Originally Posted by Whispering Death

The only way to regulate the "rules of war" is that if one person breaks their end of the agreement, then you are free to break yours. I.e. if in a fictional conflict Itally starts torturing French POWs then France nukes an Itallian millitary base in response because Itally violated the agreement they signed at the beginning of the war.

It would only take once before "conventions" and "treaties" where taken seriously instead of the one-hand-tied-being-the-back mentallity modern warfare takes to them.

War should have some rules lest we extinct ourselves in nuclear holocaust... but without enforcement the "rules" are at best useless, at worst a force of evil.

The reason we have to deal with such question as "how does the geneva convention deal with police" is because we try to fit the square peg of modern warfare into the round hole of a convention created origionally 200 years ago. The real answer is that whoever wins gets to decide whether to slaughter every policeman as an enemy of the state and therefore an enemy combatant or spare them. Either way, the Geneva convention is merely decided by the consensus of the powers that be.

Then who to say that Germany who agree's with Italy tortuing French prisoners to nuke to nuke Franch after they nuke Italy? Besides the realease of a Termo-Nuclear Weapon is boardering on insanity. The whole point of the convention is to preserve human life no blow it off the face of the earth.

Originally Posted by Dean

police and law enforcement are not mentioned in any way in the Geneva Conventions. The convention dealt with armed conflict between nations, and as such, police were never considered to be combatants in any way, shape or form.

Where the lines become blurred is when a police force becomes a combatant wing of the armed forces. As far as the 'uniform' proviso, most police wear a uniform even though it would not be called a combat uniform. Under this scenario, police fall within the canons of the Geneva Convention and should be treated in accordance with the agreement/treaty.

When they drew up the Geneva Convention it was for Military Combatants in UNIFORM. It did not cover terrorist organisations and like minded people, nor was there any mention of how local Police or any Police Force should act. Now if the terrorist don't feel that they should abide by this document then why should it then protect them. A Terrorist feels that is okay to pose as a civilian and to kill and torture people as they please then why should the Geneva Convention protect them.

IMO the Convention needs to be revised to fit todays combat and warfare.

Cadet Seamen....Are you suggesting that terrorist would comply with the Geneva Convention if it was updated

Well, my question started because of the fact that (at least American Law Enforcement) Law Enforcement is unifromed, armed, and also becoming more militray like everyday in terms of it's stucture, equipment, and SOPs. And with the war on terror being fought on both the battle front and the home front. Law Enforcement is the main player in fighting the war on the home front.

It's more of a what if situtation. Like if Communist China invaded the USA. Would Law Enforcement be covered by the rules of the Geneva Convention in regards to POW status? As a Law Enforcement Officer (Still in the academy), I believe that I would fight against any oppossing military. And I also believe that the Departments would order their officers to fight with the US military. Now, being a LEO in America means that it's a job. And like any other job. You can quit when ever you want. But you cannot go on strike, that is one of the main differences. Between being a Law Enforcement officer and a civilian. Also, Law Enforcement is held to a different standard in the USA.

LEOs are viewed as not being civilians, but agents of the government. And the military is the same. Expect that the military's juridistion is outside of the USA for law enforcement. Law Enforcement does not go and fight wars. But even today that is slowly changing.

US Customs and Border Protection Agents are in Iraq working with the US/Allied Military in controlling the borders of Iraq. They are also training the Iraqi National Guard in how to protect their borders.

US Customs is working security at places such as Um Qsar, Iraq. Which is one of Iraq's ports. They also are working with the US/Allied Navies there.

The US Coast Guard falls under both law enforcement and military. When they are stationed state side, they are law enforcement officers if they have attened and passed the federal law enforcement officer requirements. But when they are deployed overseas, they fall under the US Navy.

The FBI is a Police Agency yet it also conducts intelligence gather in the USA, while the CIA does it outside of the USA. The CIA is also viewed as a Police Agency by Federal standards and you also know that they are fighting in Iraq (maybe Iran) right now.

Also, many departments in my area send officers overseas to such nations as Haiti, Columbia, Panama, and Peru to name a few places. These are local city departm,ents sending officers overseas. Such as when the US Marines landed in Haiti after their latest coup. Miami dade County SRT and City of Miami SWAT went with them to partake in peacekeeping operations.

DEA works all the time in Columbia with the 7th Group Special Forces and Columbian Militay to fight the drug war. And they are fighting what under the Geneva Convention are partisan. the FARC - Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia).

guerrillas Guerrillas who follow the rules spelled out in the Geneva Conventions are considered to have combatant status and have some of the same rights as regular members of the armed forces.
In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3)
Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2)
In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)




Hence why I asked, Military and Law Enforcement are blurring together into one group here in the United States of America.

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

Cadet Seamen....Are you suggesting that terrorist would comply with the Geneva Convention if it was updated

No, but it may help in future conflicts.

Rest assured Luis if the PRiCk invades the US police will be treated by their forces as combatants if history is our guide. But I suspect you already knew that eh?

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Rest assured Luis if the PRiCk invades the US police will be treated by their forces as combatants if history is our guide. But I suspect you already knew that eh?

hahaha PRiCk huh?

Cadest Seman - I was just making bold strokes to illustrate a theoretical point. That situation is inherently unrealistic, not just the nuke aspect. It was mearly to illustrate.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

hahaha PRiCk huh?

Cadest Seman - I was just making bold strokes to illustrate a theoretical point. That situation is inherently unrealistic, not just the nuke aspect. It was mearly to illustrate.

I understand, besides threating another nuclear power with nukes is like throwning a cat in a bathtub.