement interrogations would or would not comply with Geneva.
The US government ignored FISA out of convenience. Before the US military is deployed in response to a domestic crisis, one step is reviewing whether there are adequate reviews of law enforcement re Geneva compliance.
There is no statute of limitations for a war crimes investigation. Despite the public interest in these issues, it's unclear what the public lawfully, peacefully should do about alleged war criminals in domestic law enforcement.
The are alleged war criminals are in the ranks of law enforcement. The question is how serious the abuses should be before there is adequate oversight. There is no reason the abuses should continue.
Legitimate Public Debate
1. How do we explain no intersection between UCMJ breaches, Wikileaks information, and the activities of local LE?
If there, as some believe, "no alleged war criminals" in law enforcement, what was the process used to weed out the alleged war criminals, from the former military personnel who were not connected with anything in wikileaks? No answer.
2. Smokescreen Away From Local LE Relationship With Geneva During Former Combat Operations
Defamation is a false charge against a specific person. You've not adequately identified a specific person. Nor have you addressed the issues raised in wikileaks. Raising a question about alleged overseas war crimes, as disclosed in wikileaks and reported on DemocracyNow, hardly amounts to a "false charge" but a matter of public debate and interest.
3. Smokescreen Away From Needed Investigation
Raising a question about oversight -- on the back of information contained in wikileaks, combined with the federal support for transitioning veterans to law enforcement -- hardly answers the question: Do we know what local law enforcement did while they were in the military; and are there Geneva issues? No answer, but a simple yes or no would suffice.
4. Auditors Rise Above Deferential Approaches
It is interesting the deferential approach to law enforcement, in the wake of the unaddressed alleged war crimes issues overseas.
Could the deferential treatment of law enforcement, in part, explain why some are reluctant to challenge questionable police conduct: Refusals to honor civilian requests to have legal counsel present during questioning; different standards on whether civilians or felons appropriately have their civil rights respected during interrogations.
1. Audit of Promotion Standards
GAO and DOJ IG should use Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) to review the vetting process to review the promotion potential of local, state, and federal law enforcement, as they relate to Geneva enforcement, compliance and reporting.
It is an issue of public interest when formerly assigned military personnel -- allegedly involved with Geneva breaches -- are given similar authority to enforce local laws. If they won't enforce Geneva, why should we believe they'll properly follow local rules?
- What methods do Police Chiefs use to ensure currently assigned law enforcement personnel have adequately complied with all Geneva requirements while formerly assigned to overseas combat?
- With no statute of limitations on alleged breaches of Geneva, what is the ongoing, perpetual plan of local, state, and federal legislators and auditors to review law enforcement officers records in re Geneva compliance?
2. DOJ OPR Investigation of Domestic Law Enforcement
Congress through the House, Senate, and Intelligence Committees should appropriate funds in the House to properly establish a formal war crimes investigation unit within the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (DOJ OPR) to
A. Review misconduct incidents by local law enforcement; and
B. Review which misconduct is related to alleged breaches of Geneva overseas by formerly assigned military personnel, contractors, agents, or other civilian security personnel formerly or currently assigned to domestic law enforcement.
3. NYPD-CIA Review
There needs to be an expansion of the NYPD-CIA investigation to review the relationship between local law enforcement and their inputs to federal military planning.
We would hope that potential conflicts -- that of failing to enforce Geneva against personnel now assigned to law enforcement -- would not dissuade some from revisiting the plan related to posse comitatus. Are local LE inputs to federal military plans skewed or questionable because personnel have a loose record of enforcing or complying with Geneva?
Should we listen to the same people who say "don't worry" about the NYPD-CIA domestic surveillance, when they say, "This is not an issue?"
For background on the use of local law enforcement information when developing military plans, read more here.
4. DOJ OLC Memo FOIA
The list of "missing" DOJ OLC memos is long. Review whether there are specific DOJ OLC memos related to non-investigation of alleged war crimes by former military personnel now assigned to local law enforcement; whether DOJ OLC has been asked to express an opinion on this Geneva compliance requirement.
We believe there is great resistance to even considering this issue. That smells trouble for the legal community, who are bound by ethical standards to enforce all treaty obligations, and timely safeguard evidence related to war crimes.
One area which raises a reasonable question of alleged legal malpractice -- in re exploring the scope of potential legal liability issues facing a given government -- has to do with adequate legal advice when scoping proper liability reserves; and were there proper legal memos written to give civilian leaders adequate information to make informed decisions about the Geneva-enforcement compliance requirements attached to civilians stateside.
Although these alleged breaches occurred overseas, there is a perpetual legal question: Have legal counsel attached with state, local, and federal governments properly considered the legal risk of failing to enforce Geneva; were the legal memos of DOJ OLC and the IOB properly incorporating Geneva into their reviews; and have the internal controls and promotion reviews adequately reviewed history of alleged breaches of international law.
Based on the reactions to the content in this diary, we believe there is a sizeable financial risk that legal counsel have not, as required, properly provided robust guidance to local, state, and federal leadership. Bluntly, failing to provide a legal memo that considers the above could raise a question of legal malpractice should there be sizeable legal costs associated with implementing Geneva investigation procedures and evidence retention programs.
One of the trials at Nuremberg was the "justice trial" where civilian lawyers were tried for failing to provide proper legal guidance to the Nazi leadership. In so many words, the legal theory expanded from holding primary actors responsible, to also holding legal counsel accountable for providing defective legal advice.
It is interesting, despite many posts, how quickly the sentiment has turned. We believe there is great resistance to consider the possibility that overseas combat abuses are improperly raising the bar on what local law enforcement considers acceptable. "Hay, we did that overseas, who cares?"
Some people may view the above as a "slam" against law enforcement. However, if you have read this diary for the past year, you'll know that we've publicly written a nice commentary about the NYPD after 9-11, but ended with: OK, you did your job, let's find out more about the legal compliance issues.
For those who are commenting that this diary "always" has non-sense, how do you respond to the letter of appreciation to NYPD: Is that also non-sense? Then you have, in your ranks of law enforcement, rejected the appreciation you deserve; why are you arguing against yourselves?
Serious Geneva Compliance Issues
Yes, local, state, and federal governments have a duty to enforce Geneva; and the reaction to this diary suggests that there are many who do not appreciate the seriousness of these alleged breaches overseas: Rather than review the information -- as required under the laws of war -- some would like to make excuses, avoid the issues, and pretend that things are just fine.
Sadly, that attitude of "don't talk about it, we don't want to hear it" was the same head in the sand approach which enabled foreign powers to mobilize combat forces, dissuade American public support for military confrontation, and essentially leave the United States vulnerable to external attack.
Indeed, if there is "no issue" here, then surely some would gladly produce a report saying, among other things:
A. there has been a thorough review of the US military communications as disclosed in wikileaks;
B. there has been a thorough review of those alleged breaches of Geneva; and
C. all currently and formerly assigned military personnel involved with those alleged breaches have no connection to any position of leadership, authority, or defense in the local, state, or federal government; and
D. there is nothing here to worry about.
Oath of Office: Enforce Geneva as A Treaty Obligation
However, in the absence of information, but the speedy calls to have these issues sidelined, it's unfortunate to conclude that there is a brewing legal problem in re Geneva compliance, enforcement, despite the US oath of office to enforce all treaty obligations.
Supremacy ClauseHere is the language related to the oath of office:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Geneva conventions are part of the Supreme Law. One question is whether public officials, learning of the US communications on wikileaks, properly adjusted their oversight procedures and audits related to legal compliance by assigned personnel, contractors, and subsidiaries.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this ConstitutionIndeed, Nuremberg reminds us that civilians may be prosecuted for war crimes, especially when it can be shown that they reviewed material, failed to properly review the legal standards, and did not take proper care of the information and evidence to satisfactorily enforce the laws of war.
Legal counsel and sworn public officers, not just law enforcement and military personnel, have a duty to enforce the Geneva Conventions.
Let's hope readers of this information adequately review their legal compliance requirements under Geneva, and quickly move to properly ensure the laws of war are properly enforced, as is required under the laws of war.
It may be a question of legal malpractice should legal counsel, reviewing Geneva and US communications disclosed by wikileaks, fail to consider the possibility that they need to modernize their war crimes investigation and evidence retention policies and procedures.
The answers to questions about legal counsel considerations -- needed to conduct a legal compliance review of US legal counsel in re Geneva and formerly assigned military personnel working in domestic law enforcment -- requires public access to legal counsel memos through FOIA.
To date, IOB has not provided an adequate public response to concerns questions about the memos from legal counsel. If you would like to read more about what the IOB should have been getting from legal counsel, read this.
The record from wikileaks suggests there are material questions related to Geneva compliance. Public resistance to visiting these issues is intense, especially when it comes to reviewing whether domestic law enforcement may be connected with these alleged breaches of Geneva.
Nuremberg precedents on Geneva are clear: Legal counsel and civilian leaders may be lawfully prosecuted under the laws of war for providing defective, ineffective, or inadequate legal memos related to responsibilities when enforcing Geneva.
Geneva is part of the Supreme Law; and the US Constitution binds all public officials through the oath of office to ensure the laws of war are enforced.
We have outlined the emerging issue: It appears there are lines of evidence within US communciation and data systems pointing to Geneva violations; but there are not adequate reviews to identify which local law enforcement personnel, if any, may have breached Geneva; nor a serious review or program to gather evidence related to potential misconduct overseas which may have bearing on how domestic law enforcement, military personnel, and the intelligence community may interact with similarly situated American civilians.
Foreign powers are encouraged to evaluate this information when reviewing whether American governance is serious about enforcing Geneva; and heed the lessons of the Spanish and Italians: There is great resistance in the United States to properly investigate Geneva; nor adequately ensure that civilian leaders are properly mobilized to investigate the alleged connection between overseas Geneva breaches and domestic failures to properly ensure American civilians are under a coherent, legitimate system of governance serious about the laws of war.
This is a formal, written request to have this issue raised in foreign courts, and subject to review by The Hague when evaluating the seriousness of DOJ OLC legal inputs on procedural compliance in re the laws of war.