What is the military status of mercenary's in a war/conflict ?

thecommietommy

Watching the as usual excellent historical documentary on TG4, Congo 1961 - Scaradh Katanga, thinking of the mainly Belgian mercenary's I started to wonder how are they treated under international military rules in a conflict/war ? Like POW's or what ?

the_syco

I think PoW, and then after tribunal they may be then charged under the countries domestic laws? The French Foreign Legion must have experience of this sort of thing, as even though they are an army, they are also people from different countries being paid by France to fight elsewhere?

pablomakaveli

the_syco wrote: »

I think PoW, and then after tribunal they may be then charged under the countries domestic laws? The French Foreign Legion must have experience of this sort of thing, as even though they are an army, they are also people from different countries being paid by France to fight elsewhere?

The Foreign Legion is a part of the French army so they wouldnt be classed as mercenaries.

This wiki page seems to be a good start to info on mercenaries.

thecommietommy

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The Foreign Legion is a part of the French army so they wouldnt be classed as mercenaries.

This wiki page seems to be a good start to info on mercenaries.

" For instance, the French Foreign Legion and the Gurkhas of the British and Indian armies are not mercenaries under the laws of war, since although they may meet many of the requirements of Article 47 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, they are exempt under clauses 47(a)(c)(d)(e)&(f); some journalists describe them as mercenaries nevertheless. "

Stovepipe

There have been instances where mercenaries are "escorted off the premises", ie, UN in the Congo and the other end of the stick where they are shot out of hand. Why don't you dig up "Fire power" by Chris Dempster or some of the later stuff from Bosnia. A British guy did a book about serving for the Croats in 1991.

regards
Stovepipe

bluecode

In the Katangese case were they not effectively members of the Katanga Gendarmes? Thus not officially mercenaries? Assuming it was recognised as a legitimate army that is.

Otherwise any non national serving in the any countrys' army would be considered a mercenary. Which clearly makes no sense.

sheesh

I remember a story from TV where the British summarily Executed mercenaries in the Falklands.

they had these guys captured and on of them had an american passport and he was taken out and shot. whether that was true or not ......

Dogwatch

sheesh wrote: »

I remember a story from TV where the British summarily Executed mercenaries in the Falklands.

they had these guys captured and on of them had an american passport and he was taken out and shot. whether that was true or not ......

No, you don't. You just made it up!!!!!!!!

tac foley

sheesh wrote: »

I remember a story from TV where the British summarily Executed mercenaries in the Falklands.

they had these guys captured and on of them had an american passport and he was taken out and shot. whether that was true or not ......

Yup, totally true, I remember that the officer i/c the firing squad was actually the Tooth Fairy disguised as Arnold Schwarzenegger. :mad: x 10

Where do you find cr*p like this?

The British Army and Royal Marines, just like the Royal Air Force, and every other military force in NATO, are signed up to the Geneva Convention regarding the conduct of military personnel in general warfare.

tac

long range shooter

tac foley wrote: »

Yup, totally true, I remember that the officer i/c the firing squad was actually the Tooth Fairy disguised as Arnold Schwarzenegger. :mad: x 10

Where do you find cr*p like this?

The British Army and Royal Marines, just like the Royal Air Force, and every other military force in NATO, are signed up to the Geneva Convention regarding the conduct of military personnel in general warfare.

tac

Well said,Tac.
The Geneva convention is quite clear when it comes to POWs,and it doesn't matter if you are a soldier,mercenary,insurgent or civilian;)

Cork boy 55

sheesh wrote: »

I remember a story from TV where the British summarily Executed mercenaries in the Falklands.

they had these guys captured and on of them had an american passport and he was taken out and shot. whether that was true or not ......

It was just after the battle of Mt Longdon when the blood was still up ,the Yank mercs incident
in Another incident in same battle Argentines where shot as well allegedly

The details where in the book Excursion to Hell, by Vincent Bramley, a former lance corporal in the 3rd "parachute battalion"
The original first draft of the book in 1991 had the details in it
then the next edition of the book the prisoner shooting was taken out.
There was some sort of police/MOD inquiry not sure what the result was
The idea of USA mercs in the falklands seems unlikey on the face of it.
It is an excellent book one of the best war books and it begs the question
Why would he make it up, if it was false, the war crimes?

The investigation, which was predicted in this week's Independent on Sunday, is expected to focus on two

incidents during the battle for Mount Longdon in June 1982, in which members of the 3rd Battalion, The Parachute

Regiment, are alleged to have killed Argentine prisoners of war and American mercenaries.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/police-inquiry-on-execution-of-falklands-pows-1541308.html

Stovepipe

Hi there,
the only incident where an Argentinian was deliberately shot outside of combat was when an Argentinian, grossly wounded by an ammunition explosion and surrounded by burning fuel and ammunition, was shot as an act of mercy. The British were criticised for using PoWs to deal with scattered ammunition, but they stated that they were using Argentinian Sappers and ATOs, as well as general PoWs, none of whom were under duress, to deal with huge amounts of often badly stored ammunition of all sizes. With regard to alleged American mercenaries, many Argentinians had good English, some were educated in the USA (and the UK) and some were found to have dual citizenship of more than just America.

regards
Stovepipe

Fratton Fred

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

It is an excellent book one of the best war books and it begs the question
Why would he make it up, if it was false, the war crimes?

Because otherwise it would be just another book about the Falklands conflict.

Fratton Fred

tac foley wrote: »

Yup, totally true, I remember that the officer i/c the firing squad was actually the Tooth Fairy disguised as Arnold Schwarzenegger. :mad: x 10

Wasn't there one about the Gurkha's eating the bodies of dead Argentinians as well?

mattjack

I read that book when it came out first, the copy I have is one of the originals.The author does mention American mercenaries being executed , there is or was an investigation , I can remember media reports on TV, newspapers etc about the execution but I dont think anything came of it .

The only witness record is Bramleys account , no para or Argentine witness could be found .

mattjack

Stovepipe wrote: »

Hi there,
the only incident where an Argentinian was deliberately shot outside of combat was when an Argentinian, grossly wounded by an ammunition explosion and surrounded by burning fuel and ammunition, was shot as an act of mercy. The British were criticised for using PoWs to deal with scattered ammunition, but they stated that they were using Argentinian Sappers and ATOs, as well as general PoWs, none of whom were under duress, to deal with huge amounts of often badly stored ammunition of all sizes. With regard to alleged American mercenaries, many Argentinians had good English, some were educated in the USA (and the UK) and some were found to have dual citizenship of more than just America.

regards
Stovepipe

There's an account of that soldier in the book, both legs and both arms blown off and on fire .An act of mercy ?

tac foley

mattjack wrote: »

There's an account of that soldier in the book, both legs and both arms blown off and on fire .An act of mercy ?

I think I'd be grateful.

tac

tac foley

mattjack wrote: »

The only witness record is Bramleys account , no para or Argentine witness could be found .

How, uh, odd. :rolleyes:

tac

mattjack

tac foley wrote: »

How, uh, odd. :rolleyes:

tac

Dunno bout yourself, but I'm inclined not to believe it.

tac foley

mattjack wrote: »

Dunno bout yourself, but I'm inclined not to believe it.

Blood sells books.

tac

Cork boy 55

killing of prisoners/enemy wounded or people trying to surrender is very common in wartime
during battles or just after them especially so in battles of the nature of mount Longdon (heavy assault , nighttime, heavy casualties, hand to hand fighting and so on)
It would be unusual and surprising if they where not incidents during the war.

---

Here is a quite long piece in the independent newspaper story(1993) on Vince and his book also deals with the reports of prisoner killing and ear-cuttings of bodies including interviews with Soldier X the guy that shot the "yanks"(alleged)
This was a big story back in the early 1990's.
As well as soldier X there is Captain Mason who had made an official written complaint about one of the alleged shootings(there are several incidents) to both the army and Labour MP Tam Dalyell and Lieut-Col Parker
who confirmed to independent that this complaint exists.

On Mount Longdon: Parachute Regiment came back from the Falklands with their reputation for bravery reinforced. But two years ago, they were accused of atrocities by one of their own. Now others are speaking out

---
For the first time, however, the events described by Bramley have been confirmed by other paratroopers. Several are still serving, and for obvious reasons have not wished to be quoted, but others, angered by what they see as an official conspiracy to discredit a former comrade-in-arms, have spoken for the first time. Their words confirm Bramley's, and paint a darker picture of the battle and its aftermath than any that has so far emerged.

---

'It (the events after Mount Longdon) was just something that happened . . .' he says. 'The Geneva Convention is just a guideline. Phosphorus isn't allowed, for example, but we had phosphorus grenades. They were issued to us.' In common with many of his former colleagues, Bramley considers that the screaming aggression induced by close-quarter battle is incompatible with 'reasonable' behaviour.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/on-mount-longdon-parachute-regiment-came-back-from-the-falklands-with-their-reputation-for-bravery-reinforced-but-two-years-ago-they-were-accused-of-atrocities-by-one-of-their-own-now-others-are-speaking-out-2323239.html

delta-boy

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

killing of prisoners/enemy wounded or people trying to surrender is very common in wartime
during battles or just after them especially so in battles of the nature of mount Longdon (heavy assault , nighttime, heavy casualties, hand to hand fighting and so on)
It would be unusual and surprising if they where not incidents during the war.

---

Here is a quite long piece in the independent newspaper story(1993) on Vince and his book also deals with the reports of prisoner killing and ear-cuttings of bodies including interviews with Soldier X the guy that shot the "yanks"(alleged)
This was a big story back in the early 1990's.
As well as soldier X there is Captain Mason who had made an official written complaint about one of the alleged shootings(there are several incidents) to both the army and Labour MP Tam Dalyell and Lieut-Col Parker
who confirmed to independent that this complaint exists.







http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/on-mount-longdon-parachute-regiment-came-back-from-the-falklands-with-their-reputation-for-bravery-reinforced-but-two-years-ago-they-were-accused-of-atrocities-by-one-of-their-own-now-others-are-speaking-out-2323239.html

You are quoting us stuff from 1993? Doubtful that this happened... This article is older than me by the way.

tac foley

.....and where is this story now?

I call BS on the whole thing. Call me a cynic if you will.

What about digging up an earlier, well-documented AND eyewitnessed massacre by English troops if stirring the cr$p is the way this post is going?

The massacre of a couple of thousand unarmed French POWs at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415.

Quote - 'Regardless of when the baggage assault happened, at some point after the initial English victory Henry became alarmed that the French were regrouping for another attack. The Gesta Henrici places this after the English had overcome the onslaught of the French men-at-arms and the weary English troops were eyeing the French rearguard ("in incomparable number and still fresh" [Le Fevre and Wavrin similarly say that it was signs of the French rearguard regrouping and "marching forward in battle order" which made the English think they were still in danger.

In any event, Henry ordered the slaughter of what were perhaps several thousand French prisoners, sparing only the most high ranked—presumably most likely to fetch a large ransom. Henry's fear was that the prisoners would rearm themselves with the weapons strewn about the field, and that the exhausted English would be overwhelmed. Though ruthless, it was arguably justifiable given the situation of the battle; even the French chroniclers do not criticise him for it. This marked the end of the battle, as the French rearguard, having seen so many of the French nobility captured and killed, fled the battlefield.

Now that REALLY happened.

tac

sheesh

Dogwatch wrote: »

No, you don't. You just made it up!!!!!!!!

Sorry But i didn't

tac foley wrote: »

Yup, totally true, I remember that the officer i/c the firing squad was actually the Tooth Fairy disguised as Arnold Schwarzenegger. :mad: x 10

Where do you find cr*p like this?

The British Army and Royal Marines, just like the Royal Air Force, and every other military force in NATO, are signed up to the Geneva Convention regarding the conduct of military personnel in general warfare.

tac

long range shooter wrote: »

Well said,Tac.
The Geneva convention is quite clear when it comes to POWs,and it doesn't matter if you are a soldier,mercenary,insurgent or civilian;)

sorry all I didn't mean to cause offense

KickstartHeart

That depends on the classification of the conflict. Non-International Armed Conflict, or International Armed Conflict. The latter is a war between two states. The first is a legal term for a civil war or a war of that nature. Classifying mercenaries as combatants can be challenging enough legally, especially in non-international armed conflicts.

There's a lot of loop holes in International Humanitarian Law and the LOAC re: mercs. A lot of companies are getting away with activities that are illegal under the laws of armed conflict.

Classification of the conflict is the major challenge, and the laws of armed conflict are very very out dated and unfortunately are not very adaptable as it gets tougher to apply them to new types of conflicts. For example the war in Afghanistan has been described by academics as an Internationalized Non-International Armed Conflict. No such category exists under IHL or LOAC.




To answer your question, its quite a grey area unless they are specifically defined as combatants, and they're acts in combat can be proven. The Law of Armed Conflict and IHL sounds like it has an answer for everything in war, but in reality it has out dated laws and its slow as hell to react to changes in the wars and conflicts are fought. There is very little accountability for mercenaries.


You'll find pretty much all you'll need to get a grip of the laws of war here: http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/index.jsp

KickstartHeart

I also forgot to add, mercenaries, like those in the Congo conducting hostilities against the UN forces were usually hired via adverts that didn't link them to hostilities in newspapers. Most of the merc's that fought against the UN in the Congo were ex-French Army, ex-British Army, ex-Belgian Army, and some Irish too. However, guys like them get away with a lot of what they do under IHL and LOAC as they are hired as 'consultants'.

In the case of the lads in the Congo, they were basically the officer corps of the Katangan Army and hired by Moise Tshombe as consultants, even though they were actually engaged in and conducting hostilities. Once again, the mercs get away with it.

You should read A Company Action by Dan Harvey. Its about a company of an Irish battalion who were in combat from before their plane even landed in the Congo (they were under fire from the ground on arrival). They were one of the company's involved in Op Sarsfield where the Irish battalion along with Indian and Nigerian comrades fought to take the initiative in the city of Elizabethville, and fought hard in a multi-company attack for a railway bridge at the entrance to the city against Tshombe's gendarmes army and their foreign mercinary officer corps. Its a great book, it explains a lot about the mercenaries and they way they operated, and how Tshombe ran his fierce little military with funding and support from British, French and Belgian businesses with vested interests in the illegal secession of Katanga from the rest of Congo.

Its a great read if you don't mind the horrible details of combat with a ruthless enemy and firing air burst rounds from anti tank weapons over enemy machine gun nests and vaporizing them shrapnel.

KickstartHeart

tac foley wrote: »

Yup, totally true, I remember that the officer i/c the firing squad was actually the Tooth Fairy disguised as Arnold Schwarzenegger. :mad: x 10

Where do you find cr*p like this?

The British Army and Royal Marines, just like the Royal Air Force, and every other military force in NATO, are signed up to the Geneva Convention regarding the conduct of military personnel in general warfare.

tac

True but that doesn't mean they've followed the Geneva Conventions or their additional protocols fully. I don't know what that guy is talking about executions for because I've studied the Falklands war quite a lot and from what I've seen no such thing occurred, but there were some minor breaches of the Laws of Armed Conflict by British combatants during the Falklands war. The cases were only discovered long after the conflict and those involved were not brought forward for prosecution, nor was the British government held accountable. That's another issue with the laws of war, its all well and good when its on paper but you'll find there's not a lot of accountability.


EDIT: Turns out that he may have been right and we might been wrong re: executions in the Falklands. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/falklands-prisoners-executed-1367713.html

tac foley

KickstartHeart wrote: »

EDIT: Turns out that he may have been right and we might been wrong re: executions in the Falklands. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/falklands-prisoners-executed-1367713.html

And even THAT is dated 1994.

Quote from it - 'The Ministry of Defence said last night that it was unaware of the latest allegations. A spokesman added: 'The point that seems to have come across generally from the Argentine soldiers involved is that they felt that the British soldiers on the whole treated them with the utmost fairness and decency.'

Nothing has been heard since then......at least, nothing that I could easily find.

Spreading sh!te about the British in general, and here, focussing on their alleged conduct in war seems to be a popular pastime on this forum, so, in the spirit of sharing, I'll do a bit of muck-spreading myself, and point out the large numbers of unarmed prisoners blown up, made to walk across mined roads, burnt alive, or simply shot out of hand in the Irish Civil War by the Free State Army. All this was well-documented and publicised at the time - even openly boasted about in certain quarters, and is part of the history of Ireland.

I'll leave it at that now, and let the rest of you get on with it.

tac

mattjack

tac foley wrote: »

And even THAT is dated 1994.

Quote from it - 'The Ministry of Defence said last night that it was unaware of the latest allegations. A spokesman added: 'The point that seems to have come across generally from the Argentine soldiers involved is that they felt that the British soldiers on the whole treated them with the utmost fairness and decency.'

Nothing has been heard since then......at least, nothing that I could easily find.

Spreading sh!te about the British in general, and here, focussing on their alleged conduct in war seems to be a popular pastime on this forum, so, in the spirit of sharing, I'll do a bit of muck-spreading myself, and point out the large numbers of unarmed prisoners blown up, made to walk across mined roads, burnt alive, or simply shot out of hand in the Irish Civil War by the Free State Army. All this was well-documented and publicised at the time - even openly boasted about in certain quarters, and is part of the history of Ireland.

I'll leave it at that now, and let the rest of you get on with it.

tac

One or two of us were tending to agree with you.

sheesh

tac foley wrote: »

And even THAT is dated 1994.


Spreading sh!te about the British in general, and here, focussing on their alleged conduct in war seems to be a popular pastime on this forum, so, in the spirit of sharing, I'll do a bit of muck-spreading myself, and point out the large numbers of unarmed prisoners blown up, made to walk across mined roads, burnt alive, or simply shot out of hand in the Irish Civil War by the Free State Army. All this was well-documented and publicised at the time - even openly boasted about in certain quarters, and is part of the history of Ireland.

I'll leave it at that now, and let the rest of you get on with it.

tac

I didn't mean it as a sh1t stirring comment about british army.

I actually thought it was legal to do as they were not members of a countries Army so it was done as a deterrent.

Also I would point out this is an Irish forum ocassional anti British comment is to be expected. like a scottish forum would be anti english. or indeed a french, German or american.

Again I apologise. I should not even be here having connection to the military.

KickstartHeart

tac foley wrote: »

And even THAT is dated 1994.

Quote from it - 'The Ministry of Defence said last night that it was unaware of the latest allegations. A spokesman added: 'The point that seems to have come across generally from the Argentine soldiers involved is that they felt that the British soldiers on the whole treated them with the utmost fairness and decency.'

Nothing has been heard since then......at least, nothing that I could easily find.

Spreading sh!te about the British in general, and here, focussing on their alleged conduct in war seems to be a popular pastime on this forum, so, in the spirit of sharing, I'll do a bit of muck-spreading myself, and point out the large numbers of unarmed prisoners blown up, made to walk across mined roads, burnt alive, or simply shot out of hand in the Irish Civil War by the Free State Army. All this was well-documented and publicised at the time - even openly boasted about in certain quarters, and is part of the history of Ireland.

I'll leave it at that now, and let the rest of you get on with it.

tac

Not exactly trying to stir sh!te about the British Army. I'm just trying to point out that questions have been raised about breaches of the laws of war by HM's forces during the Falklands war. If you want to play tit for tat like that I'm fairly confident that the British Army has a significantly larger amount of skeletons in its closet than the the Irish Defence Forces or the Free State Army combined. Relax a bit there mate. This isn't sh!te stirring or having a go at the British Army. This is debate about things that might or might not have happened. Not all of us who don't/haven't served in the British Army are complete anti-brits, and some of us like to discuss things without trying to come across as just that.

mattjack

tac foley wrote: »

One thing you got right there, Sir. Neither the PDF nor its predecessor, the Free State Army has ever been involved in any general war, anywhere on the planet, in their entire existence, and are therefore, unremarkably, much less likely to have been involved in any accusation of conduct that does not follow the Rules of Engagement between declared combatants.

Those 'breaches of the laws of war' questions seem to have resurrected from their 19-year-old grave expressly for that purpose, so if not making for waves/accusations/pointing fingers, and muck-raking, what then IS the point of this thread?

tac

I thought you were not going to post here any more.

tac foley

Darnit. You got me there.

tac