Talk:Third Geneva Convention/Archive 1

Archive 1

Members of the armed forces do not have to be distinctive from a distance

Note on this paragraph: The exact definition of "lawful combatant" has been subject to a number of discussions in view of a number of public military conflicts in the 2000s, including the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Because many of the people fighting do not have uniforms it is claimed that they do not display a "fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance" they are thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention as "lawful combatants" (see unlawful combatant). Problems with such distinctions include the status of snipers and special forces, who wear clothing such as Ghillie suits which are specifically intended to prevent identification of them at a distance and who seek to avoid being visible until the time of their attack.

This is a non-sequitur. It seems to be arguing that these particular U.S. special forces are not conforming to the laws of war either, but that could only be relevant to this "lawful combatant" issue if non-uniformed special forces ever expect treatment as legitimate POWs. They don't.

I am keeping the argument but moving it to the next paragraph as a separate point. I hope that will help to de-politicize this one a tiny bit.

Others who may not fall into the category of lawful combatant could include snipers and special forces, who wear clothing such as Ghillie suits which are specifically intended to prevent identification of them at a distance and who seek to avoid being visible until the time of their attack.

I removed the above in the expansion I just made because Snipers and Special foreces are in the uniforms of "Members of the armed forces" so they do not have to be destinctive from a distance. Only "Members of other militias" have to have "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance". Philip Baird Shearer 14:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also in case anyone is under any misconception that executing special forces who are in uniform, but are operating deep behind enemy lines, is not a war crime see Commando Order. Philip Baird Shearer 00:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

>> but that could only be relevant to this "lawful combatant" issue if non-uniformed special forces ever expect treatment as legitimate POWs. They don't. <<

I cannot see how you might know whether they seek POW status or not. If you have access to their statements on this matter you should indicate your source. Nor do I agree that the status randomly assigned to them by their captors in any way depends on what other status they might have chosen for themselves. This is the logic of "when did you last beat your wife?". As unwilling detainees who protest their innocence, they are not obliged to choose *any* status under which they might be detained. You are artificially legitimising the basis for their detention by seeking a rationale originating from the detainee's side. THAT is a far greater non-sequitur than the one you claim to have "rectified".

=> One does not have to seek POW status, instead it must be demonstrated that one is not entitled to it, and one cannot give up one's status. CACLF 03:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Applicability of common article 3 to non-uniformed combatants

Common article 3 appears, by the plain wording of the document, to apply to all combatants of any status. Despite this, the article here has some very strong wording which suggests otherwise:

"Because many of the guerillas do not display a "fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance", they are traditionally not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention "

For this sentence, the source given does not support the very strong wording. The source is a single US court case at the start of WWII, and does not constitute a global "tradition".

=>This is actually false, you may see protocol 1 here with the actual text, http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079 see under Art 43 and 44. Furthermore many of the summaries of the definitions seem to miss important distinctions and coverages. Furthermore Article 3 applies to all personnel. The prohibition against interogation applies only to those who are prisoners of war, but they still must be treated properly. I will try coming up with something more substantial for an edit. CACLF 03:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Even despite the non ratification of Protocol 1 by the USA, Article 3 applies to them and to all such detainees irrelevant of their status.

Signatories

Who signed this? Which countries?

+ See http://www.cicr.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P as of 10/2/2006 194 countries. CACLF 03:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To whom does one report violations?

in http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/121307.html it appears that whoever equipped guatemalan death squads with laptops is proud of their illegal summary executions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.216.155.121 (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Land Letter

Editorial help on the discussion page of the Land Letter is needed for research of encyclopedic quality entries on this subject in relationship to the Third Convention. Alternatively, we should try to merge the Land Letter into this article with a redirect. Doug youvan (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider Merge

Consider merging this article with Geneva Convention (1929). Dividing them into two distinct articles as if they were different treaties is unnecessary, repetitive, and confusing. The second is simply a revised version of the first. The minor differences between the two could be discussed in a History subsection if necessary. Morrillonline (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We need to standardize the articles of all four conventions.

I see someone (again) had edited the date on this convention's listing in Geneva Conventions#Conventions to 1949. It's since been reverted, but the lack of clarity on these articles makes it easy to understand why that happened.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)