Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-02-25 23:20:53)
Karbin wrote:
Nope:Kmar wrote:
If you break one of the rules it sounds like a negation to meKarbin wrote:
Geneva Convention Article 3
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Taking off your insignia ALONE would not count..... in this case. Your still a member of the army.
Being a member of the army AND being commanded by a person responsible for their subordinates.
Havung a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance can be a uniform with or without insignia.
Carrying arms openly...assumed... not in his post.
That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Again assumed, not in his post.
The point is being in a uniform with or with out insig is not a breaker... being in civies is.
Being in a uniform but not a member OR being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates. is a breaker.
See the difference?
Your claim is that this, rather ambiguous statement is not a requirement?that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I)
Last edited by Karbin (2011-02-25 23:28:40)
That is the way i read it also. In fact from what I have read before, but should probably research, The Geneva Convention does not apply to people who are not soldiers fighting under a flag of another country.Dilbert_X wrote:
So you must wear your insignia according to article 3, and can't use someone elses according to protocol I.
Is there anything I missed?
Not quite... is common practice to remove insignia when in a combat area. Your covered as you are in uniform.Dilbert_X wrote:
Art 39. Emblems of nationality
1977 Protocol I)
1. It is prohibited to make use in an armed conflict of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
2. It is prohibited to make use of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of adverse Parties while engaging in attacks or in order to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations.
So you must wear your insignia according to article 3, and can't use someone elses according to protocol I.
Is there anything I missed?
Last edited by Karbin (2011-02-25 23:36:12)
You pointed it out yourself...... Other parties.... not your own.Dilbert_X wrote:
Maybe, you need to show something which says its legal though.
Last edited by Karbin (2011-02-25 23:48:14)
What does the Palestinian national emblem look like? We're to assume it always stays on eh?Karbin wrote:
Not quite... is common practice to remove insignia when in a combat area. Your covered as you are in uniform.Dilbert_X wrote:
Art 39. Emblems of nationality
1977 Protocol I)
1. It is prohibited to make use in an armed conflict of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
2. It is prohibited to make use of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of adverse Parties while engaging in attacks or in order to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations.
So you must wear your insignia according to article 3, and can't use someone elses according to protocol I.
Is there anything I missed?
I.E. rank , unit patches, name tags come off.
Nationality emblems stay on.
Distinctive signs of what? distiniguish from civilians? at a distance is subjective also. ... Jesus, I'd get my ass sued off if I used language like that in a contract.Karbin wrote:
You pointed it out yourself...... Other parties.... not your own.Dilbert_X wrote:
Maybe, you need to show something which says its legal though.
"among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform OR
other distinctive signs visible at a distance"
Your contract is between two parties.... try one where over 200 have to agree to the language.Kmar wrote:
Distinctive signs of what? distiniguish from civilians? at a distance is subjective also. ... Jesus, I'd get my ass sued off if I used language like that in a contract.Karbin wrote:
You pointed it out yourself...... Other parties.... not your own.Dilbert_X wrote:
Maybe, you need to show something which says its legal though.
"among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform OR
other distinctive signs visible at a distance"
Last edited by Karbin (2011-02-26 00:06:19)
All the more reason to be specific. What's the point if interpretation is left wide open?Karbin wrote:
Your contract is between two parties.... try one where over 200 have to agree to the language.Kmar wrote:
Distinctive signs of what? distiniguish from civilians? at a distance is subjective also. ... Jesus, I'd get my ass sued off if I used language like that in a contract.Karbin wrote:
You pointed it out yourself...... Other parties.... not your own.
"among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform OR
other distinctive signs visible at a distance"
And where does that come from?Karbin wrote:
You pointed it out yourself...... Other parties.... not your own.Dilbert_X wrote:
Maybe, you need to show something which says its legal though.
"among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform OR
other distinctive signs visible at a distance"
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-02-26 00:20:06)
Laws and Customs of war, Lawful conduct of belligerent actors.Dilbert_X wrote:
And where does that come from?Karbin wrote:
You pointed it out yourself...... Other parties.... not your own.Dilbert_X wrote:
Maybe, you need to show something which says its legal though.
"among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform OR
other distinctive signs visible at a distance"
No.... they DO require National Colours, not unit insignia.Dilbert_X wrote:
And where does that come from?Karbin wrote:
You pointed it out yourself...... Other parties.... not your own.Dilbert_X wrote:
Maybe, you need to show something which says its legal though.
"among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform OR
other distinctive signs visible at a distance"
My understanding was soldiers, vehicles, aircraft etc require insignia.
"Sorry, your not recognised by the world body to make that call".Kmar wrote:
I'm officially announcing that one striped polo in the back of my closet as my distinctive uniform.
the ambiguity is killing me.
Glad you think so.Dilbert_X wrote:
Yeah I found it, my point above still stands.
That was my next point. Don't you have to be a signatory to be protected under the rules of the Geneva Convention?Karbin wrote:
"Sorry, your not recognised by the world body to make that call".Kmar wrote:
I'm officially announcing that one striped polo in the back of my closet as my distinctive uniform.
the ambiguity is killing me.
After all, your not a signatory to the Protocols.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Con … _Article_2That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention.
... The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions
I doubt camouflage would be covered by 'distinctive uniform', various nations use each others camo, so unless they're in dress uniform I'd expect they require insignia.Karbin wrote:
Glad you think so.Dilbert_X wrote:
Yeah I found it, my point above still stands.
They dont have an army. What insignia do you think would be appropriate? One that says "OpFor" ?lowing wrote:
Wow I came in to see if you had provided links to support any of your arguments, not really surprised you haven't, but I am surprised that your argument now lays on the Palestinians not having insignia hence Israel is dead wrong. Kinda sad really.
