Family of captured UK fighter says Moscow breaking Geneva rules

A still image taken from Russian state TV footage shows Aiden Aslin, a British fighter captured in the Ukrainian city of Mariupol by Russian forces, at an unknown location, Apr. 18, 2022. (Reuters)
Short Url
Updated 20 April 2022
Follow

Family of captured UK fighter says Moscow breaking Geneva rules

  • Russian state TV aired a video of Aiden Aslin and another captured British fighter identified as Shaun Pinner asking to be exchanged for Viktor Medvedchuk
  • MP Robert Jenrick: ‘The video of Aiden speaking under duress and having clearly suffered physical injuries is deeply distressing’

LONDON: The family of a captured British man fighting in Ukraine accused Russia on Wednesday of breaking the Geneva Convention after it broadcast a “distressing” video of him.
Russian state TV aired a video on Monday of Aiden Aslin and another captured British fighter identified as Shaun Pinner asking to be exchanged for Viktor Medvedchuk, a wealthy Ukrainian businessman close to President Vladimir Putin.
“The video of Aiden speaking under duress and having clearly suffered physical injuries is deeply distressing,” Aslin’s family said in a statement released by his local MP Robert Jenrick.
“Using images and videos of prisoners of war is in contravention of the Geneva Convention and must stop.”
The statement said the family was in touch with the UK Foreign Office “to ensure the Russian authorities meet their obligations to prisoners of war under international law.”
It added that it was seeking “to secure the release of Aiden and Shaun.”
Prime Minister Boris Johnson told MPs on Wednesday: “I hope that he was treated with care and compassion.”
He also said he “thoroughly” echoed Jenrick’s assessment that the video represented “a flagrant breach of the Geneva Convention” and that “treating any prisoner of war in this manner is illegal.”
Aslin moved to Ukraine in 2018 and joined the Ukrainian Marines around four years ago. He was captured last week before appearing in the video, looking haggard.
Along with Pinner, he appealed for a prisoner swap with Putin ally Medvedchuk, who was recently arrested in Ukraine.


Tug of war: how US presidents battle Congress for military powers

Updated 5 sec ago
Follow

Tug of war: how US presidents battle Congress for military powers

  • The last official declaration of war by Congress was as far back as World War II

WASHINGTON, United States: Donald Trump’s unleashing of operation “Epic Fury” against Iran has once more underscored the long and bitter struggle between US presidents and Congress over who has the power to decide on foreign military action.
In his video address announcing “major combat” with the Islamic republic, Trump didn’t once mention any authorization or consultation with the US House of Representatives or Senate.
In doing so he sidelined not only Democrats, who called for an urgent war powers vote, but also his own Republican party as he asserts his dominance over a largely cowed legislature.
A US official said Secretary of State Marco Rubio had called top congressional leaders known as the “Gang of Eight” to give them a heads up on the Iran attack — adding that one was unreachable.
Rubio also “laid out the situation” and consulted with the same leaders on Tuesday in an hour-long briefing, the US official said.
According to the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war.
But at the same time the founding document of the United States first signed in 1787 says that the president is the “commander in chief” of the military, a definition that US leaders have in recent years taken very broadly.
The last official declaration of war by Congress was as far back as World War II.
There was no such proclamation during the unpopular Vietnam War, and it was then that Congress sought to reassert its powers.
In 1973 it adopted the War Powers Resolution, passed over Richard Nixon’s veto, to become the only lasting limit on unilateral presidential military action abroad.
The act allows the president to carry out a limited military intervention to respond to an urgent situation created by an attack against the United States.
In his video address on Saturday, Trump evoked an “imminent” threat to justify strikes against Iran.

- Sixty days -

Yet under this law, the president must still inform Congress within 48 hours.
It also says that if the president deploys US troops for a military action for more than 60 days, the head of state must then obtain the authorization of Congress for continued action.
That falls short of an official declaration of war.
The US Congress notably authorized the use of force in such a way after the September 11, 2011 attacks on the United States by Al-Qaeda. Presidents have used it over the past two decades for not only the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan but a series of operations in several countries linked to the “War on Terror.”
Trump is far from the first US president to launch military operations without going through Congress.
Democrat Bill Clinton launched US air strikes against Kosovo in 1999 as part of a NATO campaign, despite the lack of a green light from skeptical lawmakers.
Barack Obama did the same for airstrikes in Libya in 2011.
Trump followed their example in his first term in 2018 when he launched airstrikes in Syria along with Britain and France.
But since his return to power the 79-year-old has sought to push presidential power to its limits, and that includes in the military sphere.
Trump has ordered strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats in Latin America without consulting Congress, and in June 2025 struck Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Perhaps the most controversial act was when he ordered the capture of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro in a lightning military raid on January 3.
Republicans however managed to knock down moves by Democrats for a rare war powers resolution that would have curbed his authority over Venezuela operations.
Trump has meanwhile sought to extend his powers over the home front. Democrats have slammed the Republican for deploying the National Guard in several US cities in what he calls a crackdown on crime and immigration.