On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:10:14AM +0000, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:10:22 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote in
> [🔎] 4601E58E.6040403@cox.net:
>
> > But... they weren't in uniform. (Did the IEA even *have* an Army?)
>
> ..define "uniform" under the Conventions. ;o)
>
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:
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws
and customs of war.
....
It appears that the minimum criterion for a uniform is a "fixed
distinctive sign recognizable at a distance." Either way, they probably
don't meet the other three criteria.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature