Re: Who killed who
- From: Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:24:48 +0100
Richard Casady wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:11:07 +0100, Andrew Swallow
Richard Casady wrote:On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:55:42 +0100, Andrew SwallowI probably should have reversed the order of the lines. In return
Acts of terror are banned by the laws of war.You post that before your morning coffee, or what?
So are medical persons and chaplains.
for their privileged status medical persons and chaplains lose
the right to take part in combat.
Do those people have the basic right of self defence against plain
murder [as opposed to legit military killing] ? I understand that
during the Viet Nam war some concientous objectors, who were medics,
would carry a rifle to blend in. In a average ambush, medics were a
priority target, right after the radioman, and ahead of the machine
gunners and the officers. Casady
Civilian medical personel carrying pistols for self defence are legal.
The legality of a rifle depends on whether it is a light weapon.
"13.2. The following shall not be considered as acts harmful to the enemy;
( a ) That the personnel of the unit are equipped with light individual weapons for their own defence or for that of the wounded and sick in their charge; "
Article 65 applies to civil defence rather than medical but expands the definitions.
"3. It shall also not be considered as an act harmful to the enemy that civilian defence personnel bear light individual weapons for the purpose of maintaining order or for self-defence. However, in areas where land fighting is taking place or is likely to take place, the Parties to the conflict shall undertake the appropriate measures to limit these weapons to handguns, such as pistols or revolvers, in order to assist in distinguishing between civil defence personnel and combatants. Although civil defence personnel bear other light individual weapons in such areas, they shall nevertheless be respected and protected as soon as they have been recognized as such."
Targeting medical personnel appears to be a grave breach of the
Geneva Convention. Guilty parties - the general giving the order
to kill them, officers passing on the order, drill sergeant (or
equivalent) training their men and the man actually doing the
killing. I hope some were put on trial.
"Article 85.-Repression of breaches of this Protocol
1. The provisions of the Conventions relating to the repression of breaches and grave breaches, supplemented by this Section, shall apply to the repression of breaches and grave breaches of this Protocol.
2. Acts described as grave breaches in the Conventions are grave breaches of this Protocol if committed against persons in the power of an adverse Party protected by Articles 44, 45 and 73 of this Protocol, or against the wounded, sick and shipwrecked of the adverse Party who are protected by this Protocol, or against those *medical or religious personnel*, medical units or medical transports which are under the control of the adverse Party and are protected by this Protocol.
- Re: Who killed who
- From: Richard Casady
- Re: Who killed who
- Prev by Date: Re: Who killed who
- Next by Date: Re: Who killed who
- Previous by thread: Re: Who killed who
- Next by thread: Re: Who killed who