This article is part of a comprehensive series covering the punitive articles of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Service members facing any UCMJ charge should consult a qualified military defense attorney.
A safeguard, in military legal terms, is a protection issued by a competent military authority that shields specific persons, places, or property from acts that are otherwise lawful under the laws of war. When a commanding general posts a safeguard over a village, a building, a farm, or a civilian population center, that protection carries the force of military authority. Violating it, forcing the safeguard, is one of the UCMJ’s most severely punished offenses.
Article 102 (10 U.S.C. § 902) addresses this specific violation. It criminalizes the act of forcing a safeguard, meaning overcoming or violating the protection that military authority has granted. The article exists at the intersection of military discipline and the law of armed conflict, enforcing both the commander’s authority to grant protections and the international legal obligation to respect those protections once granted.
Elements and the Safeguard Concept
Prosecutors must prove three elements under MCM 2024 (Part IV, Paragraph 54): that a safeguard existed protecting a specific person, place, or property; that the accused knew or should have known of the safeguard; and that the accused forced the safeguard in a specific manner.
A safeguard takes various forms: a written order, a guard or sentry posted at a location, a physical sign or notice, or any other manifestation of military authority directing that the protected person, place, or property be left undisturbed. The safeguard must come from competent military authority, a commander with authority over the area or situation. A private posting a sign doesn’t create a safeguard. A division commander ordering protection over a civilian hospital does.
“Forcing” means any act that violates the protection. If a village is under safeguard, looting it forces the safeguard. If a building is under safeguard, destroying it forces the safeguard. If a person is under safeguard, assaulting or harming them forces the safeguard. The violation doesn’t require complete destruction of what’s protected. Any act that breaches the protection constitutes forcing.
The knowledge element, “knew or should have known,” creates a reasonable-person standard. In a combat environment, safeguards are communicated through operations orders, unit briefings, posted signs, and the presence of guards. A service member who ignores briefings, fails to read posted safeguard notices, or overrides a guard posted at a protected location has at minimum constructive knowledge. Willful ignorance is not a defense.
The Law of Armed Conflict Foundation
Safeguards are not just a UCMJ concept. They implement obligations under the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Conventions. The Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) requires occupying forces to protect civilian populations and their property. The Hague Regulations (1907) prohibit pillaging and require respect for private property in occupied territory. When a military commander issues a safeguard, that commander is implementing these international legal obligations through the specific mechanism of military authority.
This means forcing a safeguard is simultaneously a UCMJ violation and potentially a law-of-war violation. The dual character of the offense explains its severity under both systems. A service member who forces a safeguard over a civilian medical facility hasn’t just disobeyed a command. They’ve violated the Geneva Conventions’ protection of medical establishments, an act that can constitute a war crime.
The safeguard mechanism also serves strategic military purposes beyond legal compliance. In counterinsurgency and stability operations, protecting local populations and their property is a core tactical objective. Forcing a safeguard undermines population trust, feeds insurgent propaganda, and degrades the strategic mission. Commanders issue safeguards not just because the law requires it, but because mission success depends on local populations believing the military will protect what it promises to protect.
Punishment and Relationship to Other Wartime Offenses
Maximum punishment: death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct. Article 102 shares the capital tier with Articles 99, 100, 101, and 103, the cluster of wartime security and discipline offenses that the UCMJ treats as the most serious violations of military obligation.
The death penalty authorization for forcing a safeguard reflects two judgments. First, that violating a safeguard can directly endanger protected persons, including civilians under the military’s obligation of care. Second, that the violation undermines the military’s authority to issue protections at all. If safeguards can be forced without capital consequence, commanders’ ability to protect civilian populations, cultural sites, medical facilities, and other protected places is diminished.
Article 102 intersects with Article 118 (Murder) and Article 119 (Manslaughter) when forcing the safeguard results in death. It intersects with Article 103b (Aiding the Enemy) if the forced safeguard was designed to protect intelligence assets or operational facilities. And it intersects with Article 109 (Destruction of Non-Military Property) when the safeguard protected civilian property that was subsequently damaged or destroyed.
The logic behind the death penalty authorization is straightforward, even if its application is rare. Every safeguard the military issues carries an implicit guarantee: comply with these terms, and you will not be harmed. If that guarantee can be broken without proportionate consequence, the next safeguard carries less weight. And the safeguard after that carries less. Article 102 ensures the guarantee means something by attaching the most severe penalty the UCMJ permits.
Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law: Article 102 criminalizes forcing a safeguard, meaning violating the protection that a competent military authority has placed over specific persons, places, or property. The offense sits at the intersection of military discipline and the law of armed conflict, and carries the death penalty.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content. If you are facing charges under the UCMJ or need legal guidance regarding military justice matters, consult a qualified military defense attorney.