Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 09:06:59 GMT, Johnny Bravo
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:00:56 GMT, Matt Giwer
wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:31:16 GMT, Matt Giwer
wrote:

They do wear symbols. It is their headgear usually. That it is not readable to
you and me does not change what it is. The KLA wore a red bandanna tied to the
left upper arm. Of course they carry their arms else they would not be a threat.

It is not carry, it is carry openly. Any group who sends troops out in
civilian clothing with bombs strapped to their bodies is a terrorist group by
law.

Again, openly is not defined.

It's a commonly used English word, the Third Geneva convention is not a
dictionary. It doesn't define organized resistance movement either, that
doesn't mean they are talking about a tug of war contest.

Sadly, again, you are quite wrong ... GC III DID define the term in
the discussions and negotiations that led up to the signing.

Those are available online at the ICRC website ...

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590007?OpenDocument

"[p.61] ' (c) that of carrying arms openly: ' although the difference
may seem slight, there must be no confusion between carrying arms
"openly" and carrying them "visibly" or "ostensibly". Surprise is a
factor in any war operation, whether or not involving regular troops.
This provision is intended to guarantee the loyalty of the fighting,
it is not an attempt to prescribe that a hand-grenade or a revolver
must be carried at belt or shoulder rather than in a pocket or under a
coat.

The enemy must be able to recognize partisans as combatants in the
same way as members of regular armed forces, whatever their weapons.
Thus, a civilian could not enter a military post on a false pretext
and then open fire, having taken unfair advantage of his adversaries."

Note that this rule ONLY applies to combatants in Group #2, not those
under category #1 or #3, regular armed forces even those not
recognised by one of the parties. Note that NONE of the requirements
of the rules applicable to Group #2 apply to those members of the
regular armed forces. NONE of them.

Again, the commentaries make it clear that this is what the
signatories agreed to and what they meant.

The convention was not designed to deal with guerrila warfare.

"Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
those of organized resistance movements"

If you are not in one of these groups, you are a terrorist by definition. You
CANNOT claim to be one of these groups if you do not meet the requirements.

Wrong again.

There are six categories ... (straight from GC III [1949]) ...

1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as
members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed
forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
incuding those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party
to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even
if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or
volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil
the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his
subordinates;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a
distance;

(c) that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws
and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being
members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews,
war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of
services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided
that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they
accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity
card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of
the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to
the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under
any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of
the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces,
without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units,
provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of
war.

=====

Note especially group #4 and #6.

As with many things times have become more complicated.
Grenades were not required to have signs saying GRENADE on them.

You can't hide them in the pockets of your civilian clothes and claim to be
anything other than a terrorist. That is the letter of the law, which is beyond
your opinion on the matter.

Actually, you could *if* you were wearing some sign that indicated
that you were not a civilian. "Uniform" doesn't have to be recognised
by the enemy ... a red armband such as the KLA wore would be
applicable.

"This provision is intended to guarantee the loyalty of the fighting,
it is not an attempt to prescribe that a hand-grenade or a revolver
must be carried at belt or shoulder rather than in a pocket or under a
coat."

From the commentaries above.

Note that, yes, if ALL they were wearing were civilian clothes, you
would be right ... but if they were wearing, say, a Taliban badge,
that would probably qualify as a "uniform"

And, of course, if they are in Group #6 they do NOT have to wear a
uniform at all ... in fact, they *could* carry a grenade in their
pocket under certain circumstances!

There is no prohibition of carrying a weapon in something for easy handling else all truck
and crates would be illegal.

They are if you have that crate in anything but a marked military transport.
See also: Openly.

Which, as we have seen, does NOT mean what you claim it does.

As to wearing civilian clothing if camoflague uniforms are ever outlawed it
will have everyone back in brightly colored uniforms.

I posted the exact requirement from the Geneva Convention, here it is again
since you seem too stupid to remember it.

"(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;"

You can do what you can to reduce your ability to be seen in the first place
but once you are spotted you have to be CLEARLY identifiable as the enemy.

Wrong again.

From the commentaries noted above ...

"The International Committee of the Red Cross was anxious that the
matter should be regulated as satisfactorily as possible and had gone
so far as to propose to the Conference of Government Experts that the
nature of the sign should be specified in a conventional text, as well
as its size and the manner in which it should be worn (for instance, a
green arm-band with national emblem, 10 cm. wide, worn on the left
arm). The matter might be settled by a special agreement under Article
6 . THIS SUGGESTION WAS NOT ADOPTED, HOWEVER.

Consequently, the term "recognizable at a distance" is open to
interpretation.

In our view [i.e. that of the ICRC], "the distinctive sign should be
recognizable by a person at a distance not too great to permit a
uniform to be recognized".

Such a sign need not necessarily be an arm-band. It may be a cap
(although this may frequently be taken off and does not seem fully
adequate), a coat, a shirt, an emblem or a coloured sign worn on the
chest. If the partisans are on board a vehicle or an engine of war,
tank, aeroplane or boat, the distinctive sign must of course be shown
on the vehicle concerned. This is in line with the long-established
regulations of international law regarding the flag in the case of war
at sea.

Lastly, there is no requirement that the distinctive sign must be
notified, as several delegations to the 1949 Diplomatic Conference
would have wished. It is nevertheless open to the interested parties
to make such a notification through the International Committee, in
the same way as the Committee offered its services in its Memorandum
of August 17, 1944, referred to above (34). Such a notification may
also be made through the Protecting Power of the Party to the conflict
to which the resistance organization is affiliated. Titles and ranks
may also be communicated in this way, as provided in Article 43"

It would actually be nice if you had done some actual research beyond
the most superficial.

that helps one blend in can be held unlawful even if it is civilian clothing.

Because dressing like a civilian is NOT recognizable at a distance as a
distinctive sign.

See above.

In any event I do not see your point in going into this as all of the above and
more is only required TO HAVE A CLAIM to POW status and treatment.

It is required TO HAVE A CLAIM to ORGANIZED RESISTANCE MOVEMENT status.

Wrong again. Section 6: Levee en Masse.

See, I can use caps too. And unlike you, I've actually got a point.

Which is wrong.

Define openly. An explosive vest requires it to be worn the way it is to be
effective. I do not see how openly can require a weapon to be carried in a
manner to make it ineffective.

So wearing the explosives outside the vest as required would make the blast
ineffective?

You're like clubbing a baby seal, sure it's satisfying, but it got boring
fast. Into the killfile you go.

If you killfile people who don't know anything ... are you going to
killfile yourself? Obviously your knowledge of the matter is minimal.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: