Talk:Civilian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Human rights (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

[Untitled][edit]

Hmm. to whomever... please read the part on collateral damage in the Atrocity article and see if you have a disagreement. if you do, please say so on the talk page there.

The notions expressed here with regard to it being ok to kill civilians as long as theres a military objective, smacks of murderous moral relativism, which is situational ethics - and this is contradictory to any moral code - not the course a warrior caste is developing toward, especially in the usa, where we attempt at least to strive for principle. ---Sv

Actually, relative to civilian police... The term should be "citizen" rather than "civilian". - Curt

First Paragraph[edit]

Who says that the police are not civilians? GCIII does not list them as lawful combatants, there for they must be civilians. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Civilians and war[edit]

protected person. The article curruntly says

Under the Fourth Geneva Convention it is a war crime to deliberately attack a non-combatant civilian or wantonly and unnecessarily destroy or take the property of a civilian

Under Which article is this protection given? I think this is wrong because the Fourth Geneva Convention relates to the protection of civilians during times of war "in the hands" of an enemy and under any occupation by a foreign power. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)my name is robert ramos i live in wasco ca