What&#39;s the intent of the false flag law? From International Committee of the Red Cross - Practice Relating to Rule 62. Improper Use of Flags or Military Emblems, Insignia or Uniforms of the Adversary: According to custom, it is permissible for a belligerent warship to use false colours and to disguise her outward appearance in other ways in order to deceive an enemy, provided that prior to going into action the warship shows her true colours. Aircraft are not, however, enentitled to use false markings. From false flag Wikipedia page In land warfare, such operations are generally deemed acceptable under certain circumstances, such as to deceive enemies, provided the deception is not perfidious and that all such deceptions are discarded before opening fire upon the enemy. Similarly, in naval warfare such a deception is considered permissible, provided the false flag is lowered and the true flag raised before engaging in battle. Initial question: What is the intention of this law, like why is it considered unfair fighting to use false flags (when taking action/open firing already)? ETA: By which I mean to ask: Why is it considered unfair/inhumane/inhuman/unethical/immoral fighting to (continue to) use false flags (when taking action/open firing already)? Context: 1 What I understand is that a 'war crime' is something which gives you an unfair advantage in that civilians are affected at the cost of your military progress eg chemical weapons, incendiary weapons (at least in our world; alternatively see here or directly here) or well actually directly killing civilians for example. 2 My intention is to genuinely understand what is inhumane/unfair/unjust about attacking with false flags. There's an answer given below that says neither of these groups is afforded protection from the rules of war. Only if you fire under your own flag you get the protections of a POW if you fall into their hands. But as Nassim Nicholas Taleb said 'Someone saying &quot;ethics is good for success&quot; is missing the entire point of ethics.' I'm asking like: If there weren't these incentives, then what would be inhumane about doing this? So far what I'm seeing is that this so-called war crime is not inhumane at all but really just some dumb rule...or at least some kind of 'deal' or 'gamble' like 'Ok fine, you can use false flags to attack, but you don't get this or that if you lose.' 3 And then finally I can ask on SciFi SE (about Sokka from ATLA) not merely 'Why didn't Sokka follow this rule?' (cheap conventional, stage 2 of 3 in Lawrence Kohlberg's moral development theory that causes reactance like 'There's no Geneva/UN in ATLA. What are you talking about?') but really 'Why did Sokka do this seemingly inhumane thing?' (which would be postconventional, stage 3 of 3 in moral development).
To my mind, one of the major goals of the customary laws of war is to try to limit the overall harm caused by a war, especially harm caused to parties other than the military forces of the nations who are actually fighting each other. Obvious examples are prohibitions on attacking civilians, destroying civilian property and infrastructure, neglecting civilian public health, harming prisoners who are incapable of fighting, and so on. I wouldn't say these are about &quot;fairness&quot; or any other such abstract ethical principle; they are simply pragmatic. All other things equal, the world is better off if fewer civilians end up dead. And so just as the laws try to avoid collateral damage to individuals who are not fighting (civilians, prisoners, injured troops, etc), they likewise try to avoid collateral damage to nations who are not fighting (neutrals). Combat under a false flag carries a risk of harm to the nation whose flag is impersonated, as the belligerents may get the wrong idea about who is attacking them. Here are a couple of scenarios that could occur if false flag combat were considered acceptable: Potsylvania is at war with Grand Fenwick, while Freedonia remains neutral in the conflict. The Potsylvanian ship Fearless sights the Fenwickian ship Goose, and as a ruse, the Fearless runs up a Freedonian flag. The Goose, knowing that Freedonia is neutral, assumes the Fearless is harmless and lets it approach. When within range, the Fearless fires at the Goose, while still flying the Freedonian flag. The Goose reports back to its government that they have been attacked by a Freedonian vessel. The Fenwickian government considers this a hostile act, declares war on Freedonia, and launches an immediate retaliatory invasion of Freedonian territory. Now Freedonia has been brought into the war despite no party actually having anything against them. This is not desirable. Same scenario, but instead of raising a Freedonian flag, the Fearless runs up a Fenwickian flag. The Goose knows the flag must be fake, as no genuine Fenwickian vessel would attack them, but they don't know what nation the Fearless actually does belong to. They faintly hear the captain of the Fearless shouting orders in Potsylvanian, but he has a Freedonian accent and they think he's speaking in Freedonian. They report to their government that a Freedonian vessel has attacked them, and Grand Fenwick again declares war on Freedonia. Note that using a false flag when not attacking doesn't carry the same risks, which is why it is not included in the prohibition. Suppose that the Fearless doesn't plan to attack the Goose, but simply wants to avoid being attacked so they can get away. If their ruse of flying a Freedonian flag is successful, then the Goose simply thinks they saw a neutral Freedonian vessel going about its business, and Grand Fenwick does not get the idea that Freedonia is doing anything aggressive. And if it's unsuccessful, then the Goose must have figured out that the Fearless is not Freedonian at all, but instead Potsylvanian, and so likewise Freedonia does not come under suspicion.
Summary from comments. (Hat tip @jqning) Daniel Nathan Ballard writes here: [It] is not only improper it is UNLAWFUL and may result in serious repercussions... Such a misuse may constitute false advertising... (“It is no doubt true” that affixing the ‘Trade Mark Registered U.S. Patent Office” notice on goods that are not protected by a federally registered trademark creates “a prima facie case of fraud against the public… .”). ... Such use is also a form of “unclean hands” that can bar the user’s registration of the mark. ... Such a use may also bar the maintenance of an infringement case. ... And the fraudulent use of the trademark registration symbol DOES provide other marketplace participants with standing to oppose the user’s registration of the mark. http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/use-of---symbol-but-not-federally-registered-1125746.html
In Europe (as defined above) it does not appear that any country allows an asylum claim based solely on the fact of being subject to obligatory military service. However, asylum claims can be made based on obligatory military service plus something surrounding the circumstances of military service. For example, during the Vietnam war, Sweden granted asylum to a number of Americans who either deserted from the military or who wanted to avoid being drafted, and asylum claims are granted for Eritrean refugees escaping the policy of indefinite conscription. The general policy as articulated by the UNHCR is that asylum claims should be considered when there is persecution for objecting to military service for reasons of conscience, if applicable military acts violate international law, if conditions of service constitute inhumane treatment, if conscription is carried out by a non-state agency and the government provides no protection, or recruitment of children. None of these conditions exist in the Swedish or Norwegian military, so a Norwegian cannot avoid military service by applying to Sweden for asylum. In Shepherd v. Germany, plaintiff, a US soldier serving in Iraq, deserted and applied to Germany for asylum, believing the war to be illegal. This is relevant because EU law allows asylum claims in cases of prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict, where performing military service would include crimes or acts falling under the exclusion clauses as set out in Article 12(2) The court (CJEU) ruled that the plaintiff was not subject to persecution so the case was returned to the German courts, but in that ruling the CJEU provides extensive legal guidance on the connection between the "persecution" prong of an asylum claim, and military service under EU law.
What they teach in self-defense courses is legally irrelevant, though has a practical basis. Under the law, options 1 and 2 are &quot;preferred&quot; because those actions cannot be considered criminal. Shooting a person is potentially a crime (assault or homicide): but it can be legally excused under those circumstances deemed to be &quot;self defense&quot;. If shooting a person is justified in self defense, it isn't assault or murder. It is legally &quot;better&quot; to main than to kill, because maiming is less force than killing, and the general rule is that one should use the least force necessary to defend yourself. That is because on the one hand you should not use force against another person, but on the other hand you have a right to live and if a person attempts to deprive you of your life, you are justified to use force to stop them. The degree of force allowed is related to the threat posed. Every legal system encourages putting &quot;shoot to kill&quot; in last place – no jurisdiction favors using maximum possible force in self defense. I think what is confusing you is that as a practical matter, shooting to maim is riskier, and the consequences of erring in favor of less force may be your death. It has nothing to do with killing witnesses (which is illegal), even if that is what they taught you in your self defense class. Brandishing a weapon is also illegal but involves even less force, and is even less effective as a means of self defense.
It is not the case that treason must be tried by a military tribunal. See for example US v. Kawakita, which was an ordinary civilian jury trial. I cannot even imagine why one would think that there is any such requirement. Here is the federal law against treason, and nothing says "offenses must be tried in a military court". Perhaps that misconception was based on the use of military tribunals during the American Revolution, which preceded the creation of a US legal system.
I don't know any specific on the US law, but a special protection of the Swiss coat of arms is very widespread. This comes from a provision in Art. 53 § 2 of the First Geneva Convention 1949: By reason of the tribute paid to Switzerland by the adoption of the reversed Federal colours, and of the confusion which may arise between the arms of Switzerland and the distinctive emblem of the Convention, the use by private individuals, societies or firms, of the arms of the Swiss Confederation, or of marks constituting an imitation thereof, whether as trademarks or commercial marks, or as parts of such marks, or for a purpose contrary to commercial honesty, or in circumstances capable of wounding Swiss national sentiment, shall be prohibited at all times. Because of the connection of the Red Cross and the Swiss coat of arms the US is obliged by international public law to prohibit the commercial use of that arms. I'm surprised to hear that law was repealed. Maybe it was transferred to some other place in the code? Often it is regulated next to the prohibition of the misuse of the Red Cross.
The way "with intent to lose citizenship" works in US law is extremely demanding; it is very hard to establish it by doing anything short of appearing before a consular officer and formally renouncing citizenship. Other ways include serving in the military of a country at war with the US, being convicted of treason for committing one of the specified potentially expatriating acts (serving in an army at war with the US is sort of a trial-less special case of that, because engaging in a war against the US is treason), or serving in a "policy-level position" in a foreign government. The State Department says as much in the link. Obtaining citizenship is listed as a case where the administrative premise applies; so is swearing allegiance to a foreign state, serving in the military of a state at peace with the US, and serving in lower-level government posts of a foreign state. In those cases, the person retains US citizenship but at some point in the future may be asked by the State Department if they wanted to renounce it. Intent to renounce citizenship is established only by explicit declaration if you've only obtained citizenship in another country. With "policy-level posts" the premise doesn't apply, but then the State Department just decides on a case-by-case basis. You may well lose US citizenship (although the King of Thailand was born in the US, and I'm not sure if he's considered to have lost citizenship), but it's not automatic. Your senior ministers may lose citizenship, but it is likewise not automatic. But the normal citizens? The link explicitly says that the administrative premise covers that.
The law is really bad at protecting whistleblowers From my understanding of US law, this is not unauthorised access to a computer: the reporter made a legitimate request to a remote computer, that computer provided data,the reporter accessed the supplied data on their own computer. However, pointing out the failures of people in power is fraught even if it is not illegal. It is certainly within the Governor’s power to authorise an investigation of the reporter. On the face of the law, it seems reasonable to suspect that what was done might be a violation so there is nothing legally wrong with initiating an investigation. I suspect that such a broad interpretation of the law would fall foul of the First Amendment which may partly explain why it wasn’t prosecuted: the government doesn’t want to find out. Similarly they can issue press releases, which, due to the First Amendment, don’t have to be true, just not defamatory. Saying it’s a possible violation is true and not defamatory. Saying the reporter was an evil person who is only doing this for political purposes is a statement of opinion and not defamatory. It’s a fact of the world that people with power can use that power in ways that are malicious, unethical, and unfair but not necessarily illegal.