Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
Legal status: I suspect that the Internal Troops are indeed legally Gendarmies, which means that they are subject to the same treatment as any other internal force. For example, American Police officers oath, is identical to that of soldiers, except for the "juridiction of". So, I "X" do solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, agaisnt all enemies, foreign and domestic, in the jurisdiction "Y." In the unlikely case of an invasion, US police/sheriffs would act as the "light infantry. So Internal Troops would be treated as troops, rather than civillians. I am not 100% sure, but pretty sure. Other than that, i don't think they rate any official status as "soldiers," but again, I suspect they have the same status as the local border patrol/ coast guard. That they are civillian in peace, soldiers in war... --V. Joe05:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Reviewing over, I have additional thoughts about the status of the Internal Troops. If you have a gun and fight in an uniform, you are probably soldiers according to the laws of war. Therefore, gendarmes are closer in status to the United States Coast Guard (which assists the Navy during times of war). Most prominently, many of the bosun's at Normandy were Coastguardsmen, and not sailors. Additionally, part of the chain of command during John Kerry's stay in Viet Nam were USCG officers. If they are indeed deeply involved in the Chechen conflict/war/revolution/whatever, it doesn't surprise me that the international media has mislabeled them as "Russian Soldiers/ Russian Army". Especially as very few reporters outside of the US or UK have any expierence in millitary matters, and even in the US media, reporters are often dreadfully confused about the most basic "Army stuff." and occasionally mistake soldiers, airmen and Marines with each other, and even American and British troops at a distance. (They wear different variations of camoflauge and carry slightly different weapons. Also, the Union Jack on the sleeve is a dead giveaway :)). I'm going to do a minor edit for grammar, etc in this new addition. Thanks: V. Joe05:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: not checked
