I’m not sure if this should go in GD, GQ, or IMHO. I started to flip a coin but then realized that since I had three possibilities I’d be better off throwing dice, and then I said fuck it. Anyway…
This reads like an absolute. In practice, could there ever be extenuating circumstances?
Say I am a Marine staff sergeant whose squad has been tasked with evacuating a group of civilians from a war zone. Through ill fortune, most of my comrades have fallen; it comes down to me and a couple of privates. It’s clear that the enemy is killing American servicemen on sight but are taking civilians as hostages, but won’t balk at killing civilians as collateral damage.
If the group finds itself cornered by a superior force–and Captain America is nowhere in sight–may I legally order my two remaining subordinates to surrender? May I do so ethically? Honorably? Why or why not?
Persons who feel that the military is categorically evil and that all American servicemen are baby-eating rapists are encouraged to in another thread rather than relieving their bowels in this one.
It seems the key phrase here is “means to resist”. That doesn’t mean you have a rifle and ammunition still. If you’re surrounded with no hope, you’re allowed to surrender, even though you can still fire your weapon.
Yes, you may. The Code of Conduct is a guideline, not a legal document, and has no force of law. It is also not a suicide pact.
If your choices are death or surrender in your scenario, surrender is preferable. In the after-action debriefing your actions will be judged against the UCMJ and the Code of Conduct, but that judgment will be made in light of the circumstances you found yourself in.
Ultimately, the reason that was placed into the CoC is because they didn’t want soldiers surrendering positions just because they didn’t like getting shot at.
Leaving my lawyer hat off, and looking at the situation from a pragmatic point of view, a lot depends on exactly who you’re fighting. If we’re at war with regular forces of someone known to at least pay lip service to the Geneva Conventions, surrender might possibly be an option in some circumstances. If we’re fighting irregulars…terrorists, etc…then the calculation changes. I think my inclination would be to tell the civilians to run like hell while I play Horatio at the bridge. If any civilians survive, they can tell my brother’s grandchildren I earned my spot in Valhalla.
If your pragmatic hat is on, mustn’t you also consider the likelihood of the civilians escaping?
If all lines of escape are cut off, then the Horatio scenario just increases their chances of catching a bullet meant for you.
Of course, if the sergeant’s analysis of the situation is correct, there willbe no after-action debriefing. He will be dead, and neither Aslan nor Odin bothers with such things.
My assumption was that surrender would save his life and those of his men as they would then be captives. However, if as you say the enemy is killing soldiers on sight and the Marine has no reason to assume that surrender will lead to anything but the death of himself and his men, he cannot surrender or compel his men to.
The enemy is killing soldiers* on sight, but taking civilians hostage. Taking that last word literally, it would mean that they’re ransoming them off or perhaps using them for propaganda purposes. But they’re not killing them except collaterally. If they’re truly cornered, the Marines trying to fight increases the civilians’ peril rather than decreases it.
The Marines are goners either way, of course. Absent Captain America.
*Yeah, yeah, I know, technically we shouldn’t call servicemen not in the Army soldiers. But the colloquial meaning of soldier includes Marines and anyway AD-USAF started it.
This is why most Victim’s Guides strongly suggest not depending on burned out manic depressives with delusions of Valhalla. Once Aslan sees the civilians caught one meant for me, he’ll give them a pass. He knows I ain’t a tame lion either.
Just to nitpick your hypothetical, a squad roughly amounts to 10 or so personnel. A mission like that would be a platoon-level one at the very least, with platoons amounting to 30 or more personnel, depending on how many squads were in it. At least one of the personnel would also have a radio so they could call higher and advise them of the situation and/or call for artillery or air support. And if it were a platoon-level mission which resulted in most of the platoon being wiped out, that would certainly make it easier to argue that the circumstances (massive casualties, cut off from allied or supporting forces, little chance of escape to reach friendly lines) justified surrendering.
There is also Article 99 of the UCMJ to consider, however, which forbids
While this certainly does not forbid surrender, it generally requires that it truly be a last resort.
I agree that article 99 seems to say that, but if you look in the original post, the enemies are not deliberately killing civilians, only if they are collateral damage. So by surrendering and allowing them to kill the soldiers, the civilians will only be captured for whatever arcane result the enemy has for civilians [tea and cookies?]
If it is a case where my death and that of the other couple of soldiers with me will save a mass of civilians, the numbers of which the OP didnt mention, then it would be reasonable to allow the sacrifice of lives. The original mission wold end up being carried out, the civilians would be saved and not killed. It might take them a while for repatriation, but they would be alive.
Ransom, surely. As somebody pointed out upthread, I think, forces behaving this way are surely irregulars, not giving even lip service to the Geneva Convention or the laws of war; and no mention has been made of them separating out women and children and killing men, as might be expected in the other unpleasant alternatives. These guys have to be brigands.
If, as the OP stated, the enemy won’t balk at civilian deaths resulting from collateral damage, which likely means that they would feel no remorse or regret about them, then the enemy in this scenario likely wouldn’t hesitate to use civilians as human shields, either. Human shields can be used in at least two basic ways - either place them in or around a military target to try and prevent an opposing force from targeting and destroying it or placing them in and around a military target (or advertising a civilian target as a military target), letting the opposing force destroy it and using the inevitable and planned civilian casualties as evidence of the opposing force’s illegal brutality in a PR war.
I can’t see how that matters, unless you mean to argue that the Marines should kill their own charges rather than allow them to be captured. And while I don’t know that the UCMJ forbids that explicitly, I expect such a prohibition is certainly implied. :dubious:
As aruvqan observes, the situation is so weighted that surrendering, even though it surely brings death to the Marines, furthers their mission. And some might argue that solidarity with their fallen buddies also requires it.
It matters in the sense that surrendering will not likely further the Marines’ mission, which is to ensure the freedom and safety of the civilians. They are certainly not free as hostages and they are not safe in the hands of any force that has no qualms about civilian collateral damage whatsoever and in fact intends to use them as hostages.
The Marines wouldn’t be tasked with this mission in the first place if the enemy had publicly stated and demonstrated they had no intention of harming any civilians in their custody and the free civilians caught in the middle of the battle could walk themselves out.
There’s no freedom & safety if the civilians are dead.
I know it may sound like I think the Marines should fight, but in fact I don’t know. If I were the sergeant and genuinely believed the bit about the enemy killing soldiers and sparing civilians, my first thought would be ransom–but human shields and trafficking wouldn’t be far behind, and I’d worry that I’d be doing my charges no favor by letting them be captured alive.
