If you purposely leave the markings off....is that in reality a marked....unmarked aircraft? Now on the other hand...if one were to remove markings would that be the same as not marking the aircraft on purpose. Although the end result would be the same....the intent would altogether different...that is in the first case one is not trying to prevent someone from knowing the identity of the aircraft while in the latter case,one is intentionally preventing some one from knowing what the identity of the aircraft is. To complicate this situation, if a marking is improperly applied due to technical defect, would that in itself constitute a disguised marking or would it rather count as a marking although not intentionally deceptive. If a third party took any kind of action based upon the lack of markings, the removal of markings, or a defective marking, would they then be liable in international court for that action. Would they by rights of the concept of "burden of knowledge" premise of law have a valid defense?
Hang on....I have gotten myself confused here. Maybe I better start over and see if I can state my questions in a simpler manner.
When you find yourself facing a squad of riflemen and your back is to the wall....does it matter why you wound up there? Really...it is not like you are going to win an appeal after the fact!
