Is it a war crime to fight without a uniform?
Dzhims asked:
NY Times says: “The international law of war defines unlawful combatants as fighters who, for example, do not wear military uniforms and conceal their weapons.” Does it mean that a man who defends his homeland against invaders is an “unlawful combatant” unless he wears a uniform? Is it a war crime to be an irregular soldier?
NY Times says: “The international law of war defines unlawful combatants as fighters who, for example, do not wear military uniforms and conceal their weapons.” Does it mean that a man who defends his homeland against invaders is an “unlawful combatant” unless he wears a uniform? Is it a war crime to be an irregular soldier?
By i'm ron burgundy?, June 2, 2009 @ 6:54 am
YES…. fight the power
By cybersharque, June 2, 2009 @ 9:32 am
If it said that, then the NY Times has it wrong. There are six categories of POWs:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
The concept of unlawful combatant is not express in the Geneva convention.
Oh, silly me. I forget: the USA has repudiated the Geneva Convention. All bets are off. It’s just silly of the NYT to try to wrap a pretty wrapping around a smelly mass of criminal conduct.
By Charles V, June 2, 2009 @ 9:40 am
Citing the NY Times is never a good idea. However, what I think they are making reference to is the guidelines set forth by the Geneva conventions, the ‘un-uniformed’ mainly refers to definitions given to spies and/or saboteurs. I don’t know where you are going in this, because none of the participants of the mid east conflicts are Nations, but groups of idealist that are not subscribers to any conventions, moral or legal. So i think whatever you are trying to bring out is moot to begin with.
By ARCHANGEL, June 2, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
wow so the NY times is flip flopped on iraq now, the US has 1000′s of non-uniformed combatants in the form of blackwater security forces who are kind of like a secret mercenary army who i hear was in NO when katrina hit preventing people from leaving the city, there is also delta force which is a counterterrorism they wear civilian clothes grow thier hair long & grow out their beards, this is weird comin from NY times though b/c they were so supportive of us invading iraq why do u think they switched sides?
By Energize T, June 5, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
By serving in the army I would say no. My reason are back during the revolutionary period , there was uniform soldier’s and none uniforms soldier’s the native American fought side by side with the United States
they didn’t wear a uniform , many of the Buffalo soldier’s didn’t have uniforms,
It’s all about winning, fighting is a dirty business not about being fair,
if it’s going to be fair why would we have wars.
By canx_mp058, June 6, 2009 @ 10:15 am
Sometimes that has to be done.
However, if one is caught in that, then I think that the protections of the Geneva convention do not apply.
If an enemy is caught in one’s own uniform, I believe that he can be shot immediately, as the rights of a POW then don’t apply.
.
By Yak Rider, June 7, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
You don’t need a complete uniform, but you do need to have some easily identifiable (emphasis on easily identifiable) marker or item of clothing.
By jake, June 10, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
If you are a member of the US military and you are captured while not in uniform you can and will be treated as a spy! You no longer have any of the GC protections to fall back upon! Although there are considerations for spies but that is between the respective factions only! Out of uniform means you are indeed an unlawful combatant! Even military members in a hospital situation are required to wear a specific color uniform!
By losaitkens, June 13, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
Yes…otherwise you are just a coward unafraid to fight. If you believe in what you are fighting for, then wear the uniform and represent the cause.
By m1a1mikegolf, June 14, 2009 @ 10:58 am
It is not a war crime to be an ‘irregular soldier.’ It is a war crime to conduct military operations without wearing a uniform or other insignia that makes it easy for others to tell the difference between a combatant and a civilian.