Police and the Geneva Conventions

5.56X45mm

Milforum Mac Daddy
Does a LEO fall under combatant status and have some of the same rights as regular members of the armed forces?

Also, do EMT and EMS personnel fall under the protection of combatant status?

Militias and Partisans fall under combatant status. Always wondered if LEOs and EMS personnel did.
 
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.

Dean.
 
Dean said:
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.

Dean.

Definitely, and they shouldn't be, they are civilians.
 
Well, from all the stuff I have seen from Iraq. I see that the Iraqi national Police are working and fighting right along side of the military.

During WWII, The Germans had entire divisons made up of police officers. France's national police fall under that military police and I believe that Italy has a type of national police that falls under the military too. They start with a "C". Come on Italian Guy, you gotta know that one.

Law Enforcement is becoming more and more para-military everyday. With the war on terror and all. I believe that law enforcement officers and other personnel like them should be protected by the Geneva Conventions. They are armed servents of the state. Just like the military. And the military enforces law too in some countries.

Also, when I was but a pup, I read one of Tom Clancy's books. Sum of all fears. In it, when to Soviets cross into West Berlin, the German Polizei are also confronting soviet armoured units. That is what got me thinking of this whole thing in the first place.
 
Come on now 5.56, I thought you would be on board with me that the geneva convention is antiquated and useless.

It was last re-written in 1949 and even then had a rather idealistic view of war.

I'm sure scholars would say that when police engage soldiers they themselves become combattants but we know that with warfare these days it's all round peg warfare trying to be fit into square hole geneva convention.
 
If someone is firing a weapon at me in a war zone that person is considered a combatant. If the person is wearing civilian clothes or Medical patches etc doesnt matter. If that peson fires a weapon they become a threat to the life of me and my fellow servicemembers.

The Geneva convention is all well and good until your boots are on the ground and in harm's way. At least when it comes to combatant status. Then real life kicks in.
 
Marinerhodes said:
If someone is firing a weapon at me in a war zone that person is considered a combatant. If the person is wearing civilian clothes or Medical patches etc doesnt matter. If that peson fires a weapon they become a threat to the life of me and my fellow servicemembers.

But Marinerhodes, the Geneva convention says you have to be a uniformed soldier to be considered a combatant otherwise you're unlawful.

But we all know that the same people that embrace the "Geneva convention" are the same people who condemn the
guantanamo camp as inhumane and against the Geneva convention!

So by your reasoning, if you commit war and aren’t a uniformed servicemen then you are an UNLAWFUL COMBATTANT and are not subject to Geneva convention laws. Well that's just silly, everyone knows that terrorists shouldn't be thrown in
Guantanamo camps! How dare you try and manipulate the Geneva convention to your own ends just to save the lives of your fellow marines just because YOU fight honorably and YOU wear uniforms instead of blowing up civilians and wearing civilian cloths until the uniformed soldiers' back is turned! You are supporting the evil empire and the Geneva convention says so!

I can say this because I'm a European and because I'm 2,000 miles away from 9/11 I can see things with clear eyes. You see, because you where impacted by 9/11 you just don't understand. Because I am so far separated from warfare and the deaths of my fellow man, I can tell you exactly what you should be doing. Because you might die you see the Geneva convention wrong, because I will live regardless however I interpret the Geneva convention I can dictate to you exactly what it means without prejudice.

See, marinerhodes, because you or your family is likely to be killed means you can't see the truth in the Geneva convention like someone who is so far away from danger can!

I hope now you understand how you are wrong and why the Geneva Convention is the bible... nay, the bible is trash compared to the supremacy of the Geneva convention. I hate to soil the Geneva Convention by comparing it to the bible!
 
Last edited:
5.56X45mm said:
Law Enforcement is becoming more and more para-military everyday. With the war on terror and all. I believe that law enforcement officers and other personnel like them should be protected by the Geneva Conventions. They are armed servents of the state. Just like the military. And the military enforces law too in some countries.

Yeah, and it is very scary and annoying just how "paramilitary" Law Enforcement in the US is becoming.
 
Well, terrorist and partsian are two different things.

And yes, I do think that the geneva convention is antiquated and useless.

I do remember a case in which the ACLU wanted to stop American Law Enforcement from using JHP ammo. They said it was because it was against the geneva convention. Well, they got told to shut up. Why, because the United States of America never signed the Geneva Convention.
 
5.56X45mm said:
Well, terrorist and partsian are two different things.

And yes, I do think that the geneva convention is antiquated and useless.

en....I have to disagree with that, I think by signing this convention, the nation proclaims to the rest that she is a civilized society, which will not commit to barbaric act like torturing, masscaring and humiliating prisoners or slaughtering civlians.

and U.S did sign Geneva convention.
 
I think the IDEA of the Geneva Conention is an excellent one. However, the convention is now incredibly antiquated and useless. Because it is so useless it can be mainipulated by any reader to push their own agenda.

Round peg of 22nd century warfare fitting into a doccument as old as the American Civil War.

No one truely obeys the Geneva convention anymore, they merely put up a facade of compliance while surreptitiously violating it.

You think America wouldn't torture top-level al-quaida leaders for information? You don't think suicide bombings against civilians are against the spirit of the Geneva convention? You think China is committed to being the poster child for the Geneva Convention and human rights? You really think your country would do so different if you where face to face with annihilation?

Rules of war have to be agreed upon by all members to be effective, otherwise they're useless just like the Geneva Convention.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you on this one that Geneva Convention in principal certainly represents the value of wut we stand for, but some technical parts of the convention are outdated and need significant revisions.
 
The Geneva convention all sounds very nice but when you come across people you know that have been tortured to death, then you get hold some the people that have done that to your friends, are you telling me that you are going to be nice to them. Come on folks get real.
 
I think nations should sit down and agree on rules of war before the war is begun or shortly thereafter. That way both parties have specifically agreed to what is off limmits and if they can't come to an agreement on something... then it isn't like the other party can't use it too.

I think a country like Iraq or Iran would be a lot quicker to not torture prisoners if countries like America and Brittain say "well, if you don't want to negotiate the rules of war we always have these nice nukes over here and well god d*mnit people like to see things explode!"
 
Last edited:
Interesting question... I believe this came up with my cousin, who is a police officer in Houston. He doesn't have to abide by the firearms and ammunition, as I recall, but as for treatment as a combatant, I can check with him.
 
Back on topic: from my understanding, LEO's and other public safety personnel are not covered by the Geneva Convention because they are not formally military personnel. No, they're not complete civilians (police officers in the US are "sworn officers" after all), but they're not military.

However, if a police department is somehow brought under the control of the military (either through a memorandum of understanding or through legislation), then that's a different story.

As far as Iraq goes, insurgents and terrorists aren't exactly considered military personnel. If you look at the first Gulf War, the US treated Iraqi POW's directly in accordance with Geneva Convention because they surrendered (or were captured) while a part of a legitimate army. How they/we are treating captured insurgents and terrorists and whether they fall under the Geneva Convention should really be another thread.
 
Whispering Death said:
I think nations should sit down and agree on rules of war before the war is begun or shortly thereafter. That way both parties have specifically agreed to what is off limmits and if they can't come to an agreement on something... then it isn't like the other party can't use it too.

I think a country like Iraq or Iran would be a lot quicker to not torture prisoners if countries like America and Brittain say "well, if you don't want to negotiate the rules of war we always have these nice nukes over here and well god d*mnit people like to see things explode!"

One problem. Those Iraqi's have been under a tyranical governemnt that used death, tourture, and itmidation to control it's people so thats all they know. What is it with people? War is what it is, the killing of fellow man. No matter how you try to regulate it, or try to make rules about it's still war and the killing of our fellow man.

Besides, what makes you think they would abide by the rules anyway? Look at Veitnam, they chucked the rules and where out to win. Another thing, who's go to punish or repremand the countries in breech of the agreement, are you going to go to war with them agian? You can't hold a war tribunial, look at Nurmberg 90% of those procecuted where let free after a few years, or the setences shortened.
 
Cadet Seaman said:
Besides, what makes you think they would abide by the rules anyway? Look at Veitnam, they chucked the rules and where out to win. Another thing, who's go to punish or repremand the countries in breech of the agreement, are you going to go to war with them agian?
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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top