On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:01:12 -0600, Ron wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
