Mr. Cotton is also a Harvard-trained lawyer, so perhaps he was referring to the U.S. Constitution? The third amendment talks about ringing up or housing troops. « No soldier may be lodged in a house in time of peace without the consent of its owner or in time of war, but in the manner prescribed by law. » According to the National Archives, « The Third Amendment prevents the government from forcing homeowners to allow soldiers to use their homes. Before the War of Independence, laws gave British soldiers the right to seize private homes. Somehow, this meaning did not seem to match. « Not a quarter. » Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/no%20quarter. Retrieved 5 November 2022. Then my thoughts jumped to my youth and the old historical feature films I had seen about people who were housed in the Middle Ages. I seemed to remember something that the enemies of the crown were punished by 4 horses spreading their limbs. I did some research, and indeed, the punishment consisted of five parts: first, the perpetrator was dragged to the place of execution.
Secondly, he was hung by the neck for a short time. Third, he was eviscerated and his intestines burned while watching. Fourth, he was beheaded. Fifth, his five body parts were cut up and displayed in different parts of the country to deter other potential culprits. Parts of this process were featured in the television series Reign and the movie Braveheart. So NO quarter would be good, right? But this meaning of the 1200s did not seem to correspond to modernity. Black flags were used to indicate that quarters would be given if surrender was immediate; The most famous example is the Jolly Roger, which is used by pirates to intimidate a target crew into surrendering. Across the up-and-coming neighborhood, pirates avoided costly and dangerous naval battles that could cripple both ships and leave dozens of critical crew members dead or disabled. [8] Without stopping to investigate the practical implications (including loss of constitutional rights and the possibility of lethal harm) for peaceful protesters, innocent children, and bystanders who might be accompanied or infiltrated by said insurgents, anarchists, rioters, and looters, I wondered whether this approach would be legal.
A tweet from journalist David Français said: « A no-neighborhood order is a war crime that has been banned even in the actual insurrection since Abraham Lincoln signed the Lieber Code in 1863. Such an order is prohibited under international law and, if carried out, would constitute murder under U.S. law. According to international humanitarian law, « this is particularly prohibited. to declare that no quarter is given ». It was established in accordance with article 23 (d) of the Hague Convention of 1907 IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land. [10] Since a decision on the law of war criminals and crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg trials in October 1946, the 1907 Hague Convention, including the express prohibition against not declaring a ward, has been considered part of the customary law of war and binding on all parties to an international armed conflict. [11] The term may come from an order from the commander of a victorious army that they will not quarter, (shelter) captured enemy combatants. Therefore, no one can be captured and all enemy combatants must be killed. [3] A second derivation, also pointed out in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), is that quarter (No.
17) can mean « relations or behaviour with another », as in Shakespeare`s Othello, Act II, scene III, line 180, « Friends all. In Viertel und in Termen, wie Braut und Groome ». Thus, « not a quarter » can also mean a refusal to make an agreement (relationship) with an enemy who is trying to surrender. The OED mentions a third possible derivation, but says: « De Brieux`s claim (Origins. of several ways of speaking (1672) 16), that it arose from an agreement between the Dutch and the Spanish, according to which the ransom of an officer or soldier should be a quarter of his salary, contradicts the meaning of the expressions give or receive quarters. Tensions rose when the colonists resented the British for maintaining a standing army among them. They saw it as a threat, and what made matters worse was that the settlers had to pay for the army they hated. Things came to a head in Boston in 1770. At that time, thousands of British soldiers were stationed there among the more than 15,000 citizens of Boston. On March 5, 1770, a skirmish between a British soldier and a settler intensified and when the dust cleared, five settlers died. The incident became known as the Boston Massacre and would fuel the fire of the Revolution. « Even in terms of privacy in another sense, the right to privacy and protection from physical intrusion by government, the Third Amendment has had little significance in our country`s history, » said Professor Bell.
« Of course, what prevents the change from having to house soldiers in your house would be extraordinarily intrusive. But governments have not tried to house troops in private homes. And we certainly have a stronger right to privacy and protection from physical intrusion than that. And, if necessary, the 10th Mountain, the 82nd Airborne, the 1st Cave, the 3rd Infantry – whatever it takes to restore order. Not a neighborhood for insurgents, anarchists, rioters and looters. Article 46 of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) study on customary humanitarian law (IHL) states that it is an international war crime to threaten even that there will be no survivors in national and international military operations. A no-ward order is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Article 46 It is prohibited to order that no quarter be given, to threaten an adversary or to conduct hostilities on that basis.
Other « No Quarter » incidents occurred during the Taiping Rebellion of 1850–1864, as well as during the Civil War, involving irregular units of the Confederate Army. [ref. needed] At Tippermuir in 1644, the Scottish Covenanters used the battle cry « Jesus and not a quarter », meaning they would not take prisoners. [9] Under certain circumstances, opposing forces signaled their intention not to give in using a red flag (the so-called bloody flag). [6] [7] However, the use of a red flag to not signal a quarter does not appear to have been universal among combatants.