[Here’s](But the British government said they are not legally binding on the British soldiers.) a cite. Also worth noting is the British reaction:
Yep, that Iraq, that’s a real sovereign nation, sure is.
Naw, this is different.
Don’t ask me, because I can’t tell you how. And don’t ask the British because they can’t tell you how.
But I assure you it’s different.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens when the Iraqi “government” asks the Good Guys to leave.
-Joe
Pjen, whether you wear a uniform makes no difference as to whether your actions are moral or immoral. Shooting civilians doesn’t magically become OK just because you put on a uniform that identifies you as a member of the British armed forces.
Likewise, spying isn’t moral or immoral because someone was or wasn’t wearing a uniform. Likewise, shooting an enemy soldier doesn’t become moral or immoral based on whether you were wearing a uniform or he was wearing a uniform.
The Geneva convention doesn’t make it moral to shoot the other guy, it just means that nations that subscribe to the Geneva convention won’t attempt to try enemy soldiers for murder just because the enemy soldiers were attempting to shoot their soldiers. This has two good effects, one, it makes it more likely for the enemy to treat your soldiers the same, two, it makes enemy soldiers more likely to surrender if they know they won’t be executed out of hand.
Is it immoral for Britain to spy on Germany? Is it immoral for Germany to spy on Britain? No, and no. Is it immoral to shoot someone? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t, whether you or he are wearing a uniform has nothing to do with it.