My understanding is that soldiers engaged in war must be wearing identifying clothing and badges, and that to perform war tasks or act as a soldier while wearing civilian clothing is a major violation of the Geneva Convention.
Is anyone familiar enough with the technicalities to put this in more rigorous terms and point to a specific cite within the code?
What I am specifically considering is the execution of Nguyen Van Lem by General Nguyen Ngoc Loan during the Tet Offensive in 1968 - the famous “street execution” photo that was such a strong force for anti-war protests. (Specifically, what I’m writing about is the extreme power of the still photo over the film footage, which is almost inconsequential by comparison.)
What’s interesting is that the photographer regretted taking the photo and destroying General Loan’s career, because the power of the photo carried away the wrong impression of the event. All discussion of the ethics of the Vietnam War aside, Lem, a Viet Cong officer, had just killed several soldiers while in civilian dress, and was executed specifically for that transgression of the GC, and (as I understand it) in accordance with its terms. It was not an egregious act of excess or a war crime; it was an appropriate and valid act during wartime, especially during combat.
Preferably without getting into an extended argument about the larger context, I’d like a knowledgeable analysis of the General’s actions in strict accordance with the rules of war - in that era, in case things have changed since.
The fact he was not wearing a uniform was not the reason for the regret. The reason was he was a death squad member responsible for the murder of South Vietnamese police and their families.
But in terms of the OP after WW2 the German troops who took part in Operation Greifwere not convicted because:
Thanks. There seem to be some different interpretations - once you get past the ingrained “imperialistic war crime in action!” sort of hysteria - but I am still led to understand that being out of uniform was as much a part of his crime as the actual murder of noncombatants. (Loosely speaking, as the SV police so often functioned as an arm of the military.)
I would also assume it is very common in special forces nowadays to actually fight in civilian clothes (less so I would assume actual opposing army uniforms). And its something a blind eye is turned to.
The OP is missing a nuance: Geneva Convention does not require that soldiers must wear uniforms as a general matter of law. In order to be afforded some of the most important protections of the Geneva Conventions, a soldier must wear a uniform or have some sort of symbol, mark, or characteristic that distinguished them from civilians. There are also protections for individuals who aren’t part of a formal military, but take up arms spontaneously (like if you organized a Neighborhood Defense Committee when the North Koreans invade your town.)
If a soldier is not in uniform, there is no specific penalty for that, so long as it is not undertaken as an act of “perfidy” in which someone passes themselves off as a civilian in order to treacherously kill the enemy, which is prohibited by the GC. This is for obvious reasons: if an army is continually attacked by “civilians,” they may begin to treat all civilians as combatants. A case like a soldier dressing as a civilian to collect intelligence is not a war crime, but that person may be punished as the country may direct in accordance with an actual judicial procedure (as required by Common Article 3).
So, if captured out of uniform, the service member might not be entitled to POW protections. The Geneva Conventions would require that the soldier captured out of uniform be afforded certain basic rights, such as not to be murdered or tortured, not to be subject to inhuman or degrading punishment, and to be afforded medical care if sick or wounded.
The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
[…]
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, fulfill 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.
Those are cumulative conditions. A uniform is a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance but not the only type. The executed guy was likely not carrying arms openly or conducting his operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
So, if you don’t qualify as POW, you don’t get the protections. In his case, he could be treated like a common criminal, making his execution a purely internal matter.
Seeing as the German troops mentioned above were actually charged “by entering into combat disguised therewith and treacherously firing upon and killing members of the armed forces of the United States.” It does seem there is more to it than that.
Yes, simply being out of uniform while moving across territory or trying to cross through enemy-held territory would not necessarily be a crime. However, in the OP case and others, these were soldiers who were executing actions of war (lethal and potentially so) while not wearing any form of mark, insignia or uniform.
From a fictional reference by a careful author, I understand that being captured in combat in deceptive uniforms essentially strips you of all GC rights - you are a “captive of war” and your captors can do pretty much anything they like with you, including summary execution. True? Tru-ish? (Funny, it doesn’t look truish…)
From what I recall from decades of reading war stories, WWII adventure, etc - captured out of uniform behind enemy lines would mark you as a spy and entitled the capturing power to execute you (as happens to spies). Anecdotally I recall suggestions that the escaped POW’s would make a point of wearing at least part of their uniform under the civilian disguise to prevent this.
If you are a soldier and you’re behind enemy lines and you’re out of uniform, well, for all intents & purposes you are engaged in espionage and subject to its rules of war. A bigger violation, which can get you summarily executed even quicker, is if you’re caught behind enemy lines wearing the uniform of your enemy (a so-called ‘false flag’ operation).
Yes, but most of the ones they caught from that operating, during the “battle of Bulge” were shot and there are many famous pictures of the executions. It is against the Geneva conventions to fight in enemy uniform, period, and death penalty can be and is used for such violations of “laws of warfare” (as if such laws have any real meaning at all anymore). The only possible reason, I believe, that Skorzeny was given a pass, must be, because NATO or the allies wanted his services on the allied side, for something else. So there must have been more then this then meets the eye.
Here’s a great example, German WW2 Feldmarshall Eric Manstein was convicted of “war crimes” and in 1949, sentenced to 18 years, but served only 4 years until release. The real reason he was released was a real Rambo moment, because, NATO eventually realized they needed this guy. And its surprising it took them so long to figure this out. He was one of the few German Generals left alive, who had the real know-how on how to successfully fight the russians in case they attacked Western Europe. In WW2 his forces ran rings around the Russkis despite always being outnumbered. Manstein was probably the greatest General of WW2, he was a true genius at tactical and strategic warfare, he just did not get all the press as Rommel did as he fought entirely on the Eastern front. He was released from Spandau prison when he agreed to assist NATO and became a Bundeswehr officer, planning NATO defense against a possible russian attack.
It depends on the mission and the area of operations. Army Special Forces (Green Berets) still have a primary function as trainers for foreign military. You will find them in various parts of the world training in uniform. In war zones such as Afghanistan you will find various special operations groups (SF, SEALS, 1st SFOD-D) out of uniform and with relaxed grooming standards (cool beards) because they need to blend in with the local troops they are fighting with and training. Following the Geneva Convention with regards to uniforms is not a big concern when you are fighting an enemy that will at best behead you if captured regardless of what you are wearing.
Notably though, from the wiki article on perfidy, bolding mine:
That’s also from the nice, sterile post war trials; at the time
Lem was allegedly captured at the site of a mass grave which included the bodies of at least seven police family members who had been executed by the Viet Cong for being the family members of police.