Calpundit, are you serious in your desire to seek the answer to the question you pose?

Special forces perform clandestine operations - regular forces do not. Clandestine operations require stealth. One of the jobs of a special forces commander is to ingratiate themselves with the local political/military leadership, via money, weapons, or other valuables. U.S. military uniforms can get in the way of this task.

Why wouldn't he be serious? Are you suggesting that "moral clarity" obviates the need for cogent arguments?

I think that in Afghanistan, we were not disguising our soldiers to look like civilians, but rather disguising our soldiers to look like local soldiers.

Another difference might be intent. I was under the impression that the dress code was at least partly for public relations. That is, we didn't want to draw a lot of attention to the fact that we were "outsiders".

Assuming you would reject out of hand my gut response, "the justness of our cause," I offer the following:

Context, i.e., actions related to such disguise, the environment in which it is done, and its intent compared to the opposition's.

Disguise itself is not inherently criminal; it becomes criminal when used amid hostages and other innocents, and/or to take advantage of the opposition's proven intent to avoid innocent casualties.

George, not at all. My question was not based on "moral clarity". It was based on lack of credulity (of its premis)--1)special ops soldiers = regular Iraqi soldiers, and 2)the jump from "...the use of some civilian clothes by U.S. special operations forces..." to "...not only are we perfectly willing to disguise soldiers as civilians..."

Rose,

The problem then becomes one of definition. What is a special ops soldier? Why is it okay for them to be disguised?

Suppose the Republican Guard had a special ops team that wanted to infiltrate a U.S. base at night, and blow up a fuel depot. Would it then be okay for them to be disguised as civilians?

To me, this seems less rephrensible than what they have done so far, but I'm not sure I could present a clear argument as to why.

I am guessing but I think that Special Ops are akin to spies. Neither are protected under the Geneva Convention, as neither follows those rules.

Special Ops act as spies to collect information and do targeted killings, right? Again, similar to spies. They aren't "in the battlefield," per se.

Again, this is just a guess. I'd be interested in hearing the rationale, if there is one, from a military type.

The question turns on whether or not the disguised individuals are committing "perfidy as defined by Article 37 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions:

1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resorting to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
(a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
(d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation.

The question is NOT "Are they wearing civilian clothes?" The question is in the intent behind it. The Special Forces are attempting to avoid detection behind enemy lines, to use such clothing to move among civilians with less chance of being spotted. Wearing civilian clothes OVER or IN ADDITION TO a uniform to penetrate enemy lines, then removing such items prior to an attack is considered a ruse, not perfidy. See Article 46 of Protocol I - it differentiates between spies wearing uniforms and those who don't. Such definition would be meaningless if the mere act of donning civilian clothes triggered a definition of perfidy.

The Iraqis on the other hand, are *feigning civilian status* - which is far more than just "wearing some civilian clothes" - with front-line troops in order to conduct an attack, say like posing as a taxi driver, driving up to a checkpoint and detonating a car bomb, or deliberately running a roadblock dressed as a civilian, in a civilian vehicle in order that they might be killed by Coalition troops and then accusing the coalition of killing civilians.

I'm ot an expert, but I believe the question of whether disguise is prohibited relates to the crime of "perfidy" (see below).

Feigning civilian status to draw our soldiers into an ambush is clearly perfidious and prohibited under the Geneva Conventions.

Wearing civilian clothing to move unseen behind enemy lines doesn't seem to be directly covered, so long as that clothing is not used to draw an enemy into a trap.

From http://www.amnesty.nl/persberichten/NK-PB0199.shtml
-----
Article 37 of Protocol I relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts states that:

1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary or resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
(a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
(d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
-----

when spec ops dress like civilians, they are not covered by the geneva conventions. At that point they are more akin to spies than soldiers. The only time I know that we did this is afghanistan, to blend into muslim society they grew beards and adopted native headress. Then after, the bodygaurds of Kharzi dressed as civilians, and were reprimanded for that. However, if they are not in uniform but have different dress than civilians, it still applies.

Shows how brain-dead someone can be when they have no idea about the military. Duh, spies are allowed to hide! To think otherwise is to be French. But of course, France is one of the best in being spies, especially Industrial Spies.

Thank you, Crazy Right Winger and ScottM.

You got your answer, CalPundit. Now shut up.

Arjuna:

Special Operations Forces ARE covered by the Geneva Conventions:

Protocol I:
Art 46. Spies

1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Conventions or of this Protocol, any member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who falls into the power of an adverse Party while engaging in espionage shall not have the right to the status of prisoner of war and may be treated as a spy.

2. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party, gathers or attempts to gather information shall not be considered as engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform of his armed forces.

3. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is a resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who, on behalf of the Party on which he depends, gathers or attempts to gather information of military value within that territory shall not be considered as engaging in espionage unless he does so through an act of false pretences or deliberately in a clandestine manner. Moreover, such a resident shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured while engaging in espionage.

4. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is not a resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who has engaged in espionage in that territory shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured before he has rejoined the armed forces to which he belongs.

Short translation: Forces engaging in espionage may not be considered spies while they are in uniform. This INCLUDES wearing uniform underneath civilian clothes or in addition to civilian clothes. They also must be captured in the act of espionage and before they return to their own lines.

I never said they were not, write. I said the difference was wether they were in uniform or not, and you backed that up with your post.

If caught those Spec Ops guys will not be protected by any conventions.