Over in this thread someone posted the terms of the Geneva convention and makes the comment that Taliban fighters don’t qualify as POWs because they don’t wear a uniform. Fair enough, and I’ve seen countless movies where someone going undercover in wartime is worried about being shot for a spy if captured because they don’t have a uniform.
This brings me to another quetsion that has puzzled me slightly for a while. After the famous “Great Escape” in WWII 50 prisoners were recaptured and shot, which was apparently illegal. Yet all these prisoners were presumably captured wearing civilian clothes.
What I’m wondering is why they could not legally be executed as spies, rather than needing to be treated as POWs. They were enemy nationals illegally at liberty in a foreign country without uniform. Doesn’t that make them spies?
Is it really a requirement that a POW remains a POW forever and can effectively never be punished, even if he escapes? This seems like a huge loophole in the convention.
And if a POW made it to Holland for exmaple, could he then be sent back into Germnay as a spy free from any threat? When does POW status expire?
Nope. Escaping from captivity is considered honourable and only disciplinary punishment is allowed. Even minor crimes committed when attempting to escape (forging papers, stealing civilian clothes) are supposed to be met with disciplinary punishment only.
Of course, an escaped POW who actually commits acts of espionage - say, someone who takes notes of unit names, types and strengths as he makes his way across enemy territory - is a spy and can be punished as such. (Soldiers are supposed to know this. We were certainly told to memorize, but never take notes.) Then again, a smart escapee stays far away from any spot of particulkar military interest, anyway.
The escape attempt itself will be punished, but not harshly. If an escapee commits a serious crime while escaped, however, he can be punished severely (after a trial) - up to and including the death penalty.
If a POW makes it back to his own forces and joins the fight again, he’s a soldier like any other. He has no special privileges, and he can’t be punished for his successful escape if he’s unfortunate enough to be captured again.
In the film (and possibly real life) there was a long scene showing that the “civilian” clothes had all been expertly tailored from military uniforms.
The Geneva Convention was drawn up back when folks had “proper” wars with easily identified beginnings and ends. In theory, at least, when the war was over, prisoners were released.
Still seems like a huge loophole. Why did any country actually agree to this? I can understand humane treatmentof prisoners, but humane treatment of prisoners who escape and tie up valuable resources looking for them and guarding them? That seems like an aburd level of humanity in wartime. But I guess that’s more one for GD.
I knew escaping was considered honourable, it was the disguising youself as a civilian I thought was dubious. It still seems like ahuge loophole. As you said potentially an escapee could see military secrets, a large bonus especially in the days before spy sattelites.
Where does something like stealing military vehicles fit into this? Or killing military personnel while at large? Killing an enemy soldier isn’t a crime. Is it considered a crime for an escaped POW?
Yes, but that doesn’t change anything. A uniform has to be clearly recognisable at a distance. Anyone caught wearing the escapees’ clothes would be considered to be wearing civilian clothes even if the original cloth was cut from uniforms.
Put it this way, if a soldier who wasn’t a POW was caught wearong those altered clothes there is no way he would be considered to be anything other than a a spy.