Re: OT: sponge burning!

[Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net>]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:01:12 -0600, Ron wrote in message 
<[🔎] 45E374C8.3090209@cox.net>:

> Seriously, no jokes or sarcasm: what's the term for non-mercenary
> soldier?

..soldier.  Or, human, pl humans.  Under the full 4 Geneva Conventions,
mercenaries lose _all_ human rights to POW treatment etc once identified
as mercenary:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/b0d5f4c1f4b8102041256739003e6366/9edc5096d2c036e9c12563cd0051dc30?OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750057?OpenDocument

..this is _regardless_ of whether the mercenaries commits war crimes or
tries to stop them.  Letting mercenaries live, and keep even their money
in return for carrying the burden of proof they stop and prevent war 
crime, would IMNTHO make stopping war crime profitable enough 
for news media to stop and cure war as a problem to civilians.

..now, if a mercenary is wounded, he is first to be treated as wounded
under the full Conventions 1 or 2, including the Protocols I &III, or II
& III, depending on whether it is aland or naval and international or
non-international war.  Then, when their wounds are healed, they fall
back to the rather terminal Article 47 regime.  ;o)

-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.