5cjxburmr

eprisal, violated the prohibition against executions without a fair trial, and improperly deniedPOW status to soldiers wearing a uniform behind enemy lines. 103Special operations forces personnel, like other members of the armed forces, remainentitled to the privileges of combatant status, unless they temporarily forfeit such privileges byengaging in spying or sabotage. 104 In some cases, military personnel who do not wear thestandard uniform of their armed forces may nonetheless remain entitled to the privileges ofcombatant status because the wearing of such uniforms does not constitute the element of “actingclandestinely or under false pretenses.” 105 For example, special operations forces havesometimes dressed like friendly forces. 106 Special operations forces personnel remain entitled tothe privileges of combatant status even when operating detached from the main body of forcesbehind enemy lines. 1074.5.2.2 Members Trained as Medical Personnel, but Not Attached to the MedicalService. Members of the armed forces might have medical training but not be designated asmilitary medical personnel. For example, before joining the armed forces, a person might havebeen trained as a nurse or physician, and after joining the armed forces might not be designatedas part of the medical corps.Because such personnel have not been designated as military medical personnel, they areare combatants, like other members of the armed forces. 108 However, if they fall into the powerof the enemy during international armed conflict, such personnel may be required to tend tofellow POWs, in light of their previous training. In particular, POWs who, though not attachedto the medical service of their armed forces, are physicians, surgeons, dentists, nurses, or medicalorderlies may be required by the Detaining Power to exercise their medical functions in the103 See Trial of Generaloberst Nickolaus von Falkenhorst, XI U.N. LAW REPORTS 18, 28 (British Military Court,Brunswick, Jul. 29-Aug. 2, 1946) (reporter noting that Hitler’s commando order was clearly illegal because itprovided “that there should be no military courts, for even a war traitor is entitled to a trial,” and because the“commando order was to apply to troops engaged on commando operations whether in uniform or not”); TheDostler Case, Trial of General Anton Dostler, I U.N. LAW REPORTS 22, 27-33 (U.S. Military Commission, Rome,Oct. 8-12, 1945) (conviction of a German General for the murder of 15 U.S. Army personnel and rejection of hisdefense that the commando order was a valid and applicable superior order); Trial of Karl Adam Golkel andThirteen Others, V U.N. LAW REPORTS 45-53 (British Military Court, Wuppertal, Germany, May 15-21, 1946) (trialof German soldiers for killing eight members of the British Special Air Service); United States v. von Leeb, et al.(The High Command Case), XI TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE NMT 527 (“This order was criminal on itsface. It simply directed the slaughter of these ‘sabotage’ troops.”).104 Refer to § 4.17 (Spies, Saboteurs, and Other Persons Engaging in Similar Acts Behind Enemy Lines).105 Refer to § 4.17.2.1 (Acting Clandestinely or Under False Pretenses).106 Refer to § 5.25.2.1 (Mimicking Other Friendly Forces).107 See Trial of Generaloberst Nickolaus von Falkenhorst, XI U.N. LAW REPORTS 18, 28 (British Military Court,Brunswick, Jul. 29-Aug. 2, 1946) (reporter noting that “[i]t is not possible to say that troops who engage in acts ofsabotage behind the enemy lines are bandits, as Hitler declared them. They carry out a legitimate act of war,provided the objective relates directly to the war effort and provided they carry it out in uniform.”); LIEBER CODEart. 81 (“Partisans are soldiers armed and wearing the uniform of their army, but belonging to a corps which actsdetached from the main body for the purpose of making inroads into the territory occupied by the enemy. Ifcaptured, they are entitled to all the privileges of the prisoner of war.”).108 Refer to § 4.9.2.2 (Designated by Their Armed Forces).114