World Eater: I did state in that thread what I’d do.
The real shame of it, is that it detracts from the point that Monty never answered the question, which should have been the point of this thread. Now that we’re off on this tangent he probably never will.
Yeah right the SOP thing. Why don’t you restate you answer and save us all the effort of reviewing your cryptic posts.
Aw dammit, Lynn. Now you went and made me feel bad about a Pit post. 
For the record, I don’t have any complaint with Gus’s writing skills. On that count, I was just playing off Monty’s comment. I do, however, have a problem with his repeated nonsequiturs and his attempt to intimidate Monty with talk of a real life confrontation. He’s behaving like a dumbass, and that’s why I called him one, though that obviously got lost in the attempted humor. To the extent that comment could be construed as a low blow based on anything in Gus’s real life (about which I know nothing at all), I certainly apologize to him.
What the heck’s so cryptic about me saying I’d obey the law? Must I define every single word in the sentence?
And yet, I’m still curious about what ol’ Gus says he knows about my service record.
How about expanding on it, instead of a “I would follow the law and the SOP”
I was just curious, seeing how you shot down the various courses of action, without putting your own forward.
Whether or not Monty has been in combat is not germane to his replies. He never said what he actually did, or what he was trained to do in the circumstances set out in the OP. I have not been in combat, as I stated very clearly in the other thread. Noone ever shot at me, and I never shot at anyone else. That is my definition of combat. That being said, I was awarded the Combat Action Ribbon, as were way too many other people in the Gulf War. I watched men die. I watched enemy tank turrets flip what seemed like 100 feet in the air after being struck my ours. My vehicle was damaged by artillery rounds that were cooking off in an abondoned Iraqi position, but not by incoming rounds. I was personally awarded for bravery, but not under the conditions that are prescribed for the V Device. My (rather large) position was harrassed by sniper fire. But I did not personally see combat, and I would correct anyone who said I did.
minty green, my first post was from actual orders and experience. My second post was a cite from Marine Corps Reference Publication, in which I restated dilemma of the OP, then stated that killing the man is a War Crime. My third post was a clarification of actual experience mentioned before and a re-telling of the data in the same Marine Corps Reference Publication cited before. So far, all factual and GQ worthy. chula dives into the situation stated in the OP, and surmises that letting the enemy go is the only available option. Then the clairobscur says the original question is answered, then “expands” it to what Spec Ops instructions may be, which are not gonna be posted here. GusNSpot, in an annoying fashion, began the hypothetical challenges.
Monty correctly pointed out “hogtie-and-abandon” is legally wrong, to which I immediately agreed.
Then we departed the GQ style posting.
The OP was not answerable so that we followed the law. Monty repeatedly stated that he had answered what he would do, which I see as “follow the law”. I would surmise he would release the prisoner and let him free if it was not feasible to capture him. He would technically be in violation of Article 99, but that is the lesser offense. He would also open his unit up for destruction, but no War Crimes Trial for him!
If I am wrong here, Monty, please correct me with specific actions you would take, and which laws would you choose to break.
He would do what any other person in uniform would do. He would make a decision, stick to it, and face whatever consequences come after.
Review boards are composed of all sorts of people, but all of those people have common sense. A violation of the Geneva Conventions in this case, with the exception of murder, would almost certainly be forgiven. The Geneva Conventions don’t cover every bizarro eventuality.
When I asked what to do in certain situations at Survival School, the response was invariably “The Geneva Conventions state…”. The implication was that the decision was left to me, but there could be consequences. So, barring an actual example, the appropriate answer is going to be vague and ambiguous, because everyone would do something different in that situation.
Not that you needed my help, Monty, but there you go anyway. 
And I believe I agreed above that orders from a superior in actual experience was a legitimate GQ answer, as manny himself indicated.
Which is the same point Monty has been making.
Yep, precisely so.
Yep, precisely so. That’s kinda the crux of the problem here, isn’t it?
Nor is it answerable, in the sense appropriate for GQ, by speculating and making stuff up as you go along. It’s simply the wrong forum for that kind of debate. Monty is by no means at fault for attempting to stick with a GQ answer in the GQ forum.
If I am wrong here, Monty, please correct me with specific actions you would take, and which laws would you choose to break.
Oops. That last sentence was actually leftover quoted text from UncleBill. Sorry for the confusion.
Yes, hence WWMD. We were just wondering what specific actions he would take in lieu of the safe “follow the law and SOP”.
UncleBills’s response wasn’t vague.
The GQ Forum may have been inappropriate for that discussion, but we did have the actual experiences of ExTank and myself, having orders counter to the letter of the Geneva Convention, explaining what happened when our units did not accept prisoners and take them under our protective custody. Further guestions that departed fact were asked, and attempts were made to respond to a specific hypothetical situation, in a factual forum. That was not the place to do that, I agree.
This forum is not so factual. What WOULD Monty do?
It all depends on your definition of do.
That was the kind of answers I was asking for when I “expanded” the OP question…
These “real life” examples too were the kind of infos I was expecting…
Why Monty.
The people you told it to have no stake in this. I disagree with things you said and have been saying for years. So, I asked around long ago and found out what you did in your military career. So, you lied to them? (really not going to go there unless you really want to push it.)
You speak of rules because that is all you know and have never had to make the choice. And IMO, to make absolute statements about what you have not had to do makes you (since I have only one trick) a user of smoke and mirrors about yourself because you apparently have some kind of problem with / about your actual experience. Like the man said, they don’t care, and that is your audience, not the actual combat veterans because they know how it really is. IMO, everyone should face reality, just like I have to face the fact that I don’t fit in here all that well. So what, nothing to be ashamed of even if some like to feel it by playing that superior card, makes them feel… ::: shrug :::
You can blame this on the board hamsters. I did not see you much lately because I could not get here enough to see more than one or two posts a day.
Now I can and once again you do the same as always.
You are like a pilot I know. He has a pilots license and very little experience and has worked as an ramp hand for 20+ years. When in groups of pilots and the discussion becomes picky, unrealistic and not at all like the real flying world, he can throw FAR’s all over the place. ( Federal Aviation Regulations) and get in non-pilots faces and go on and on about the rules…
Several of us pilots with 10,000. + hours ( some bit more experience) try to keep the non-pilots for getting too distorted a view of what really goes on. He practically goes fanatic and says, it can’t, you can’t, it is not right…
I understand the rules of the GD forum. So I bent them a bit. IMO, it was needed.
I understand why my pit thread was not considered a good one because I know what kind are praised here. This one is not about that nor convincing anyone that Monty is wrong about what he says. I am talking about what he does not say.
Unfortunately SDMB has to be the way it is to work but as I said in various places throughout the thread in question and this one here, there a lot of people who have no clue and I felt it was wrong of Monty and some others who claim no experience that those with actual experience where full of it because they tried to say, “In the real world.”
So, all who stick to the letter of the language and the rules of engagement on the SDMB are sticking their heads in the sand when they refuse to see the people who say, Yes, that is what the rules say and this is what really happens.
If that is what everyone wants, fine, I have not a problem with that. I will call you on it when it is something I know from fact and experience to be wrong or I know the individual enough to know they are blowing smoke. I have done my small bit to help this country to be as it is so I will utilize those rights to do ass you all do as best I can.
I have not said anything in these two threads anything I will not say to your face or in your yard. I don’t think many of you are that convinced of your righteousness to be willing to do that. That is not a call out, it is a statement of what I am willing to do and can back up.
I have not said anything, other than having been to Korea, about myself or my combat experience. A few here have and they were quite candid about it. They agreed with Monty about the rules and then told you all about the real world. Many of the loudest of you did not want to hear. You would rather do the SDMB rules and the language rules to the letter because that is all you know.
And that is scary because it shows to me a fear of reality.
Probably enough from me but I will check back and see what else gets posted and try to respond. Those who want the BBQ Pit flames must provide them on their own. 
Jeez, a couple three or two slipped in as I was typing and trying to fix unclear points and spelling.
WTF are you talking about, Gus? And who TF are you anyway? Are you that clown who thought that “instant conscientious objectors” should be shot on the spot? Whom did you ask?
To others: I would choose to disobey neither law. I would follow both the Convention and the UCMJ. I would follow the well-crafted mission order. The idea, apparently, for the recon group is to not be noticed. Don’t get noticed, no problem. Get noticed by the armed combatant, take out the armed combatant. If the individual turns into a noncombatant, then you have to deal with the scenario in the GQ OP. I maintain that it’s possible to follow the rules. Gus’s comment in that thread about the Army telling someone to disobey the rules was pure malarkey. Those Soldiers were told to not apprehend the enemy but to continue with a mission that did not include (a) apprehending the enemy who were willing to surrender and (b) murdering them for the heck of it. I believe I also mentioned in the GQ thread that “his life or mine” isn’t the deciding factor. Some things one must be willing to die for. Kind of silly to be in the Armed Forces if you don’t think at least one ideal’s worth your life, hey?
I feel like I’m in the fucking Twilight Zone. Gus, it seems like you are taking this a little too personally, my advice is have a beer, and don’t let it ruffle your feathers.
My advice to Monty, is answer the fucking question.
Sigh
To which your (looking at Monty) course of action would be?
This could be his 5000th Post. Could it be an answer to that question?