War Crimes/Law question

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

OK, given the following scenario:

Two military personnel, both in uniform and potentially armed, are in the only hospital of the city they are stationed in. One is a medic and is giving medical attention to the other, who is wounded but not incapacitated. They serve in the legitimate government's army as combat personnel.

A sympathizer and potential agent of the local resistance fighters enters, and begins talking with the two soldiers, as the medic continues treating the other's wounds. A few minutes later, the soldiers notice two rebel warriors storming the building, one in uniform and one not, and they obviously have hostile intentions. The rebel soldiers are not interested in prisoners. Knowing this, both military soldiers draw sidearms and open fire as the resistance fighters enter the room. The sympathizer immediately begins attacking the medic. Both troopers are quickly killed.

---

Now, from what I gather the two resistance fighters not in uniform are illegal combatants. Are they also at fault for interfering with enemy Red Cross operations? Or is that negated since the troopers armed themselves and opened fire on enemies that were going to kill them anyways? Who are the war criminals and how?

[Montcalm]

The war criminals are those storming a hospital with the intention of killing anyone,regardless if they are wounded soldiers or army medics.

[Traceroute]

Medics are allowed to fight in self defense without violating any laws, too.

[Master of Ossus]

The rebels out of uniform are to blame. Medics can fight back in self-defense, but the Red Cross doesn't figure into this because that organization was not involved (two soldiers were).

[Sea Skimmer]

Medical personal can fight and carry weapons and in turn it is acceptable to kill anyone holding a weapon. However it is a war crime to use hospitals for military operations and bringing armed personal such as the medic in question could be considered illegal.

However like most such laws, if the enemy breaks it first such as in the case of Iraq using hospitals for military command posts then the enemy, in that case the United State is no longer bound to that law and can do the same, it can also fire on such building.

In your example the armed medic might be committing a crime, not by killing the rebels but by having a weapon in the building.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

but the Red Cross doesn't figure into this because that organization was not involved (two soldiers were).

D'oh, was thinking too much Geneva convention.

Anyways, thanks for the responses everyone. I should have been more clear that the medic in question is a combat medic, i.e., fights with the troops on the front lines. The hospital is also the only medical facility for hundreds of miles, and the medic is the only person currently available with medical training. Does any of that have an effect on the situation?

[Sea Skimmer]

D'oh, was thinking too much Geneva convention.

Anyways, thanks for the responses everyone. I should have been more clear that the medic in question is a combat medic, i.e., fights with the troops on the front lines. The hospital is also the only medical facility for hundreds of miles, and the medic is the only person currently available with medical training. Does any of that have an effect on the situation?

No, the laws don't grant such exceptions that I'm aware of and I can't see why they would, he just needs to leave his weapon behind at the door. You're not going to have a medic without a substantial unit of infantry around as well.

Anyway its highly unlikely that such a solider would be ever charged with a war crime, but politically it could come up and its repetition could quickly lead to the enemy no longer respecting hospitals.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

No, the laws don't grant such exceptions that I'm aware of and I can't see why they would, he just needs to leave his weapon behind at the door. You're not going to have a medic without a substantial unit of infantry around as well.

Anyway its highly unlikely that such a solider would be ever charged with a war crime, but politically it could come up and its repetition could quickly lead to the enemy no longer respecting hospitals.

OK, thanks.

[Glass Pearl Player]

Now, from what I gather the two resistance fighters not in uniform are illegal combatants.

Go and see if you can find the term "illegal combatant" in the following document
http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm

or in any other relevant document you can find, and then tell me. I'd really like to knwo the definition of an "illlegal combatant".

NOTE: Just because the bad guy doesn't wear an uniform, doesn't mean that you need not treat him as a POW.

A note on talibans:
See Article 4, Paragraph A, sub-paragraph 6. Doesn't that fit to a recent conflict ???

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
[points 1..5]
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
[...]
Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Knowing this, both military soldiers draw sidearms and open fire as the resistance fighters enter the room.

If they can't hit and kill two enemies that are standing just at the other side of the room, they deserve to die. If they do shoot, the Geneva convention does not apply, because they are in fighting shape and not putting down their guns. If the resistance fighters refuse a surrender, however, they are in clear violation of the Geneva convention.

Here you can read the relevant convention.

[EDIT] D'uh. Maybe I should read the links BEFORE I post them. Article 22 of above link states that the medic may be armed at all times, and that the other guy may be excused if he didn't have time to return his weapon to the unit.