Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,544
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
Yes, the American militiamen wore uniforms, of a sort, when they could get them. The custom that enemy troops fighting out of uniform can be captured and summarily shot has a very long history; and in any event, entirely apart from the law of war, it's just common sense to supply your men with uniforms. In the chaos of battle the greatest risk to anyone is usually friendly fire. But pretty much anything can qualify as a uniform. Washington went to a lot of effort to get hunting shirts for militiamen. They looked nothing like conventional military uniforms, but they were recognizable.
There's case law on this subject from Nuremberg.
After World War II, during the Hostages Trial (United States v. Wilhelm List, et al., 11 Tr. of War Crim. Bef. Nuremberg Mil. Trib. 1248 (1948)), the seventh of the Nuremberg Trials, the tribunal found that, on the question of partisans, according to the then-current laws of war (the Hague Convention No. IV from 1907), the partisan fighters in southeast Europe could not be considered lawful belligerents under Article 1 of said convention.[8] In relation to Wilhelm List, the tribunal stated:
We are obliged to hold that such guerrillas were francs tireurs who, upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty. Consequently, no criminal responsibility attaches to the defendant List because of the execution of captured partisans...
We are obliged to hold that such guerrillas were francs tireurs who, upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty. Consequently, no criminal responsibility attaches to the defendant List because of the execution of captured partisans...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francs-tireurs
There has long been tension on this point, between on the one hand great powers that want to protect their occupying troops from partisans, and on the other hand smaller countries that want their civilians to help defend them when their armies are too weak. Working out a compromise has been the subject of a number of treaties. The modern law of war has become more nuanced on the subject of fighting out of uniform. According to current international law, the people who can't be punished for fighting out of uniform are:
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organised resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
It's worth remembering that protecting an invader's occupying troops from partisan defenders is a valid purpose of international law, because it also protects the noncombatant occupied population from occupying troops getting fed up with being picked off by combatants passing themselves off as noncombatants, and foreseeably coming to regard everyone as a combatant. When a partisan pretends to be a noncombatant he's using his fellow civilians as human shields.
