"Can Hezbollah fighters be considered “Franc Tireurs”?" Topic

I understand that captured soldiers cannot be shot out of hand if captured, according to the Geneva convention.
Are non uniformed soldiers covered?
Do Hezbollah combatants wear a recognizable uniform?
What IS considered a uniform?

I read a while back that non uniformed combatants are considered "franc tireurs", and thus not covered by the Geneva Convention. Thus, they can be shot out of hand, even if surrendering.

Something more to consider. If American "militia" members get rebellious over imaginary slights, do they have to be treated as POWs, if captured?

Another question.
Does a war have to be declared to determine POW status?

IMO, etc., they cannot be considered as soldiers. They are terrorists. Regardless of what they are wearing. They, Hezbollah, ISIS, etc. are not a standing military for any recognized nation.

Generally speaking, most Western Militaries rarely shoot somebody "out of hand" … But it does happen on occasion.

If American "militia" members get rebellious over imaginary slights, do they have to be treated as POWs, if captured?

I'm not completely sure, but was Antifa or even BLM considered anything but criminals ? If that … Not POWs, enemies of the state, etc.

But IMO Antifa should be considered domestic terrorists. Not POWs but criminals … BLM also came close to that paradigm. Both of those groups are primarily Amercian citizens. So, I don't think they can be considered POWs, but again just criminals.

We have the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of speech. But rioting, burning LEO vehicles, buildings, etc., attacking LEOs, etc. is not peaceful. They are illegal acts and should be treated as such. "Book'm Dano !"

Does a war have to be declared to determine POW status?

I'm not sure, but I don't think it matters. Again, the West rarely shoots someone who is unarmed or surrendering. But if they don't make it clear they are not surrendering and armed plus being threatening. I'd say they are a legitimate target.

Well, from Wikipedia:
"The post-war Geneva Convention established new protocols; according to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, francs-tireurs are entitled to prisoner-of-war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

link

Deal with that legalistically as you will.

Yes to that last post. What we were taught, first inROTC and then in Infantry Officer Basic at Ft Benning, was that if you are an armed civilian but operating openly against the enemy front, and under military command abd authority, you are a legal combatant. Uniform is not required but the other stuff is. Of course this was in1968 and 1972.

John, those questions keep lots of lawyers in expensive cars and mistresses. The issues normally debated include:

1. What defines a "fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance"? With everyone wearing similar cams these days identification is proving difficult between "regular" troops (hence the coloured tapes being used in Ukraine). If you move away from armbands, uniforms and other "Western" modes of identification, is a particular way of wearing a turban, a type of garment or a brooch/pin/badge sufficient to distinguish francs-tireurs?

2. What defines the "distance" at which a sign can be recognised?

3. What is the acceptable definition of "commanded by"?

4. Is a holstered weapon being carried openly?

That's why ROE can get very restrictive. They endeavour not just to protect civvies, but also the troops who have to identify and engage the enemy. Too bad they're generally written by lawyers (or they were, here), with all the buts and ifs they love to splash around.

Lastly, shooting captured people who qualify as PoW in not allowed- even with blanks on an exercise (people got charged for it). Shooting captured people who don't qualify as PoW in not allowed, either. You have to hand them over to someone in authority.

But it happens, sometimes.

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949

PDF link

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, of 8 June 1977 (Protocol I) (as amended and supplemented):

PDF link

See Article 44 and Article 45

If you respond to terror with terror, how can you be distinguished from terrorists? No way. You are both terrorists, and it doesn't matter who started it. If a policeman stops following the law, he himself becomes a criminal.
It doesn't always look fair, but it's the only thing that keeps us from tyranny, chaos and anarchy. Better a bad law than no law.

Dal Gavan, where do we classify military personnel with weapons who commit crimes? Robbery, murder, rape… When can a soldier be considered a criminal? This can be decided by the court. But you are obliged to take measures to detain him and present him for trial. If he offers resistance, he is destroyed.
And it doesn't matter which warring side this soldier belongs to.
Based on the above – rebels are not equal to terrorists (unless the people standing in front of you are committing terrorism right now). They must be detained and brought to court. If they resist – they must be destroyed. Everything else – lawyers decide.
But yes – "bad war" was, is and will be. This is especially characteristic of ideological wars: civil, religious and similar (or with their elements). There, no one cares about the rules and the war is waged by terrorist methods. There, any moral boundaries are blurred. Tell the Afghans about the Geneva Convention)))

By the way – a recent example from the war in Ukraine. Filmed ten days ago by Ukrainian volunteers Daniil Zakharchenko and Alexander Gumanyuk in the city of Ukrainsk:

link

I would think the problem for Hezbollah types is that they are not the military of a state. They are part of a non-governmental organization and, as such, are not protected by the Conventions. The Hamas thugs can at least claim to be the troops of the government of Gaza, as laughable as that claim that they're the government and not simply the strongest faction.

Dal Gavan, where do we classify military personnel with weapons who commit crimes? Robbery, murder, rape… When can a soldier be considered a criminal?

You answered the question yourself, Cuprum. They're considered criminals and are tried as such. If they resist being taken into custody then "reasonable force" is used to detain them or stop their escape- and the lawyers have another field day arguing what constitutes "reasonable force". There's a lot of ambiguities in the conventions. Considering the myriad of situations that the conventions are trying to cover it's probably inevitable, and court cases will probably use precedent to define things that aren't specifically defined in the conventions, eg what is the distance at which a sign has to be recognisable?

I would think the problem for Hezbollah types is that they are not the military of a state.

That's where the real weaknesses in the various conventions come in, Dn. Can they be classed as rebels in a civil war against the government of a recognised state, and therefore technically "lawful combatants"? There are those (probably supporters) who would argue that they can and should be seen as such. Their opponents would vigorously argue otherwise (rightly so, IMHO).

Like I said, it's a lawyers' feast.

My understanding is that under the convention, anyone who takes part in hostilities and openly carries a weapon is considered a combatant and is subject to the POW protection laws. At least until his case is heard in court.

according to the Geneva convention

I would like to point out that there are several Geneva conventions, covering treatment of (I) Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, (II) Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, (III) Prisoners of War and (IV) Civilians. You can find the convention texts on ICRC website:

link

There are also the additional protocols, of which (II) covers Non-International Armed Conflicts.

__________________________________________________________

The basic premise of the international conventions on international conflict seems to be that certain actions that would be considered as crimes in peacetime are not considered as such when performed by members of the armed forces (and certain other groups as covered by III convention) are not treated as such when aimed at members, material and facilities of opposing armed forces. So within certain limits, you cannot be prosecuted for violence or destruction of property, and if captured are eligible to PoW treatment (which is technically not a punishment).

However, being a member of armed forces in conflict is not a general "get out of jail card", and if one intentionally commits acts that are not considered acceptable during the time of war (such as deliberate violence towards unarmed civilians), then they can be prosecuted normally for these war crimes – in some case even in third countries (assuming that the the legislation of the country in question allows for prosecution of such events that have taken place abroad).

___________________________________________________________

As regards specifically the armed wing of Hezbollah (or other such groups), perhaps one could start by asking representatives of such group as to whether they:

1.) see themselves as a group whose members are entitled to protection in conflict through the 4th article of the III convention,
2.) and if they see themselves as such, what distinctive field sign have their adopted, are they committed to the open carrying of arms during conflict, and (most importantly) are they committed to "conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war".

My understanding is that under the convention, anyone who takes part in hostilities and openly carries a weapon is considered a combatant and is subject to the POW protection laws.

No, Cuprum, it's not that simple. As well as openly carrying a weapon there's other requirements that need to be met before you can be considered a part of an armed force and eligible for PoW status. Griefbring summarises them nicely. So, for example, wearing identifiable uniform items/insignia (the definition of which has been argued since the 1950's).*

Griefbringer, a good summary. Of course Hezbollah, Hamas, Red Brigade, IRA, MNLA, Viet Cong, Pathet Lao, etc, etc ad nauseum, would/do all claim that they were meeting the requirements to be treated as PoW. Yet most would be found to breach the various Conventions' requirements for what are now called "legal combatants", especially the requirement that they conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

*PS If you don't qualify for PoW status then you are a criminal and can be dealt with in accordance with the ROE and laws of war. Of course, if you're armed- and thus threatening the safety of my troops- then I can engage you with lethal force (and wait for the nearly compulsory trial by media, politician and, eventually, courts).

Good information John …

doc mcb +1 … and a shout out to ROTC and Benning IOBC!

Many of the enemies of the US/West, etc. never signed any GC and if so, often violated it.

Dal +1 on all your posts.

Of course, if you're armed- and thus threatening the safety of my troops- then I can engage you with lethal force

I said similar in an earlier post. – "make it clear they are not surrendering and armed plus being threatening. I'd say they are a legitimate target." … Both of us being former Infantrymen, we would think the same in almost all situations.

Cuprum –

Tell the Afghans about the Geneva Convention)))

Agree, the Muj/Taliban, AQ, ISIS, etc. are just terrorists. Hard to really IMO see where they fall into things like the CG. There were many Taliban, AQ, ISIS etc., held in, EPW\POW camps in A'stan. But when the US leaders most foolishly abandoned Bagram. There were hundreds of those from terrorist groups in turned in EPW/POW camps. That were released by their fellow jihadis with no one there to stop them.

AFAIK there are thousands of ISIS still in camps in Iraq and Syria guarded by Kurds, etc. Some camps are for the men, then the women and children are in separate camps. Both sexes are well indoctrinated as an ISIS member. As are their offsprings. According to reports.

What would they be classified as according to the CGs, etc.??

And what is to be done with these terrorists ? Will they go back to being goat herders, etc. if released ?

Greifbringer +1

A a lot of good comments … And as noted this could be quite a case(s) in the courts or Hague/World Court, etc.

"My understanding is that under the convention, anyone who takes part in hostilities and openly carries a weapon is considered a combatant and is subject to the POW protection laws."

Like the female population of Eastern Germany in 1945.

PS If you don't qualify for PoW status then you are a criminal

I presume that you intended to write that:

"PS If you don't qualify for PoW status then you are a criminal … if you engage in hostilities."

In an idealised world, armed conflict should only involve the armed forces of the involved parties engaging each other, with civilians neither taking part in hostilities nor being targeted by the armed forces. Of course, the conflicts in our real world fall far short of that ideal, which helps to keep lawyers busy.

I presume that you intended to write that:

"PS If you don't qualify for PoW status then you are a criminal … if you engage in hostilities."

It was in answer to Cuprum, mate, and assumed that the person in question was engaged in hostilities, but not in accordance with the GC. However, I see what you meant and I could have worded it better.

In an idealised world, armed conflict should only involve the armed forces of the involved parties engaging each other, with civilians neither taking part in hostilities nor being targeted by the armed forces.

Yes, Griefbringer, that's the ideal, but the self-absorbed primates we call humans are too venal, unevolved and self-absorbed for that to happen in the next few generations. But with the current crop of deluded, ambitious, greedy, sociopathic and megalomaniacal Homo Insanus (never "Homo Sapiens") in power around the world I wouldn't be surprised to see mushrooms sprouting in Europe and the mid-East next week.

PS In an idealised world, armed conflict should only involve the political leaders of the involved parties engaging each other, using various blunt and sharp hand weapons. The survivors could then be gaoled for murder. If nothing else it may slowly solidify the ethical framework in which governments claim to operate.

Dal +1