Ruse - using enemy uniforms
-
- Member
- Posts: 3639
- Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
- Location: Malaysia
Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms
British commando officers, Major Patrick Leigh Fermor and Captain William Stanley Moss would have been considered as war criminals if they were captured by the Germans, would have been sentenced to death for using German uniforms and attempting to abduct and kidnap a German general
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnap_of_General_Kreipe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnap_of_General_Kreipe
-
- Member
- Posts: 3639
- Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
- Location: Malaysia
Re:
The statement "military personnel not wearing their uniform lose their PW status if captured and risk being treated as spies"JamesL wrote:Here is a snip from the Laws of War Deskbook available at the US Army Judge Advocate General's website. It is CURRENT US military practice. Bold emphasis is mine.
______________
a. Uniforms. Combatants may wear enemy uniforms but cannot fight in
them. Note, however, that military personnel not wearing their uniform
lose their PW status if captured and risk being treated as spies (FM 27-10,
para. 54, 74; NWP 1-14M, para. 12.5.3; AFP 110-31, 8-6.)
World War II - Germany: The most celebrated incident involving the use of enemy uniforms was the Otto Skorzeny trial arising from activities during the Battle of Bulge. Otto Skorzeny was brigade commander of the 150th SS Panzer Brigade. Several of his men were captured in U.S. uniforms, their mission being to secure three critical bridges in advance of the German attack. 18 of Skorzeny’s men were executed as spies following the battle. Following the war, ten of Skorzeny’s officers, as well as
Skorzeny himself, were accused of the improper use of enemy uniforms, among other charges. All were acquitted. The evidence did not show that they actually fought in the uniforms, consistent with their instructions. The case generally stands for the proposition that it is only the fighting in the enemy uniform that violates the law of war. (DA Pam 27-161-2 at 54.)
________
Skorzeny's men, captured in American uniforms were NOT prisoners of war. They lost their PW status. One can then reasonably conclude they were spies.
is this applicable as well to POWs who escaped from enemy POW's camp and then were recaptured?
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms
Panzermahn -- You asked
To understand this, look at the source material the deskbook quotes (FM 27-10, Law of Land Warfare, online at http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pu ... m27_10.pdf):
Q. Is he really an escaped POW? Did you check it out with the POW camp?
A. (1) Yes and yes. You call your superior officer and tell him what you found. Then (at your superior officer's suggestion), you call the POW camp and tell that you have something that belongs to them. You light another cigarette, have some more coffee, and you wait for them to pick him up.
(2) You don't know. You call your superior officer and tell him what you found. If he tells you to "get rid of him," ask for specifics. Always require a written and signed order for death sentences. Keep a copy.
(3) No and yes. The military police come and take him away for further disposition that doesn't involve you.
No. The first part of the statement ("military personnel not wearing their uniform lose their PW status if captured) is inaccurate. The problem for the ordinary soldier is, when you get out of uniform and get captured, there's no presumption that you're a POW if you don't have your identification documents with you. The lesson is, don't get out of your uniform, and if you do, don't leave your ID in your other pants. If that happens, the burden is on you to prove you're entitled to POW status. Then, if you're not illegally shot by your captors immediately, you're going to have to answer a number of awkward questions. It might take a while, too. And the food -- if you get any -- won't be as good as what your captors are eating.The statement "military personnel not wearing their uniform lose their PW status if captured and risk being treated as spies"
is this applicable as well to POWs who escaped from enemy POW's camp and then were recaptured?
To understand this, look at the source material the deskbook quotes (FM 27-10, Law of Land Warfare, online at http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pu ... m27_10.pdf):
So let's walk through the analysis. You're in the army, with a shiny new "butter-bar." A fellow gets captured in civilian clothes. Your men bring him to you. You speak with the captive, and he says he's an escaped POW. What do you do?54. National Flags, Insignia, and Uniforms as a Ruse
In practice, it has been authorized to make use of national flags, insignia, and uniforms as a ruse. The foregoing rule (HR, art. 23, par. (f) ) does not prohibit such employment, but does prohibit their improper use. It is certainly forbidden to employ them during combat, but their use at other times is not forbidden.
74. Necessity of Uniform
Members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict and members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces lose their right to be treated as prisoners of war whenever they deliberately conceal their status in order to pass behind the military lines of the enemy for the purpose of gathering military information or for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property. Putting on civilian clothes or the uniform of the enemy are examples of concealment of the status of a member of the armed forces.
Q. Is he really an escaped POW? Did you check it out with the POW camp?
A. (1) Yes and yes. You call your superior officer and tell him what you found. Then (at your superior officer's suggestion), you call the POW camp and tell that you have something that belongs to them. You light another cigarette, have some more coffee, and you wait for them to pick him up.
(2) You don't know. You call your superior officer and tell him what you found. If he tells you to "get rid of him," ask for specifics. Always require a written and signed order for death sentences. Keep a copy.
(3) No and yes. The military police come and take him away for further disposition that doesn't involve you.
Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms
You still cannot execute the prisoner without first giving him a legally constituted trial.David Thompson wrote:(2) You don't know. You call your superior officer and tell him what you found. If he tells you to "get rid of him," ask for specifics. Always require a written and signed order for death sentences. Keep a copy.
Penn44
.
I once was told that I was vain, but I knew that vanity was a fault, so I gave it up because I have no faults.
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms
Penn44 -- You wrote, of my answer to Panzermahn's question:
No one said anything to the contrary in this exchange.You still cannot execute the prisoner without first giving him a legally constituted trial.
Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms
Well, and David correct me if I'm wrong, if the guy was in civilian clothes and he couldn't prove he was a member of any army\militia showing a ID, and he was armed or he was doing some wrong-doing like sabotage, gathering infos, or spying, or shooting against your soldiers, I think he could have been executed on the spot no trial required.Penn44 wrote:You still cannot execute the prisoner without first giving him a legally constituted trial.David Thompson wrote:(2) You don't know. You call your superior officer and tell him what you found. If he tells you to "get rid of him," ask for specifics. Always require a written and signed order for death sentences. Keep a copy.
Penn44
.
Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms
David Thompson wrote:Penn44 -- You wrote, of my answer to Panzermahn's question:No one said anything to the contrary in this exchange.You still cannot execute the prisoner without first giving him a legally constituted trial.
David:David Thompson wrote:Penn44 -- You wrote, of my answer to Panzermahn's question:No one said anything to the contrary in this exchange.You still cannot execute the prisoner without first giving him a legally constituted trial.
Given your scenario:
I recommend that you repeat even the most obvious to the said lieutenant.David Thompson wrote:You're in the army, with a shiny new "butter-bar."
Over the course of modern history, how many commanders, to include Pieper and Capt Medina (Lt Calley's commander) have claimed that their orders were misunderstood. Although in those particular cases I suspect that the said commanders accurately related their intent to their subordinates, it is the responsibility of the commander to ensure that his orders are expressed clearly and are understood.
To quote Napoleon: "An order that can be misunderstood will be misunderstood;" a maxim that is all too true.
Penn44
.
I once was told that I was vain, but I knew that vanity was a fault, so I gave it up because I have no faults.
Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms
Thank you for lending evidence to my point. Some people will not hear or understand everything presented in a Law of Land Warfare class, and some will later act on inaccurately understood information or assumptions. In a combat situation, 2nd Lt Hecht would have assumed Capt Thompson gave him instructions to shoot the said prisoner when in fact Capt Thompson did not. In dealing with these kinds of matters, the commander needs to be extremely explicit, clear and redundant.Hecht wrote:Well, and David correct me if I'm wrong, if the guy was in civilian clothes and he couldn't prove he was a member of any army\militia showing a ID, and he was armed or he was doing some wrong-doing like sabotage, gathering infos, or spying, or shooting against your soldiers, I think he could have been executed on the spot no trial required.Penn44 wrote:You still cannot execute the prisoner without first giving him a legally constituted trial.David Thompson wrote:(2) You don't know. You call your superior officer and tell him what you found. If he tells you to "get rid of him," ask for specifics. Always require a written and signed order for death sentences. Keep a copy.
Penn44
Penn44
.
I once was told that I was vain, but I knew that vanity was a fault, so I gave it up because I have no faults.
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms
Hecht -- You wrote:
Penn44 -- You wrote:
I think you're mistaken here. As a general proposition, summary executions of captured folk are prohibited by international law and the customs of land warfare. Whether the person is a soldier or civilian, if they're taken alive, they get a trial before any punishment can be imposed. The situation might be different if the person hadn't been already captured, of course.Well, and David correct me if I'm wrong, if the guy was in civilian clothes and he couldn't prove he was a member of any army\militia showing a ID, and he was armed or he was doing some wrong-doing like sabotage, gathering infos, or spying, or shooting against your soldiers, I think he could have been executed on the spot no trial required.
Penn44 -- You wrote:
I agree. His own life may later depend upon it.In dealing with these kinds of matters, the commander needs to be extremely explicit, clear and redundant.
Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms
Neither accused nor suspected partisans (what we now call ''unlawful combatants'') can be lawfully executed without prior trial and conviction by a facially legal trial fora. in Eisenhower's command, both as Commanding General of the European Theater of Operations and Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces, spies and partisans were supposed to be captured alive whenever possible for purposes of detailed, lengthy interrogation, possible conversion into double agents, and not to be subjected to summary execution without trial.Hecht wrote:Well, and David correct me if I'm wrong, if the guy was in civilian clothes and he couldn't prove he was a member of any army\militia showing a ID, and he was armed or he was doing some wrong-doing like sabotage, gathering infos, or spying, or shooting against your soldiers, I think he could have been executed on the spot no trial required.Penn44 wrote:You still cannot execute the prisoner without first giving him a legally constituted trial.David Thompson wrote:(2) You don't know. You call your superior officer and tell him what you found. If he tells you to "get rid of him," ask for specifics. Always require a written and signed order for death sentences. Keep a copy.
Penn44
.
Eisenhower personally authorized the Commanding General of the US 12th Army Group to try suspected enemy spies in France by military commission, and to approve any death sentences. During the battle of the Bulge, this authority was delegated down to the army commanders. When the allies began to occupy German soil in September, 1944, Eisenhower personally authorized all army group commanders to try enemy nationals for offenses which included spying and acting as partisans in occupied German territory. No one was ever lawfully authorized to kill suspected spies after capture without trial. If such killings occurred, they would have been in violation of both the laws of war and Allied policy of the time.
Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms
David,David Thompson wrote:Hecht -- You wrote:I think you're mistaken here. As a general proposition, summary executions of captured folk are prohibited by international law and the customs of land warfare. Whether the person is a soldier or civilian, if they're taken alive, they get a trial before any punishment can be imposed. The situation might be different if the person hadn't been already captured, of course.Well, and David correct me if I'm wrong, if the guy was in civilian clothes and he couldn't prove he was a member of any army\militia showing a ID, and he was armed or he was doing some wrong-doing like sabotage, gathering infos, or spying, or shooting against your soldiers, I think he could have been executed on the spot no trial required.
Thanks for corrected me.
Permit me one further question; are prohibited or were prohibited?
I mean, executing a person found in civilian clothes concealing weapons or shooting at the "regular" soldiers, with no insignas on him and the fella being not able to produce any evidence he was a member of a Militia, was illegal before 1949?
My knowledge about the subject is little, but as far as I remember there had to be certain requirementes in order to be expected to be covered by Geneva, but I may be well wrong.
I've always thought for example that the Hostage Case stated no trial was needed for pillagers and plounders and for civilian franc-tireurs caught in arms: maybe there were to be tried to before execution?
Always interested into learn more about this subject.
Have a nice day.
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms
Hecht -- I'll answer your question as best I can, but it may take a few days.
Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms
Thanks David, take your time please.David Thompson wrote:Hecht -- I'll answer your question as best I can, but it may take a few days.
Re: Ruse - using enemy uniforms
Hecht,
You may be able to answer your question by looking around this site:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp
It has the international agreements with dates associated. However some interpretation may be required.
You may be able to answer your question by looking around this site:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp
It has the international agreements with dates associated. However some interpretation may be required.