Armed Citizen, Valid Target

[Spyder]

In Bowling for Columbine the Michigan Militia said it American's duty to be armed in order to protect their families for any reason whatsoever. It is also true that any invading nation would "find a gun behind every blade of grass".
However, would this not bring civilians into the realm of valid military targets
in the form of illegal combatants or in the case of any militia group perfectly legit combatants?

[RedImperator]

Civilians firing on enemy troops would be illegal combatants, and the enemy could legally execute them as spies. The guns would not be very useful in repelling an enemy invasion, but they would be extremely useful in making life less pleasant for an occupying army.

[Knife]

Civilians firing on enemy troops would be illegal combatants, and the enemy could legally execute them as spies. The guns would not be very useful in repelling an enemy invasion, but they would be extremely useful in making life less pleasant for an occupying army.

Unless they organised themselves into militias in which they would become legal combatents.

[RedImperator]

Civilians firing on enemy troops would be illegal combatants, and the enemy could legally execute them as spies. The guns would not be very useful in repelling an enemy invasion, but they would be extremely useful in making life less pleasant for an occupying army.

Unless they organised themselves into militias in which they would become legal combatents.

I shall have to remember that when the Canadian Army comes rolling down the Jersey Turnpike.

[Howedar]

Civilians firing on enemy troops would be illegal combatants, and the enemy could legally execute them as spies.

I'd question this one. Spies? Illegal combatants, quite possibly, but I see nothing spy-ish about civilians fighting out of uniform.

[RedImperator]

Civilians firing on enemy troops would be illegal combatants, and the enemy could legally execute them as spies.

I'd question this one. Spies? Illegal combatants, quite possibly, but I see nothing spy-ish about civilians fighting out of uniform.

IIRC, any non-uniformed combatant is classified as a spy. Since summary executions are bad PR, it doesn't happen much, but it's still legal. I think, anyway. Someone better versed than I on international law can fill me in.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

However, would this not bring civilians into the realm of valid military targets
in the form of illegal combatants or in the case of any militia group perfectly legit combatants?

Yes, which is why when carrying out your duties as part of the unorganized militia you would have to wear an identifying marker, which could be as simple as an armband common to your unit, or even a leaf stuck in your cap.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes, which is why when carrying out your duties as part of the unorganized militia you would have to wear an identifying marker, which could be as simple as an armband common to your unit, or even a leaf stuck in your cap.

(As long as it was distinguishing from the civilian populace.)

[Knife]

However, would this not bring civilians into the realm of valid military targets
in the form of illegal combatants or in the case of any militia group perfectly legit combatants?

Yes, which is why when carrying out your duties as part of the unorganized militia you would have to wear an identifying marker, which could be as simple as an armband common to your unit, or even a leaf stuck in your cap.

Damn, beat me to it.

An organised militia would have a uniform of sorts and be disqualified from execution for being a spy. They become irregulars not illegals.

[TrailerParkJawa]

An organised militia would have a uniform of sorts and be disqualified from execution for being a spy. They become irregulars not illegals.

Does this mean they can get a drivers license in the state of CA ?

[Darth Wong]

So street gangs with their distinctive colours, headbands etc. qualify as legal combatants?

[RedImperator]

So street gangs with their distinctive colours, headbands etc. qualify as legal combatants?

If they had one distinct article common to every member, yeah. In theory, Joe Schmoe could be hung for defending his house with a rifle, but any Crips who were captured in combat would have to be treated as POWs.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So street gangs with their distinctive colours, headbands etc. qualify as legal combatants?

In a war, yes. In fact, the Geneva conventions would give them exactly that status in an armed conflict.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If they had one distinct article common to every member, yeah. In theory, Joe Schmoe could be hung for defending his house with a rifle, but any Crips who were captured in combat would have to be treated as POWs.

Well, hell, if the Crips were acting in an organized fashion to defend a piece of U.S. territory, they would be patriots, and I would be quite upset if our hypothetical invader treated them as criminals.

[Peregrin Toker]

So street gangs with their distinctive colours, headbands etc. qualify as legal combatants?

If they had one distinct article common to every member, yeah. In theory, Joe Schmoe could be hung for defending his house with a rifle, but any Crips who were captured in combat would have to be treated as POWs.

Isn't that quite hypocritic?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Isn't that quite hypocritic?

Absolutely not. You need some way to distinguish soldiers from banditry, and in an area which has been turned into chaos by the effects of war--which naturally eliminate a government's control over a region--those measures to suppress it often have to be quite severe. The laws under which soldiers, including irregular militias, operate are thus specific, and require certain behaviour--like wearing identifiers which distinguish them from the civilian populace.

[RedImperator]

In theory, it also protects the civilians. If the soldiers can be identified, the occupiers don't have to do shit like impose 24-hour curfews or shoot anyone who makes a sudden move.

[Howedar]

So I guess when it gets dirty is when the irregulars go about in civilian clothing when not actively in combat.

Needless to say, in a lawless area (the only place such irregulars would really be effective) it would be impossible to track individuals to tell whether or not they were playing by the rules.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

In theory, it also protects the civilians. If the soldiers can be identified, the occupiers don't have to do shit like impose 24-hour curfews or shoot anyone who makes a sudden move.

Which is why every brutality possible should be perpetuated against those who do not follow these rules--if they are discouraged from disobeying them, civilian lives can only be saved. That is why the Geneva Convention allows the summary execution of captured irregulars who do not wear identifying markers.

[Howedar]

I've got to disagree with you on that one. If Joe Citizen grabs his hunting rifle when the evil Commies invade and starts shooting at them like a damn fool, he's not necessarily trying to blend in with the populace to evade capture and death. He's just trying to defend his little plot of land. Frankly, if I were in Joe's position, the least of my thoughts would concern making myself clear and readily identifiable to the enemy.


Certainly a lot of illegal combatants should be treated harshly, but I think there is a potential for decent people to just get caught up in the circumstances. I don't believe in summary execution for stupidity.

[Peregrin Toker]

Isn't that quite hypocritic?

Absolutely not. You need some way to distinguish soldiers from banditry, and in an area which has been turned into chaos by the effects of war--which naturally eliminate a government's control over a region--those measures to suppress it often have to be quite severe.

But if a man can get persecuted for not wearing an uniform while defending his house and a terrorist group get POW treatment for wearing identifying headbands, won't you question whether it's moral?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

But if a man can get persecuted for not wearing an uniform while defending his house and a terrorist group get POW treatment for wearing identifying headbands, won't you question whether it's moral?

It serves the higher purpose of preventing civilian deaths in War.

And he could have just put on an armband.

[kojikun]

duchess is right, the guy is fucking up civvie lives by giving invading armies
a reason to treat civvies poorly. civilians dont make war or decide to make
war, if you want to do that, be sure not to get the civvies hurt. wear
identifying markings. atleast then you can also be a POW instead of dead.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The Russians said it best: You can't invade America, because there are too many gas stations and too many coke bottles.

[MKSheppard]

Civilians firing on enemy troops would be illegal combatants, and the enemy could legally execute them as spies.

I believe that only applies if the guerilla force does not have an identifying
mark such as a green armband, etc.