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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Big Red wrote:
Jordan wrote:
....
Ah, but you're assuming that Arab Powers aren't prone to suicidal acts
of aggression. Witness the fate of Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a
counter-example.

How many wars have the Arab powers fought with Israel after the Jewish
state developed tacitical nuclear weapons? Even Saddam's invasion was
tacitical. Kuwait is just a sheikdom that has some oil. He gambled that
the Russians and the Chinese could stop the U.N., and America wouldn't
rush into a war without allies. He fatally underestimated how powerful
America was, especially what the U.S. could do with a smaller superior
force, and command of the sky. However, Saddam's invasion didn't amount
to sucide, as he retained power after the war.

In fact Bush senior OK'd his invasion of Kuwait. Did you miss that? He tried to
hold back world reaction for two months until he lost the PR battle and then
rushed to the front so he could lead.

You missed all that? In fact to this day the ambassador at the time is still
prohibited from speaking about her instructions in the discussion with Hussein
in the matter of the invasion.

In any event there is no question that Kuwait was in fact slant drilling into
Iraqi oil fields and is doing so to this day.

Frankly I think it was simply a major miscommunication. The intent was to OK
military action to stop the slant drilling and Hussein went to far. But until
she is allowed to speak it is not possible to know and one can reasonably assume
it was an OK for a full scale invasion for not permitting her to speak of it.

No viable system has ever been deployed to stop an inbound
nuclear missle with 100% accuracy and no stratedgy could made could
hope to take out all of an exisisting nuclear power's missles, silos,
and submarine based weapons. Finally- nuclear war, involving the
destruction of an entire nation, is only a possibility in the minds of
the most sociopathic members of the human species.

Without being too much of a pessimist there is none possible short of
successful laser weapons unless the antimissile carries a nuclear warhead. In
that case it was doable back in the 50s with Nike Zeus.

Most simply the problem is the faster the incoming missile the less effective
the defensive missile. The greater the missile range the greater its velocity.
Israel does have some US charity capability against short range Scuds. The
effectiveness was greatly overplayed during the Gulf war. The current upgrade of
Patriot has never had a real life test.

--
Can anyone tell me the difference between Iraq with nuclear weapons and Iran
with nuclear weapons? The lies all sound the same to me.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3654
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4

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. The convention was not designed to deal with
guerrila warfare. As with many things times have become more complicated.
Grenades were not required to have signs saying GRENADE on them. There is no
prohibition of carrying a weapon in something for easy handling else all truck
and crates would be illegal.

BTW: There is NO definition of terrorist in any law other than the very weak,
use of force or threat of force to change public policy. That makes Bush a
terrorist in regard to Iran so one has to be more specific than that. And a
guerilla war certainly does not qualify as a terror war.

As to wearing civilian clothing if camoflague uniforms are ever outlawed it
will have everyone back in brightly colored uniforms. I do not see how clothing
that helps one blend in can be held unlawful even if it is civilian clothing. In
fact that was my first thought when I saw the KLA bandanas, that they should
have picked black.

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?

I have no idea. You will have to inquire of Israel to get copies of the
incident reports. All I know is what I see. If the uniform of the day is a red
poppy in the lapel I don't see how to complain.

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. None of them
have ever been given such status or treatment so there is no point to making it
easy on the european invaders. I have yet to hear one Palestinian complaint
about not receiving POW treatment.

In fact Israel has mostly executed POWs even when from the regular armies of
Egypt and Jordan. There is a reason for this but it is still murder. Egypt found
a mass grave of over 9000 of their executed troops but the UN has never seen fit
to do anything about it. And if Egypt were to make an issue of it, the street
would revolt against the government that made peace with Israel.

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.

Then the Zionists in Mandate Palestine were terrorists but that has never been
in question.

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.

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.

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?

As above EVEN IF I am wrong it is only required to be able to claim POW status
which none of them have ever gotten nor have ever claimed. Lawful in this case
means only to be subject to the Geneva conventions on POW status. It means
Israel can deal with them as it does without international sanction. Neither
side is complaining.

As to actually being wrong, there is no one claiming this was a requirement for
the Viet Cong is there? Black pajamas are mostly a Hollywood creation and worked
as camouflage. How about al Qaeda against the Russians? British commandos
against the Germans? French and Polish resistance against the Germans? Were they
all terrorists instead of lawful resistance movements? Was not dropping those
concealable single shot .45s into France promoting terrorism? Were they
supposed to be carried openly?

It is not a matter of what makes it lawful. It is matter of what gives them the
right to claim to be protected by the Geneva conventions.

--
If you want to understand Jews, look to the West Bank.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3665
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8

On 2 Jul 2006 20:44:34 -0700, "Jordan"
wrote:


Matt Giwer wrote:
Jordan wrote:
Lyn David Thomas wrote:

This is off topic for soc.history.what-if as this is present/future not
past related.

Hey, Lyn, shouldn't you be cowering in your basement in fear of the
feral dogs?

That is a term for Zionists I have not heard before.

Where did you hear it?

No, it's a reference to Lyn David Thomas' hilarious argument a long
time ago in a "Plagues" scenario that survivors of a global plague
couldn't get goods by looting abandoned cities because the feral dogs
would keep them out. When we pointed out to him that even small groups
of humans could easily fight off virtually any number of feral dogs by
shooting a few and scaring the rest with the gunfire, Lyn then tried to
argue that in most countries the survivors would be unable to get their
hands on guns to do this.

He forgot, of course, about the military and police arsenals. Lyn's
reasoning got really amusing when this was pointed out to him.

"reasoning"?

Phil

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

BTW: There is NO definition of terrorist in any law other than the very weak,
use of force or threat of force to change public policy.

If you're killing people without meeting the Third Geneva Convention standard
you are at BEST a terrorist, at worst you're a psychopath with an uncontrollable
urge to kill. Either category can be shot upon discovery by enemy forces
according to the laws and customs of war.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 04:22:57 GMT, Johnny Bravo
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 02:15:49 GMT, Matt Giwer
wrote:

You keep calling them terrorists when they have every right to kill Israelis
and destoy military assets. They have a lawful resistance movement.

The Third Geneva convention has several requirements for a resistence movement
to be "lawful" and thus gain the protection of the conventions. Wear a uniform
or symbol identifiable at a distance, openly carry their arms and conduct "their

Actually, what it says is that "other militias and members of other
volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements"
have to "hav[e] a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance"
(Article 4, Paragraph 2)

Actually, as with Shrub and his sycophants, you have entirely missed
Paragraph 6 ...

"(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."

Which has only two requirements.

operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war" to include not
targeting civilians, using civilians as cover or hiding among civilians.

Hague IV (1907), Chapter 1: Means of Injuring the Enemie, Sieges,
Bombardments, Articles #28 make no such provision.

The relevant provisions are Articles #25-28 ...

Art. 25: The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns,
villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Art. 26: The officer in command of an attacking force must, before
commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his
power to warn the authorities.

Art. 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken
to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art,
science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and
places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not
being used at the time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such
buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be
notified to the enemy beforehand.

Art. 28: The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault,
is prohibited.

.... according to FM 27-10 "The Law of Land Warfare", the US Armed
Forces' take on Hague IV (1907) ...

Page #4 ...

Bombardment of Undefended Places Forbidden: "An undefended place,
within the meaning of Article #25, HR, is any inhabited place near or
in a zone where opposing armed forces are in contact which is open for
occupation by any adverse party without resistance ..."

Which obviously does not apply to the places the Palestinian forces
are bombarding.

However, in case it isn't blindingly obvious, the Manual continues ...

Permissible Objects of Attack or Bombardment: "Attacks against the
Civilian population AS SUCH prohibited [my capitals for emphasis]"
continuing with "Defended Places, which are outside the scope of the
proscription of Article 25, HR, are permissible objects of attacl
(including bombardment) ... " and it further specifies that defended
places include ... "(1) A fort or fortified place. (2) A place that is
occupied by a combatant military force or through which such a force
is passing ... (3) A city or town surrounded by detatched defense
positions, if under the circumstances the city or town can be
considered jointly with such defences as an indivisible whole."

Most of Israel qualifies as one of the above, and those parts that
don't ... well, there's more ...

Military Objectives: "Military objectives - i.e. combatants and those
objects which by their nature, location, purpose, or use make an
effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial
destruction, capture, or neutraliuzation, in the circumstances ruling
at the time, offers a definite military advantage - are permissible
objects of attack (including bombardment). Military objectives include
for example, factories producing munitions and military supplies,
military camps, warehouses storing munitions and military supplies,
ports and railroads being used for the transportation of military
supplies, and other places that are for the accommodation of troops or
the support of military operations ... "

No mention of civilians who might be "collateral damage" ... so the
rest of Israel is, theoretically, covered.

Of course, the reverse is also true ... if (when!) the Israelis target
some Hamas Terrorist leader moving around in his Mercedes then, sadly,
any innocent Palestinian civilians who happen to be killed are
"collateral damage" as well.

It cuts both ways.

Using men wearing civilian clothing to fire mortars into Israeli towns with

You are making a presumption here. How do you know the men were
wearing civilian clothing when *firing* the mortars? And even if they
*were*, if they were wearing a Hamas badge or armband, say, that would
trump the clothing.

As soon as they've *stopped* firing, or as *before* they start,
technically they are simply running a ruse du guerre, which is
*specifically* allowed for under the Hague Convention!

weapons manufactured and stored in refugee camps, using a plan developed by
commanders hiding in the middle of a crowded apartment block fails on all three
counts. That makes them terrorists, not a "resistance movement".

Sadly you are wrong, as the actual conventions and treaties cited
above show.

They are all available online. The Hague Treaty and GC III at the
Avalon Project and ICRC websites. The US Army FM at the ATDL.

Phil


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

Matt Giwer wrote:
Jordan wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Dean A. Markley wrote:
Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.

How does that act of war improve matters?

By demonstrating to the Syrians that when they commit acts of war
against Israel through third party clients, Syria will suffer _direct_
retaliation.

Resistance to occupation is lawful and not an act of war EVEN IF there were
evidence of the implicit assertion that Syria were sponsoring it.

Actually, whether or not it is "lawful" (the deliberate murder of
civilians is generally NOT "lawful" under any version of the Laws of
War), it is most definitely an "act of war." By attempting armed
"resistance" in a lost territory, a national government backing this
resistance is committing an act of war against the occupier. The war
may then resume, and let the dice fall where they may. Given the
relative strength of Israel and Syria, I suspect that rather soon Syria
will have some _more_ lost territory to complain about.

Capturing a
prisoner of war from the occupying power is lawful in international law.

Yes, _under conditions of WAR_. Of course, if Syria is actively at war
with Israel, Syria is violating the truce that ended Peace For Galilee,
and Israel would now be within her rights to also carry out warlike
operations against Syria.

Their
only obligation is to allow Red Cross visits along with proper treatment in
accordance with his rank.

Have such Red Cross visits been allowed?

Even if Syria or Iran were sponsoring it it would be no different from French
support of American colonies

Um, Matt, that support _was_ an act of war, and it led to the
escalation of the American Revolutionary War into a world war involving
America, England, France, Holland and Spain. I direct you to Tuchman,
Barbara, _The First Salute_ for some of the details; there are many
other diplomatic and military histories of the 1770's-1780's.

or Czech support of Zionists by sending arms to let
Stalin pretend innocense.

Yes, that too was an act of war (against Britain as the occupying
Power).

What you're not getting about an "act of war" is that the victim
doesn't have to choose to treat the situation as a war. And often
doesn't.

Israel seems to be finally losing all patience with the Palestinians
and with Syria, which if true I am very heartily glad to see. The
radical Arabs need another good bitch-slapping to remind them of their
place in the balance-of-power food chain, IMHO.

Resistance to occupation is always lawful by any means available. And that is
specifically because it was approved against the Nazis in WWII.

Yes, in time of WAR. What are you not getting about the fact that,
when Britain and Russia supported armed resistance against the Nazis,
it was in the context of a WAR?

Let the *******s _bleed_ like they made Lebanon bleed.

The Druze SLA army that Israel financed to start the civil war in Lebanon (with
the hope of establishing a friendly Christian government) was the one which
asked Syria to intervene to save their butts. As the SLA was an Israeli puppet
we rationally assume that request was made with the approval of Israel. Israel
tried to abandon their puppets but public opinion forced the government not only
to give them residence but citizenship if they requested it.

I think you're forgetting a _lot_ of history here, specifically
involving the PLO and the later Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

wrote:
On 2 Jul 2006 20:44:34 -0700, "Jordan"
wrote:

No, it's a reference to Lyn David Thomas' hilarious argument a long
time ago in a "Plagues" scenario that survivors of a global plague
couldn't get goods by looting abandoned cities because the feral dogs
would keep them out. When we pointed out to him that even small groups
of humans could easily fight off virtually any number of feral dogs by
shooting a few and scaring the rest with the gunfire, Lyn then tried to
argue that in most countries the survivors would be unable to get their
hands on guns to do this.

He forgot, of course, about the military and police arsenals. Lyn's
reasoning got really amusing when this was pointed out to him.

"reasoning"?

Well, IIRC Lyn's first argument was that the weapons would no longer be
available because most of the police and soldiers would be dead. When
I pointed out to him that dropped weapons rarely commit suicide in
grief for the deaths of their owners, he then decided that unspecified
people would grab all the weapons and refuse to trade any of them for
anything anyone else could offer. They apparently also would refuse to
kill the feral dogs with them. Gave me images of a more martial
Scrooge McDuck building a "rifle bin" and going swimming in them ...

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

Matt Giwer wrote:
He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a sniper.

He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his way to becoming a
role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.

Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

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: