The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1915-01-23
Member of the Associated Press.
SATURDAY, JANUARY %, 1915.
MODERN WARS BARBAR1sM.

One of the supposed amehorating
facts about modern warfare has been
the increased exemption of non--com-
batants There has been n growth of
international usage and law which
makes a sharp distinction between
fighting men and those who are in
purely civil life and have nothing to
do with actual fighting. This is al
sound distinction. The sharp punish |
ment which the Germans have inflicted
upon the Belgian snipers has been
nOminally in consequence of the fact
that these men have not been soldiers,
but civilians who have guns and,
under the supposed protection of their
civilian status, have committed acts OF
soldiers. Therefore their punishment
has been terrible. They have been
shot summarily, principally for VIOLA
ton of the code of war which assumes
that soldiers are not exposed to such
risks at the hands of civilians.
But the aerial system of fighting in
troduced in this war sets back the
hands on the clock of progress materi-
ally. Dropping of bombs from SKY
ships necessarily involves the killing
of the innocent civilians just the same
as if they were fighting men. This has
been the conspicuous fact about the
aerial bombs from the beginning of the
war. They have blown up women and
children just the same as if they were
q &c. Cf -
of the aerial raid Tuesday night over
part of England. Civilians were kill
ed. Under good international law, they
were entitled to immunity because OF
their status as unarmed and without
the possible means of inficting dam
age upon their country's enemies. But
the bomb thr0wers can make no dis
tinction in the case of civilians an(
soldiers. In the nature of the case
this is impossible. Thus the nations
! are forced to face the question wheth
4 or the distinction in international Law
4 before airships were invented is sound
s or whether the exigencies of modern
i warfare remove from civilians all thei
4 right to protection.
In the case of civilians injured b,
4 bombardments, there is the fact tina
4 if the place was fortified, then the.
y are assumed to have accepted the ris
a which goes with presence in a militar
Il position. But under the Habue cor
4 vention of 1907, unfortifed places e1
Il empted from the dangers of lombard
ment Thus the latest deliverance Q
the nations has been the recognition c
z the sacred status of the unarmed ely
- ilian. Yet along comes the airship an
- defes the common law of the nation
y Here is an incident of warfaI
- which demands attention no matte
ot whether it hurts the allies or the Gle
I'd mans. On the face of it, the distin
" ton in favor of immunity of unarme
FRS civilians is sound and ought to prevail
ur Persons who keep out of the fghtin
are entitled to the protection of the
status. The excuse that the airshil
cannot discriminate does not seem su
ficient 1t would seem to be sour
law for the occasion that unfortif(
places must be as safe from air Dor
bardment as they are from bombar
- ment by land or sea. IF persons tai
the risk of staying in fortified place
q they must take the consequences. B
it seems only just that information
- law insist that bomb dropping sh5
- not occur against unfortifed place
The same principle should govern
the case of airships as ships which 5;
on the water.