Talk:Ruse of war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Standard of rules

This article uses many subjective terms like "legitimate" or "unacceptable" without identifying the rules to which it refers. The Geneva Conventions are widely accepted nowadays, but as war occurred during a few thousand year's of human history, they should be considered for what they are (an historical attempt to reduce war lawlessness, beginning in the 19th century) rather than being considered as a sort of divine law.

[edit] Otto Skorzeny's use of American uniforms

Last fall. when Kevin Sites captured a clip of a young Marine shooting a seriously wounded, unarmed Iraqi captive, columnist Thomas Sowell wrote an article defending the young Marine. He argued that the treatment GIs gave to German prisoners wearing American uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge set a precedent for giving prisoners summary executions. I got involved in a discussion on slashdot about Sowell's claim. My correspondents cited details of Otto Skorzeny's exploits that turned out to be partially incorrect. One of the links I turned up quoted Skorzeny on advice he had received from German experts in military law. According to this link the legal advice he received was that wearing American uniforms was a legitimate ruse de guerre, so long as they took off their American uniforms before they fired any weapons. According to his account Skorzeny was skeptical that this advice held any value.

Skorzeny commanded a half-company of Germans who were to make a serious attempt to infiltrate behind the American lines, without being detected. Of these 48 volunteers a small number made it back to the German lines. Three were captured, interrogated, stood trial, and were openly executed by firing squad. One of these three captured Germans was the source of the incapacitating rumour that the goal of this force was to assassinate Eisenhower. If one were to be charitable, the execution of these three was the grain of truth behind Sowell's claim that GIs were authorized to shoot prisoners.

In practice this half-company of infiltrators were not able to evade detection. Half a dozen made it back behind German lines, three were captured, the rest were killed in combat. Can this high rate of casualties be explained by the Germans being delayed by changing uniforms? Could this hight rate of casualties be explained by the Americans refusing to accept attempts by the Germans to surrender? Could this high rate of casualties be explained by furious GIs practicing summary execution of prisoners in secret?

My understanding of the obligations of the Geneva Conventions and the US UCMJ is that when a captor takes a prisoner into custody they are obliged to take reasonable steps to keep them safe. My understanding is that even if they suspect a prisoner of committing war crimes they are still obliged to keep them safe, until they are handed over to those authorized to make a determination as to whehter they were legitimate prisoners of war, innocent civilians, or illegal combatants, suspected war criminals.

[edit] summary execution of spies?

Isn't there a tradition of routinely shooting spies, because they were fighting out of uniform? Wouldn't this suggest that spying is not recognized as a legitimate ruse de guerre?

That gets into what you imply by saying "legitimate". Although spies face execution, it is an ancient, established practice of war, and all parties know their need (and duty) to defend against it. Many parties would simply consider spying to be a tactic that risks grave consequences, but is nonetheless legitimate. The very fact that governments typically shoot (foreign) spies instead of hanging them testifies to this. In that sense, it differs from attacking under the guise of a Red Cross vehicle, because in that case, combatants have a moral obligation to NOT attack such vehicles, but rather to offer safe passage. 65.77.101.63 00:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC) David