US calls in Paras for Baghdad secret war

#1
Clickety

US calls in Paras for Baghdad secret war
 
#2
British paratroopers secretly operating in support of the SAS in Iraq are using American uniforms, weapons and vehicles as part of their cover, The Daily Telegraph has learned.
Are they in this case under protection of Geneva convention? Do they wear foreign military uniform (that is forbidden by Geneva convention) by order? Is this (alleged) order a criminal one?
 
#3
I believe that it is fighting in the uniform of your enemy which is illegal; not dressing up as one of your allies.

msr
 
#4
msr said:
I believe that it is fighting in the uniform of your enemy which is illegal; not dressing up as one of your allies.

msr
I was wrong. Wearing of any even enemy's military uniform is not forbidden by Geneva convention.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

At least I haven't fount anything about it in the text.
 
#5
You're looking in the wrong place. Article 23 of the Annex of the Hague Convention, No. IV, 1907, says: " In addition to the prohibitions provided by special conventions it is especially forbidden . . . (f) to make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag, or of the military insignia or uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention ".

There is no impediment in international law or accepted rules of war which restricts the wearing of uniforms of allied powers. The general principle is that one should be able to distinguish between friend and foe.

The following article is quite interesting in this regard: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/skorzeny.htm
 
#8
#9
Legs said:
naguere said:
Clickety

US calls in Paras for Baghdad secret war
Not very secret now is it?
Well said Legs, beat me to it you....................

It's ok, it's still secret. I didn't tell the wife.
 
#10
Let's be honest, we've been borrowing US kit in every Theatre so why stop now?

They do not call us the Borrowers or the Flintstones for nothing you know.
 
#11
Baghdad-Brit said:
Let's be honest, we've been borrowing US kit in every Theatre so why stop now?

They do not call us the Borrowers or the Flintstones for nothing you know.

'borrow' ? that implies giving the goodies back :twisted: :lol:



Yank camp beds still popular? :wink:
 
#13
IIRC we were offered c.30 000 sets of desert pattern US BDUs for TELIC 1 due to the cluster fcuk of the supply chain.

it was denied due to the political sensitivities?

but i may be wrong??
 
#15
doomsayer said:
KGB_resident said:
Are they in this case under protection of Geneva convention? .....
Is it relevant when the 'enemy' haven't signed the conventions and certainly don't abide by them?
Let's regard this scenario.

USA decides to bomb Iran. As a result Iran declares a state of war with USA. The UK declares its neutrality. Iranian commandos capture British soldiers in Baghdad while wearing American military uniform. In this case Iranians could deny rights of POWs for Britons.
 
#16
Would the real Metal Mickey please stand up
 
#17
KGB_resident said:
Let's regard this scenario.

USA decides to bomb Iran. As a result Iran declares a state of war with USA. The UK declares its neutrality. Iranian commandos capture British soldiers in Baghdad while wearing American military uniform. In this case Iranians could deny rights of POWs for Britons.
A valid point, but not at all related to the current situation.

So given that it does not appear to be illegal to wear the uniform of your allies and that Iran is not currently at war with America (at least not openly) - what is your point?
 
#18
KGB_resident said:
doomsayer said:
KGB_resident said:
Are they in this case under protection of Geneva convention? .....
Is it relevant when the 'enemy' haven't signed the conventions and certainly don't abide by them?
Let's regard this scenario.

USA decides to bomb Iran. As a result Iran declares a state of war with USA. The UK declares its neutrality. Iranian commandos capture British soldiers in Baghdad while wearing American military uniform. In this case Iranians could deny rights of POWs for Britons.
Why would they want to do that? To bring the UK into the war? Where's the advantage to them?

Doomsayer, what matters (legally) is that those who *have* signed hold to the conventions they signed up to.
 
#19
doomsayer said:
KGB_resident said:
Let's regard this scenario.

USA decides to bomb Iran. As a result Iran declares a state of war with USA. The UK declares its neutrality. Iranian commandos capture British soldiers in Baghdad while wearing American military uniform. In this case Iranians could deny rights of POWs for Britons.
A valid point, but not at all related to the current situation.

So given that it does not appear to be illegal to wear the uniform of your allies and that Iran is not currently at war with America (at least not openly) - what is your point?
It appears that British soldiers were ordered to wear foreign (though friendly) uniform. Is such an order legal? Have British soldiers right to disobey?

Now the Americans are the main target of the insurgents while the attitude to the British is much softer. So wearing of American military uniforms (in theory) is more dangerous. Have ralatives of possible victims right to sue MoD on this ground?
 

Latest Threads

Top