Based on the logic that only assault troops are combat troops then soldiers involved in logistical supply or base duties are not combatants which doesn't make a lot of sense as if not combatants they would not be considered by the Geneva Conventions to qualify for the status of 'protected person' if captured.TheStatutoryApe said:I think El Hombre has a good point actually.
A Merc is generally considered one who has been hired specifically for the purpose of offensive combat operations. The definition that Burnsys provided would seem to agree with this but admittedly it seems a bit hazy.
---edit---
These particular bits stand out in my opinion as supporting the idea that they are referring to offensive combatants.
The difference is that Mercs aren't soldiers belonging to a specific military.Art said:Based on the logic that only assault troops are combat troops then soldiers involved in logistical supply or base duties are not combatants which doesn't make a lot of sense as if not combatants they would not be considered by the Geneva Conventions to qualify for the status of 'protected person' if captured.
The GC says regular army combatants are 'protected persons'. If the definition of combatant is restricted to only assault troops then non-assault troops ~80% of the military would not qualify as 'protected persons' which is clearly not the case, hence mercs who are performing support roles for a military must also fall into the category of combatants which in their case results in the opposite effect i.e. they are not 'protected persons'.TheStatutoryApe said:The difference is that Mercs aren't soldiers belonging to a specific military.
And I'm not sure what you are meaning here about non-combatants not having 'protected person' status. Mercs, which seem to be defined as active combatants, are specifically stated to not be 'protected persons' aren't they? So I'm not sure where your line of logic is going with the parallel.
Wouldn't civilain contractors be considered protected as civilains? The distinction then between Mercs being active combat or non-combat would become more important wouldn't it? If they are combat active then they can not be considered civilians and protected as civilains but if their only resort to combat is for their own protection then they can still be considered civilians and protected as such don't you think?Art said:The GC says regular army combatants are 'protected persons'. If the definition of combatant is restricted to only assault troops then non-assault troops ~80% of the military would not qualify as 'protected persons' which is clearly not the case, hence mercs who are performing support roles for a military must also fall into the category of combatants which in their case results in the opposite effect i.e. they are not 'protected persons'.
I should have said "armed support roles". Contractors has become a hugely over used term in Iraq. Builders over there to help with reconstruction and their minders are one thing but guys who sit in watch towers guarding military bases with machine guns, sniper rifles and rockets or who accompany military convoys as protection are something else. It certainly isn't the image one thinks of when one hears of a contractor. In fact when the four contractors were killed in Fallujah for a long time I assumed and I'm sure others did too that these were simply construction workers or whatever that had been brutally slain. It was not until much later that I discovered they were actually military 'contractors' armed to the teeth.TheStatutoryApe said:Wouldn't civilain contractors be considered protected as civilains? The distinction then between Mercs being active combat or non-combat would become more important wouldn't it? If they are combat active then they can not be considered civilians and protected as civilains but if their only resort to combat is for their own protection then they can still be considered civilians and protected as such don't you think?
Soldiers on non-combat duty are still soldiers. All of them no matter what their assignment can be reassigned to combat duty and are trained for it. I think that GC simply covers any person belonging to a military as the same for this reason. Besides, your opponents aren't going to check your duty orders before they shoot at you, just your uniform if even that.