[PASSED] Protected Status in Wartime

[Tarsonis Survivors]

This legislation contradicts itself. The last clause "none of this shall be construed to prevent ruses..." But that's exactly what it does. Great Intel is gathered by imbedding troops desguised as civilian personnel. Gaining intelligence is a military objective. This law prohibits the use of subterfuge as a means of gaining valuable intelligence that would mitigate collateral damage. This legislation is going to cause more innocent deaths than it prevents.

We are under the impression that the section quoted refers to preventing ruses in general and should not be read that way. It does, of course, place strict limits on said ruses.

3. During a time of armed conflict, member states’ combatants shall not utilize the protected status of civilian noncombatants by disguising themselves as such with the intention of engaging the enemy, shielding themselves from enemy action, or to otherwise execute a military objective, with the singular exception of those individuals escaping Prisoner of War status as defined by WA law.

Gathering military intelligence previous to an armed conflict by disguising yourselves as civilian noncombatants would most certainly provoke some form of retribution against civilian groups in the area. Whilst we accept that not gaining said intelligence may cause a longer and more drawn out war, resulting in greater loss of life, in this instance the principle that troops may not disguise themselves as civilian noncombatants should lead to fewer villages burnt to the ground in search of enemy combatants, for example. On balance, this proposal seeks to protect civilians and humanitarian aid. Without this, nations could claim justification for attacking humanitarian aid, or indeed refusing humanitarian aid entry to a war zone.

Yes and by limiting the capabilities of enacting said ruses, this legislation restricts the inteligence gathering capabilities and mobility of the armed forces resulting in an increased likelihood of civilian casualties, missed targets ( which will cause more civilian casualties) and an increase of insurgent activity. Insurgents already being an illegal fighting force who are not governed by these rules, this pose an even greater threat to humanitarian forces. The logical argument is that this makes innocent civilians and aid workers more likely to be injured or killed during armed conflict.

[Jarish Inyo]

The only clear argument we can find in your favour is that not all nations will be covered by this, as not all nations are within the WA. This appears to be an argument against the WA itself, rather than this legislation.

I haven't argued against it. I've been pointing out that your idea that humanitarian aid would not be targeted or banned is incorrect. Some may be like you and believe that the tactics banned by this resolution can not be used because the WA says it's illegal. You and others should remember that for a vast majority of nations its not illegal and a viable tactic.

[Ainocra]

The Star Empire of Ainocra has cast their vote in favor of this.

Well written Bell

[Losthaven]

A resolution that restricts the actions of military leaders and their men, with a goal of preventing "unfair" deception, does nothing to improve civil rights. There is no legitimate argument that this proposal increases freedoms and, much to the contrary, it restricts the freedom to act in relevant ways in the name of moral decency. We object on grounds of deception.

Furthermore, there are insufficient exceptions for good cause. If a regiment can prevent or end a horrible atrocity by falsely pretending to be farmers delivering food to a detention camp, that conduct should be commended, not labeled a war crime.

[Separatist Peoples]

This legislation contradicts itself. The last clause "none of this shall be construed to prevent ruses..." But that's exactly what it does. Great Intel is gathered by imbedding troops desguised as civilian personnel. Gaining intelligence is a military objective. This law prohibits the use of subterfuge as a means of gaining valuable intelligence that would mitigate collateral damage. This legislation is going to cause more innocent deaths than it prevents.

"You are misreading this, and deliberately at that. It claims it doesn't prevent ruses that DONT invite confidence of the enemy through protected symbols. You can still wear the enemy's uniform, spread counterintelligence, fake routs, and other ruses to your hearts content. Care to try again?"

[Separatist Peoples]

A resolution that restricts the actions of military leaders and their men, with a goal of preventing "unfair" deception, does nothing to improve civil rights. There is no legitimate argument that this proposal increases freedoms and, much to the contrary, it restricts the freedom to act in relevant ways in the name of moral decency. We object on grounds of deception.

Furthermore, there are insufficient exceptions for good cause. If a regiment can prevent or end a horrible atrocity by falsely pretending to be farmers delivering food to a detention camp, that conduct should be commended, not labeled a war crime.

"And yet the Secretariat has made no attempt to remove or correct this, and this has been in drafting for MONTHS. File a GHR if you feel you must, but this clearly hasn't sent up red flags.

"As for "good cause", there is no possible definition of good cause that isn't so subjective as to gut this. There is no time it is acceptable to risk drawing in a neutral power by utilizing a neutral party's insignia. There are alternatives available in every situation, and nations are expected to utilize them instead of poorly justifying perfidy. I reject the notion that a nation may act perfidiously in the name of "the greater good", as that greater good is rarely sufficiently objective."

[Tarsonis Survivors]

This legislation contradicts itself. The last clause "none of this shall be construed to prevent ruses..." But that's exactly what it does. Great Intel is gathered by imbedding troops desguised as civilian personnel. Gaining intelligence is a military objective. This law prohibits the use of subterfuge as a means of gaining valuable intelligence that would mitigate collateral damage. This legislation is going to cause more innocent deaths than it prevents.

"You are misreading this, and deliberately at that. It claims it doesn't prevent ruses that DONT invite confidence of the enemy through protected symbols. You can still wear the enemy's uniform, spread counterintelligence, fake routs, and other ruses to your hearts content. Care to try again?"

"During a time of armed conflict, member states’ combatants shall not utilize the protected status of civilian noncombatants by disguising themselves as such with the intention of engaging the enemy, shielding themselves from enemy action, or to otherwise execute a military objective"


Tell me, why must the author lie about their work in order to challenge opposition. Perhaps it is you who want to "try again?" Or perhaps you want to take seven minutes to study the art of war?

[Separatist Peoples]

"You are misreading this, and deliberately at that. It claims it doesn't prevent ruses that DONT invite confidence of the enemy through protected symbols. You can still wear the enemy's uniform, spread counterintelligence, fake routs, and other ruses to your hearts content. Care to try again?"

"During a time of armed conflict, member states’ combatants shall not utilize the protected status of civilian noncombatants by disguising themselves as such with the intention of engaging the enemy, shielding themselves from enemy action, or to otherwise execute a military objective"


Tell me, why must the author lie about their work in order to challenge opposition. Perhaps it is you who want to "try again?" Or perhaps you want to take seven minutes to study the art of war?

"Ambassador, have you bothered with any form of reading comprehension when approaching this law? The first 6 clauses list illegal actions or how to deal with them. The seventh clause states that all other forms of deception that do NOT invite the confidence of the enemy using the previous illegal examples are acceptable. It's a very basic exception structure that your average 13 year old should understand without much trouble. Is that clear enough, or would you prefer I outline the grammatical structure of that clause with crayons?

"And furthermore, the proposal specifically applies to combatants. That indicates troops who are involved in fighting. Spies don't fight. Their job is to blend and pass along intelligence. They aren't all James Bond imitators who shoot their way through enemy bases, they collect and transmit intel. No fighting. As such, nothing, absolutely nothing, in this resolution prevents human intelligence assets, military or civilian, from changing garb to blend, so long as they don't engage in combat operations."

[Tarsonis Survivors]

"During a time of armed conflict, member states’ combatants shall not utilize the protected status of civilian noncombatants by disguising themselves as such with the intention of engaging the enemy, shielding themselves from enemy action, or to otherwise execute a military objective"


Tell me, why must the author lie about their work in order to challenge opposition. Perhaps it is you who want to "try again?" Or perhaps you want to take seven minutes to study the art of war?

"Ambassador, have you bothered with any form of reading comprehension when approaching this law? The first 6 clauses list illegal actions or how to deal with them. The seventh clause states that all other forms of deception that do NOT invite the confidence of the enemy using the previous illegal examples are acceptable. It's a very basic exception structure that your average 13 year old should understand without much trouble. Is that clear enough, or would you prefer I outline the grammatical structure of that clause with crayons?

"And furthermore, the proposal specifically applies to combatants. That indicates troops who are involved in fighting. Spies don't fight. Their job is to blend and pass along intelligence. They aren't all James Bond imitators who shoot their way through enemy bases, they collect and transmit intel. No fighting. As such, nothing, absolutely nothing, in this resolution prevents human intelligence assets, military or civilian, from changing garb to blend, so long as they don't engage in combat operations."

Without all due respect, this is a lie. This legislation does not "list illegal actions and how to deal with them", this proposed legislation lists 6 actions the sponsoring delegation believes should be illegal, and attempts to brand any nation, complicit in the actions of its soldiers as war criminals. The 7th clause is a mere pittance to narrow down the scope of warfare to what seems acceptable to their puerile mind. Their attempted musings in their second statement in fact proves how detached from reality the sponsoring delegation is. Their understanding of warfare is apparently stuck somewhere in the 2nd century.

To elaborate, spies are not the only forms of intelligence gatherers, nor are combat operations the only only thing that constitutes a "military objective" Troop movements, smuggling, and yes intelligence are all military objectives, especially when conducting unconventional warfare. Special operations have a long history of embedding in civilian townships, posing as local civilians in order to gain necessary footholds to locate high value targets. "Neutral" nations have a long history of using civilian ships as a means to smuggle armaments into occupied territories. Soldiers and sailors alike, have utilized third party, and civilian disguises to slip past enemy troops, either to engage in combat later, or to escape back behind friendly lines after being surrounded, (not to be confused with escaping prisoners of war). The wording of this legislation and its prohibition of said actions for the purposes of "military objectives" would now brand all these as war crimes. Never mind the ambiguity in attempting to apply this to militia or resistance fighters.

[Separatist Peoples]

Without all due respect, this is a lie. This legislation does not "list illegal actions and how to deal with them", this proposed legislation lists 6 actions the sponsoring delegation believes should be illegal, and attempts to brand any nation, complicit in the actions of its soldiers as war criminals.

"That's basically what I just said."

The 7th clause is a mere pittance to narrow down the scope of warfare to what seems acceptable to their puerile mind. Their attempted musings in their second statement in fact proves how detached from reality the sponsoring delegation is. Their understanding of warfare is apparently stuck somewhere in the 2nd century.

"I struggle to see how stealth technology, camouflage, and basic military constitute, in any way, 2nd century-exclusive strategies that rely on deception that don't invite confidence of the enemy as it relates to a protected status."

To elaborate, spies are not the only forms of intelligence gatherers, nor are combat operations the only only thing that constitutes a "military objective"

"Yes, let's see what you've got that you think this prevents:"

Troop movements smuggling, and yes intelligence are all military objectives, especially when conducting unconventional warfare.

"Very good. That is a military objective. However, it is a military objective that is still a hostile move when done in an enemy's territory. By allowing your troops to dress as civilians or humanitarian workers, you invite them to assume the guises of protected individuals, such that, when your enemy realizes it has been deceived, it will treat any suspicious civilian groups or humanitarian workers with hostile action . If your troops dress as neutral parties, then they implicate the neutral power and potentially violate it's neutrality, an action already considered illegal. All three of these violations degrade the trust nations have in these symbols and statuses of individuals who shouldn't be targeted, and not a single action you have listed in any way merits an exception. What's more, not a single one of those violations make it impossible, in any way, to achieve an objective."

Special operations have a long history of embedding in civilian townships, posing as local civilians in order to gain necessary footholds to locate high value targets.

"And they have a long history of being lawful combatants while they do so, part of which involves concealing their presence while remaining in uniform, because otherwise they are not lawful combatants who can surrender according to the Rules of Surrender. Instead, they are targets who are not able to receive prisoner of war status under WA law, and that nation just wasted millions of dollars training that operative. If your nation has ignored this, than I greatly pity how little you care for your troops's well-being."

"Neutral" nations have a long history of using civilian ships as a means to smuggle armaments into occupied territories.

"An action in direct contravention of establish WA law."

Soldiers and sailors alike, have utilized third party, and civilian disguises to slip past enemy troops, either to engage in combat later, or to escape back behind friendly lines after being surrounded, (not to be confused with escaping prisoners of war).

"Nothing prevents military use of civilian equipment so long as that equipment is clearly marked as not being neutral or noncombatant in nature. In many cases, that your troops are obviously using it makes it immediately recognizable as a lawful target. So, nothing prevents troops from doing this. They simply have to accept that they can still be shot at. Again, to do otherwise endangers uninvolved parties and makes them targets."

The wording of this legislation and its prohibition of said actions for the purposes of "military objectives" would now brand all these as war crimes. Never mind the ambiguity in attempting to apply this to militia or resistance fighters.

"Because all of those are against existing or propose WA law for the reasons I have pointed out. This is easily and equally applied to militia because militia are still combatants who are, by necessity to prevent accidental friendly fire, immediately recognizable as belonging to a particular side. Perfidy is a very real problem that needs to be addressed as a criminal action. For all the reasons I have pointed out. Besides, nothing stops you from actively using your enemy's uniform or symbols in literally any of the scenarios I've pointed out. I deliberately left that fair game."

OOC: all of these actions are illegal in the Real World. Unless you can stand there and tell me that modern day troops should be allowed to hide behind the Red Cross/Red Crescent protections to move their rocket artillery into place, you'll have to accept that this is generally the same and, in many ways, less restrictive, than modern laws.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Without all due respect, this is a lie. This legislation does not "list illegal actions and how to deal with them", this proposed legislation lists 6 actions the sponsoring delegation believes should be illegal, and attempts to brand any nation, complicit in the actions of its soldiers as war criminals.

"That's basically what I just said."

If you can't tell the difference between those two statements, I can't help you.





You struggle at comprehending a lot of things. Your archaic views of Soldiers and Spies being two different classifications of persons, is exactly that.



A. They will treat "Suspicious" groups with hostile action anyway.
B. You're attempting to cloud the issue, this delegation has been taking issue with the 3rd article.
C. That last sentence is extremely speculative.




Ad hominem attacks really just belittle your point. Special operations of many nations routinely pose as civilians for the purpose as I've outlaid.



If the delegation would be so kind as to source the resolution they are referring to, in order to avoid unnecessary confusion in future discussion.



You really don't comprehend what I'm saying do you. I'll break it down laymans style. Military forces, pretending to be civilians to pass enemy forces either to A. Save their own skin, or B. engage in combat operations at another location. This legislation classifies that as war crimes.




A. Militia are not immediately recognizable by side, that's part of what makes them militia. They're not uniformed combatants.
B. Perfidy is a part of war, it is no more a crime than engaging in combat.

OOC: We're not talking about Humanitarian aide groups. This wonderfully role played debate is about the use of civilian equipment, in a way that is purposefully meant to deceive the enemy. This is a tactic that is constantly used. For instance: US special operators routinely embed and pose as civilians in the war on Terror in order to gain intelligence on and locate high value targets or terrorist organizations. Article 3 would make such a tactic illegal.

Resistance groups routinely blend in with civilian populations and engage occupying forces while still posing as civilians. French resistance did this routinely.

The Vietcong was notorious for posing as south Vietnamese civilians.

The last time we had a truly conventional war among 1st world countries the Allies used civilian ships as ways to smuggle armaments to Britain and occupied France, passed the U-Boat blockade. Had they not, the resistance that Britain and France put up would not have been successful.

[Separatist Peoples]

If you can't tell the difference between those two statements, I can't help you.

"No, I imagine not. It would be rather like the blind leading the blind."

You struggle at comprehending a lot of things. Your archaic views of Soldiers and Spies being two different classifications of persons, is exactly that.

"They are two different classifications. A spy obtains information clandestinely. A soldier fights. The two are Completely. Different. Classifications."

A. They will treat "Suspicious" groups with hostile action anyway.

"No, thats exactly the point: if a nation can trust that other nations will obey the law, they won't have to behave hostilely to them! And even if they do, that the action is illegal gives member states a legally defensible case for why they fire upon on a group of civilians after it became obvious they weren't civilians at all."

B. You're attempting to cloud the issue, this delegation has been taking issue with the 3rd article.

"The argument is equally applicable in literally every article of this proposal."

C. That last sentence is extremely speculative.

"Then don't act like the sort of nation that evokes such speculation."

Ad hominem attacks really just belittle your point. Special operations of many nations routinely pose as civilians for the purpose as I've outlaid.

"No, they really don't. Because in addition to losing the protections that will keep them alive if they are captured, discovering a special forces soldier out of uniform will cause the slaughter of civilians who are found in the vicinity, because there is then no distinguishing factor differentiating the soldiers from the civilians. That sort of situation causes massacres.

If the delegation would be so kind as to source the resolution they are referring to, in order to avoid unnecessary confusion in future discussion.

"Here is the resolution in question."

You really don't comprehend what I'm saying do you. I'll break it down laymans style. Military forces, pretending to be civilians to pass enemy forces either to A. Save their own skin, or B. engage in combat operations at another location. This legislation classifies that as war crimes.

"Yes. Because that is the very definition of perfidy, and is an unacceptable behavior that creates a serious danger for uninvolved civilians! Because, by doing so, the enemy sees that civilians and the enemy are indistinguishable, and will target them both! A massive goal of this Assembly is to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and civilians in a war zone absolutely fall under that auspice."

A. Militia are not immediately recognizable by side, that's part of what makes them militia. They're not uniformed combatants.

"That is not what makes them militia. Militia are loosely-organized, irregular soldiers. They can be uniformed, but don't have to be. That doesn't make them a rabble beholden to no laws, it makes them an informal fighting force bound by the same laws."

B. Perfidy is a part of war, it is no more a crime than engaging in combat.

"Perfidy, by definition, implies illegal action. Engaging in combat does not."


OOC: We're not talking about Humanitarian aide groups. This wonderfully role played debate is about the use of civilian equipment, in a way that is purposefully meant to deceive the enemy. This is a tactic that is constantly used. For instance: US special operators routinely embed and pose as civilians in the war on Terror in order to gain intelligence on and locate high value targets or terrorist organizations. Article 3 would make such a tactic illegal.[/quote]
OOC: Those individuals aren't combatants. Their singular purpose is to gather intelligence. If they get into a fight, they blow their cover and either die or expend their usefulness. That is not how deep cover works, because they are not soldiers. They are espionage agents that report to a handler, who passes that information onto fighters, who use the intel appropriately.

Resistance groups routinely blend in with civilian populations and engage occupying forces while still posing as civilians. French resistance did this routinely.

OOC: Guerrilla soldiers often fight in some semblance of a uniform, and afterwards blend into the population when they are no longer acting as combatants. Thus the "black pajamas" of Vietnamese guerrillas, or the French flag armbands of the French Resistance. Moreover, most guerrilla bands operate without the direct control of a government entity, and, as such, often seriously skirt the line of acceptable practices.

The Vietcong was notorious for posing as south Vietnamese civilians.

OOC: An act that was against international law on many, many levels.

The last time we had a truly conventional war among 1st world countries the Allies used civilian ships as ways to smuggle armaments to Britain and occupied France, passed the U-Boat blockade. Had they not, the resistance that Britain and France put up would not have been successful.

OOC: Again, an act that was very, very illegal.

However, from a purely RP'd perspective, just because something is against the rules doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Theres no reason a player couldn't RP being in direct contravention of these laws and try to conceal it. Most arms smuggling operations by formal governments, like the US in the Iran-Contra affair, are illegal. The US got caught and several people went to jail over it, but that doesn't mean they weren't willing to try an illegal gamble. There is no reason that such action wouldn't occur in a realistic RP'd world.

[Palakistan]

The Armed Republic of Palakistan is appalled at this obvious intrusion of defense of a nation. If this resolution passes we will be leaving the WA. Our nation relies heavily on plains clothe agents to protect the state from foreign aggression. We will not stop this because some assembly told us so.

[Defwa]

The Armed Republic of Palakistan is appalled at this obvious intrusion of defense of a nation. If this resolution passes we will be leaving the WA. Our nation relies heavily on plains clothe agents to protect the state from foreign aggression. We will not stop this because some assembly told us so.

Okay

[Separatist Peoples]

The Armed Republic of Palakistan is appalled at this obvious intrusion of defense of a nation. If this resolution passes we will be leaving the WA. Our nation relies heavily on plains clothe agents to protect the state from foreign aggression. We will not stop this because some assembly told us so.

"Plain clothes police are not really covered unless they decide to fight a war."

[Palakistan]

The Armed Republic of Palakistan is appalled at this obvious intrusion of defense of a nation. If this resolution passes we will be leaving the WA. Our nation relies heavily on plains clothe agents to protect the state from foreign aggression. We will not stop this because some assembly told us so.

"Plain clothes police are not really covered unless they decide to fight a war."

I'm not talking police. I'm talking intelligence agents in other nations and populaces.

[United West Afrika]

The Armed Republic of Palakistan is appalled at this obvious intrusion of defense of a nation. If this resolution passes we will be leaving the WA. Our nation relies heavily on plains clothe agents to protect the state from foreign aggression. We will not stop this because some assembly told us so.

I must stand with Palakistan in opposition to this underhanded attempt to disarm the smaller nations of the world. This is clearly discriminatory towards less powerful nations. Nations with smaller and less well-equipped armies are often forced to resort to unconventional means of warfare. All this resolution will do will further enable the more privileged countries to more easily invade and exploit poor nations. We cannot abide this, and naturally will resist adopting these absurd measures.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Plain clothes police are not really covered unless they decide to fight a war."

I'm not talking police. I'm talking intelligence agents in other nations and populaces.

"Intelligence agents are not combatants and are not affected. Have you read any of the discussion?"

The Armed Republic of Palakistan is appalled at this obvious intrusion of defense of a nation. If this resolution passes we will be leaving the WA. Our nation relies heavily on plains clothe agents to protect the state from foreign aggression. We will not stop this because some assembly told us so.

I must stand with Palakistan in opposition to this underhanded attempt to disarm the smaller nations of the world. This is clearly discriminatory towards less powerful nations. Nations with smaller and less well-equipped armies are often forced to resort to unconventional means of warfare. All this resolution will do will further enable the more privileged countries to more easily invade and exploit poor nations. We cannot abide this, and naturally will resist adopting these absurd measures.

"Even with unconventional means, few small nations can stand up to the very large nations in the world. And without this, large nations could do the exact same thing to small nations without any punishment, and could do it at a much greater scale with many more resources devoted to the strategy. This actually prevents you from being similarly exploited."

[United West Afrika]

"Even with unconventional means, few small nations can stand up to the very large nations in the world.

I'd disagree: there are countless examples of small nations throwing off the yolk of more powerful nations by use of unconventional warfare. For small nations the standards are different: our victory is survival. Without deceptive warfare (namely, using civilian areas and plainclothes to disguise freedom fighters) resisting an occupying force becomes impossible. Hence this legislation is obviously written to favor more powerful nations when they choose to invade smaller nations.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Gaul. Roman Empire. There is a reason Gaul is now called France.

[Palakistan]

I'm not talking police. I'm talking intelligence agents in other nations and populaces.

"Intelligence agents are not combatants and are not affected. Have you read any of the discussion?"

I must stand with Palakistan in opposition to this underhanded attempt to disarm the smaller nations of the world. This is clearly discriminatory towards less powerful nations. Nations with smaller and less well-equipped armies are often forced to resort to unconventional means of warfare. All this resolution will do will further enable the more privileged countries to more easily invade and exploit poor nations. We cannot abide this, and naturally will resist adopting these absurd measures.

"Even with unconventional means, few small nations can stand up to the very large nations in the world. And without this, large nations could do the exact same thing to small nations without any punishment, and could do it at a much greater scale with many more resources devoted to the strategy. This actually prevents you from being similarly exploited."

Wait a sec, intelligence agents are considered military, depending upon their classification in military's. Furthermore when I take over land, I will be sending commando forces, and infantry possibly in civilian apparel. I will also possibly be disguising large troop movements with civilian vehicles. Your asking my soldiers and my military to play by the rules and lose more soldiers in open conflict. Palakistan doesn't play by any rules to achieve security for our nation and allies. As to your small military force remark; small guerrilla style armies could feasibly wreck havoc on a standing army. That's why there is COIN. They are a serious threat.

[Caracasus]

We understand that guerrilla forces are less likely to be under the direct command of a nation state though. Partisan movements, even if aligned with, and sharing broadly similar goals to, a nation state are seldom under the command of a structured military force in the same way that a standing army would be. Realistically, combatants not under the direct control of a nation state could not really be held to the same legislation as nation state controlled forces.

We believe that there may be room for legislation outlining the definitions of combatants, and the responsibilities of nation states thereof. This is not the place to debate this, however.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Intelligence agents are not combatants and are not affected. Have you read any of the discussion?"



"Even with unconventional means, few small nations can stand up to the very large nations in the world. And without this, large nations could do the exact same thing to small nations without any punishment, and could do it at a much greater scale with many more resources devoted to the strategy. This actually prevents you from being similarly exploited."

Wait a sec, intelligence agents are considered military, depending upon their classification in military's. Furthermore when I take over land, I will be sending commando forces, and infantry possibly in civilian apparel. I will also possibly be disguising large troop movements with civilian vehicles. Your asking my soldiers and my military to play by the rules and lose more soldiers in open conflict. Palakistan doesn't play by any rules to achieve security for our nation and allies. As to your small military force remark; small guerrilla style armies could feasibly wreck havoc on a standing army. That's why there is COIN. They are a serious threat.

"And how, pray tell, do your ragtag bunch if heroic civilians keep themselves from being shot by members if their own group, especially when the enemy starts putting troopers into civilian clothes to fight your unconventional war? I'd be willing to bet that, once that happens, a whole lot more mistakes happen that involve your troops killing civilians or friendly units. That's why the overwhelming majority of irregulars, while not in uniform, still use a distinctive identification about them: an armband, a certain color sash, distinctive headgear, that they can abandon when hiding among civilians. That would be sufficient to meet the requirements in here. And, after all, if invaded seriously bough to merit that kind of bush warfare, it's highly unlikely that your government would exist in any official sense, making it unlikely to still be a member of the World Assembly."

[Palakistan]

Wait a sec, intelligence agents are considered military, depending upon their classification in military's. Furthermore when I take over land, I will be sending commando forces, and infantry possibly in civilian apparel. I will also possibly be disguising large troop movements with civilian vehicles. Your asking my soldiers and my military to play by the rules and lose more soldiers in open conflict. Palakistan doesn't play by any rules to achieve security for our nation and allies. As to your small military force remark; small guerrilla style armies could feasibly wreck havoc on a standing army. That's why there is COIN. They are a serious threat.

"And how, pray tell, do your ragtag bunch if heroic civilians keep themselves from being shot by members if their own group, especially when the enemy starts putting troopers into civilian clothes to fight your unconventional war? I'd be willing to bet that, once that happens, a whole lot more mistakes happen that involve your troops killing civilians or friendly units. That's why the overwhelming majority of irregulars, while not in uniform, still use a distinctive identification about them: an armband, a certain color sash, distinctive headgear, that they can abandon when hiding among civilians. That would be sufficient to meet the requirements in here. And, after all, if invaded seriously bough to merit that kind of bush warfare, it's highly unlikely that your government would exist in any official sense, making it unlikely to still be a member of the World Assembly."

So a small identification of some sort would negate this law?

[Separatist Peoples]

So a small identification of some sort would negate this law?

"No, a properly identifying mark would bring you into compliance with this law. It negates nothing. Such a mark would have to be: "clear and obviously recognizable way so as to prevent being mistaken for civilians, or otherwise remain immediately recognizable as combatants."."