From: Michelle Thompson <mthompso@qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 11:48:52 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Assassination Politics, is now Mercenarial Stuff
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960919011631.002f9c0c@strange.qualcomm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>From: kwheeler@intellinet.com
>Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 20:08:18 -0500
>X-Sender: kwheeler@intellinet.com
>To: Michelle Thompson <mthompso>
>Subject: Re: Assassination Politics, is now Mercenarial Stuff
>
>Loosely the term mercenary means one who does a job solely for
>profit.  Technically, as outlined in Article 47 of Protocol I 
>Additional to the Geneva Convention of 1949:
>
>" 2. A mercenary is a person who:
>
> (a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to
>     fight in an armed conflict;
>
> (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
>
> (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities by the desire
>     for private gain, and, in fact, is promised by or on behalf
>     of a party to the conflict, material compensation substaintially
>     in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of _simliar_
>     ranks (my added emphasis -KMW) and functions in the armed forces
>     of that party;
>
> (d) is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of
>     terrritory controlled by a part to the conflict;
>
> (e) is not a memeber of the armed forces of a party to the conflict;
>"
>
>
>The foreign legions of France, Spain, and Libya are considered to be
>part of the armed forces of those nations, and therefore, strictly speaking,
>personnel enlisted in these forces are _not_ mercenaries.
>
>I had to go dig that info up to see if I had remembered things
>somewhat correctly...
>
>-K
>
>
>