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

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 07:16:33 GMT, 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.

Sorry, no.

The rule (Geneva III [1949]) is in six parts.

The relevant ones are ...

(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,
including 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.

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.

=====

(1) and (3) are NOT subject to the rules in (2). That is why there are
separate numbered points. Read the commentaries on the treaty on the
ICRC website (International Committee for the Red Cross) in its IHL
(International Humanitarian Law) section ... the commentaries are
those of the actual treaty negotiations and what the negotiating
powers said they meant and why they worded them the way they did.

One of the specific things that they say is that those forces in (1)
and (3) are NOT subject to the rules of (2), and, of course, those who
could be lumped in (6) are subject to only two rules.

Also note that the use of a Ruse du Guerre is allowed ... which would
mean, for example, that you can conceal your uniform (which could be,
as noted, a Red Armband over ordinary civilian clothes) and weapon
*until the moment of combat" and then reveal both. That is
specifically allowable. US Special Forces do it all the time! Or are
you arguing that *they* are terrorists?

The usual is a ninja style "sweatband" of a distinctive color or pattern. Hamas
is pure green and Fatah is green with yellow lettering I think. Next time you
see films take a look.

Should make them easy to spot at checkpoints when they try to smuggle their
bombs through. Or do they only wear them when it's convienient to do so for
propaganda purposes?

See the actual rules, rather than your interesting, but incorrect,
claims as to what the rules are.

Explosive belts are a lawful weapon. The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto pioneered
the grenade in the baby carriage trick even when their own baby was in it.

No, it is NOT a lawful weapon under the Third Geneva Convention.

Sadly, you are wrong ... completely, totally, and absolutely. 100%
wrong.

GC III (1949) does NOT define what might, or might not, be a lawful
weapon or not.

GC III (1949) deals ONLY and ENTIRELY with what is a POW and how POWs
are to be treated.

Hague IV (1907) is the core of the Law of Land Warfare, modified by a
few extra, additional, treaties ...

* Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and
Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on
Their Destruction (1972)

.... Article 23 of Hague IV (1907) is the one you want ...

"Art. 23.

In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is
especially forbidden -

* To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

* To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile
nation or army;

* To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having
no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

* To declare that no quarter will be given;

* To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause
unnecessary suffering;

* To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of
the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the
distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

* To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or
seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

* To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law
the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A
belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the
hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against
their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service
before the commencement of the war."

Examples of what "treachery" and "perfidy" include are not helpful ...
however the rules regarding Merchant Raiders as applicable in WW1 and
WW2 are indicative ... the converted merchantmen were allowed,
legally, to fly a false flag and conceal their weapons until they were
close enough to perform a devastating surprise attack TILL THE MOMENT
BEFORE THEY ATTACKED ... as long as they then raised their national
flag or naval ensign they were legal.

The Bombardment rules applying to the WW2 Strategic Bombardment of
Germany and Japan, making them legal, are based on the principles
defined and detailed in Hague IX (1907): Bombardment by Naval Forces
in Time of War, so the Naval rules on Raiders would, likewise, be
applicable to and indicative of what enemy soldiers could do.

Then, of course, there is the rule on Spies.

Hague IV (1907), as defined in US Armed Forces Manual 27-10 states ...

"c. Immunity on Rejoining Own Army: A spy who, after rejoining the
army to which he belongs, is subsequently captured by the enemy, is
treated as a POW, and incurs no responsibility for his previous acts
of espionage (HR Article 31)"

Which is also indicative. If you could take the guy while still
wearing civilian clothing, then, possibly, he could be spy ... but
once he takes it off ... well, the argument would be that he has
"rejoined the army ..."

Ain't law wonderful? grin

There is no requirement the weapon be a rifle. Nor is there a requirement to
openly carry it.

You keep saying this as if it were true.

Third Gevena Convention, Article 3, Section 2:

"(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
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;"

Note MY emphasis.

Note that this only applies to "Members of *OTHER* militias and
*OTHER* volunteer corps" ... it does NOT apply to ...

(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.

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

They can hide the fact that they are carrying a weapon.

And note that it nowehere mentions "RIFLE" as the original poster
pointed out.

That is an oversight as it intention was to address regular
military forces until that is corrected concealed weapons are lawful.

There is no oversight, it's read like that since 1949.

Are you man enough to admit that you were wrong?

Are you man enough to admit that GC III (1949) doesn't have anything
to do with ruling what weapons are lawful, and only Hague IV (1907)
and the 1972/75 codicil on chemical and bioweapons do?

I seriously doubt it.

Phil

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