What are Police Officers according to the Geneva Convention?

[ck4829]

Those British Soldiers who were undercover and murdered 2 Iraqi Cops may have committed a War Crime.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. They are not considered regular troops

they are considered civilians, iirc... or regular paramilitaries

[ck4829]

2. Then they committed a War Crime, I thought so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. yes and they were out of uniform,

so they coudl be shot

[Wizard777]

9. In uniform they are lawful combatants entitled to GC protections.

[wtmusic]

12. myth

nothing in the GC which mentions being in uniform as a condition of anything.

[Wizard777]

13. Myth Busted.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

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.



(B) used to read Insignia. But it's the same. The clothes mnay make teh man. But the insignia or sign makes those clothes a uniform. It could even be a pot leaf in the case of the American Paramilitary civil war on drugs. If you have weapons carry them openly. If not you are Hor de Combat (out of the battle.) SCOTUS has already ruled that Manuel Noriega is a POW in the War on Drugs. So this is a real war and real act of treason. Poppy Bush can hang for his role in this treason.

[wtmusic]

14. myth-bust busted

you claim "In uniform they are lawful combatants entitled to GC protections". Civilians are entitled to GC protections. Combatants out of uniform are subject to the laws of the Geneva Conventions. Article 4 applies to prisoners of war, which has nothing whatsoever to do with what happened today.

[Wizard777]

19. No your confusing treaties.

Civilians derive protections from the Laws of War. Civilians are not to be involved. Civilians not suspected of being spies being detained by the enemy power are not POW's they are hostages. The entire Document applies to POW's. It's full name is, The Geneva Convention Relative To The Treatment Of Prisoners Of War.
In the Abu Ghraib photo's. The torture or duress is a grave breach (felony) of the GC. But there are also breaches (Misdemenor) evident. Where are the naked men keeping their POW ID cards? They were deprived of their clothes. We cannot prove that they were not lawful uniformed combatants.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. you need to be in a recognized uniform, otherwise they

can be considered spies liable to be lined agaist the wall and well SHOT

[wtmusic]

16. no

"Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html

[Wizard777]

17. There must be a trial first by a regularly meeting tribunal.

Unless they are caught in the act. Then they can be shot on sight. But you are somewhat correct. Britian neeeds to get those guys out of there. If they are recaptured. I'll have to double check. But I think they can waive the trial and go straight to execution.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. bingo

there are other reasons why the brits got them out, these guys are SAS... no doubt in my mind anymore... somethign went down, something bad, real bad

[Wizard777]

20. No I mean now that they are out of jail they need to get them out of Iraq

They are highly executable. But that maybe the part of the mission. Nothing stirs support for the failing war like a beheading. The feeling of revenge is very strong. People will even ignore the fact that if Bush hadn't lied they wouldn't be there in the first place to be beheaded.

[ixion]

4. uh, the whole thing is one big monstrous war crime, is it not?

I mean, if you're going to charge these two, you'll have to extend that investigation to include the thousands of innocent civillians killed by US forces...

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. That is easy

raed the Nuremberg indictments but planning agresive war fits the bill

[ixion]

8. yeah, I know, thanks... it was more of a rhetorical question.

:-)

[ck4829]

6. Why not?

Perhaps to finish with the truth coming out, we may have to start small with these two terrorists.

[wtmusic]

7. 138,000 of your countrymen are doing the same thing right now

don't fret about the Brits too much

[shadowknows69]

10. no doubt

pissing on the laws of a country we're supposedly serving.

[lcordero2]

11. they should be charged for war crimes

since they do have the option of wearing a uniform but they choose not too. OTOH, a person defending their property should have all of the protections of the Geneva convention, uniform or no uniform. Like the saying goes, "trespassers will be shot and survivors will be prosecuted...".

[Wizard777]

21. This is the BIGGER Issue.

These soldier were dressed as Arabs. They lead an armed offensive against the two officers which are lawful combatants. But the coalition has an agreement with the provisional government that they will only defend themselves. They will not mount any offensives without first gaining the permission of the Iraqi provisional government. Henceforth the disguises. They violated that agreement if thsi was not IPG approved.
This was part of the agreement in Iraq regaining their sovereignty. So technically Britian just commited an Act of War against the new Sovereign Iraqi Government. Someones in big trouble and I'm guessing it's not Blair. These executive types have nothing to do with the military or international treaties. Just ask Bush and Gonzales will swear to it.