Even the old “state v non-state actor” issue is clear on this one - irregardless of human morality and basic decency:
If legit army, they must get full protections (IDF says no, int’l law is dubious for Al-Qassam - Hamas has command structure and salaries, but often skips uniforms and hides among the populace)
If not legit army, must be treated with protection offered to civilians UNTIL a court gets involved and adjudicates them to not be just civilians
The physical or mental health and integrity of persons who are in the power of the adverse Party or who are interned, detained or otherwise deprived of liberty as a result of a situation referred to in Article 1 shall not be endangered by any unjustified act or omission
[further down in same text]
Article 45 - Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities
A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war… Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an offence arising out of the hostilities, he shall have the right to assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial tribunal and to have that question adjudicated…[more legalese and closing loopholes]…
Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol. In occupied territory, any such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention.
Just say regardless. The ir- negates something that already negates in the way you want. Its only fun to say, it very unfunly negates everything you say after it
Even the old “state v non-state actor” issue is clear on this one - irregardless of human morality and basic decency:
[further down in same text]
Just say regardless. The ir- negates something that already negates in the way you want. Its only fun to say, it very unfunly negates everything you say after it