Actually, Dan, I don’t drink alcohol now so it’d be kind of hard to get drunk with me.
I disagree that the two codes contradict. What I do see is some other posters saying they’d decide which of their particular convenient interpretations of the orders not to follow although, IMHO (and I’ve already stated this), I don’t believe the codes contradict each other.
Then Monty, can you tell me how a soldier would act in Unclebill’s scenario so that he’d be in compliance with both codes? Or else can you explain to me why the scenario’s basic premise is flawed?
I’m really not trying to be dense, but I cannot see what material actions a soldier would take in that scenario that would comply with both codes.
Daniel
Yes we want a response. No one else who answered has been labeled a traitor have they? Hell at this point I would be content with him spreading grape jelly on the POW’s nipples as a course of action.
The crux of the problem as I see it, is Monty was quick to shoot down every possible course of action, yet provide one of his own. I bet he if he answered UB’s hypothetical scenario, this would end a lot quicker then you think.
**
**
If someone isn’t willing to answer the question himself, maybe they shouldn’t participate in the thread. Yes we know there are unknowns, etc, etc, however that didn’t stop people from answering the scenario they were provided.
**
You were asked to answer UB’s scenario? If someone has been labeled a traitor for taking a course of action that had the safety of fellow soldiers first and foremost, they have been labeled incorrectly. None of the responses to the question appeared to be traitorous in that regard.
**
Perhaps, if you are being grilled in Iraq, however on a MB they are quite harmless.
**
We’ll keep ours to ourselves, when he does the same, it’s only fair.
**
This is more then a MB to people other then you as well, so keep that in mind. I’ve found you to be a smart poster, and a good person since I’ve been here. I doubt anyone would label you anything other then a great guy and a respected poster, as they well should. Please don’t lose any sleep over it. I don’t mean to be personally attacking Monty, that is not my intention. It seems he is reluctant to provide an answer, because it will be picked apart like he has done to others.
It simply appears that Monty wants to have his cake and eat it too. I hope he proves me wrong though.
<bump>
You guys all go on a vacation?
I can’t believe you bumped this, thereby showing that you’re not all that competent in parsing the English language. I already said I would obey the Convention, obey the UCMJ, and follow the stipulations in the SOP.
I P R O V I D E D A N A N S W E R A L R E A D Y !
And if you don’t like it, again to quote manhattan, that’s your damage.
How would you handle UB’s hypothetical scenario?
Answer that and let the thread die.
I am completely unable to answer anything here.
But can I ask this…
As far as I can tell from the invented senario of UncleBill’s. The only action that obeys the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ is to take the gentleman prisoner, and escort him back to a place where he can be propperly delt with by your side. This does not contradict the SOP, simply the mition fails because it could not succesfully deal with taking a prisoner. Am I correct in thinking this is the only allowed solution?
Cheers, Keithy
Bingo! That’s why there’re contingency plans for when missions fail. I used to think that any moron knew that but a couple of folks in this thread proved that theory wrong. Good job, Keithy!
p.s. You’ll notice that I mentioned earlier “the well-crafted mission order” or words to that effect. Keithy, as I’ve just indicated, hit the nail on the head.
& to keep this in the Pit Tradition[sup]TM[/sup], CatBiker/Gus can just piss off with his veiled (i.e., made-up) folks who he thinks knows me in person.
So you would abort the mission, and head back to HQ with the POW?
Not attacking you, just curious if that would be your course of action.
Good Grief. The English Language is now in its grave. Sad, so sad.
Actually, it appears that keithmac has rescued it. Again: good job, Keithy!
The only thing that’s in the grave here, is you ability to answer a question. I find it pathetic that you choose to hide behind semantics, instead of putting forth a solution, that would most likely contain as many flaws as others put forth.
Its so easy to say you can’t do this, you can’t do that, anyone can do that. What I expect in that case is, if we can’t do that, what can we do? How would you handle the situation? This was a chance to educate, to erase the ignorance, to answer the question that was posed, or at least provide some meaningful insight.
There are obviously contingencies for this type of situation, almost all of which you said would illegal. You have a long time in the military, you are more then qualified to answer this question, but yet you don’t. Tell us what someone can do that wouldn’t be illegal, stop hiding from you safe blanket declarations. Who knows, maybe you’ll learn something yourself.
I did answer the freaking question. Not only did I say what one is not permitted to do, I also said what I would do. Why are you acting as though the printed word is completely alien to you?
Monty, it is disingenuous to claim you’d answered the hypothetical before Keithmac proposed how you’d answer it. You seem to agree with his statement, that it’d be proper to abandon the mission in order to take the prisoner.
Some of us who are curious about this are not familiar with military protocol. It looks to me like deliberately abandoning the mission in UncleBill’s scenario would constitute dereliction of duty, under the UCMJ. But as I said, I’m not at all familiar with military law. Are you saying it wouldn’t?
Or are you hinting that UncleBill’s hypothetical mission is unrealistic because it’s poorly written, that normal mission briefings will cover such eventualities as what to do in case of a surrendering enemy combatant early in the mission?
I honestly don’t know, and I do wish you’d answer questions forthrightly, rather than asking us to draw conclusions based on what look like contradictions to those of us without military experience. I’m asking you to fight my ignorance, not point it out :).
Daniel
I’ll just go ahead and assume you won’t be answering because you can’t provide the airtight, politically correct solution you wish you had. You have proven with your stonewalling, semantic nitpicking and overall inability to remain relevant to the OP that a course of action, congruent to both “following the law” and common sense is non-existent.
I hope that if I or anyone I know ever served, it wouldn’t be with a chickenshit like you. The thought of your waffling, no decisive ass being out in the field having to make actual decisions, gives me shudders to my very core.
You’ve assumed all along, World Eater. As assumptions go, they’ve been, and will likely continue to be, wrong.
I’m not a coward. You, on the other hand, seem to delight in calling me one based apparently on your complete inability to understand either Logic or English.
Well when we’re forced to extrapolate your course of action from ridiculously vague and ambiguous “answers”, assumptions are all we’ll have.
Of course by 'fessing up, you would be exposed to having holes poked through your argument, the sort of behavior you only seem capable of dishing out.
Exactly where did I call you a coward by the way?
Come on, World, I think he finally did answer the question
keithmac said the only thing that met Monty’s criteria was to abandon the mission and return to base with the prisoner in tow, and Monty said that KEITHY WAS RIGHT. IOW, Monty [WOULD in fact abandon the mission and return with the prisoner in tow.
That said, Daniel’s post hit the nail on the head. It wasn’t clear to most of us (especially those of us without military experience) that that was in fact the only legal option. Now that he’s told us, I think Monty’s in the clear. His answer is logical, straightforward, and accurate.
If you’d just friggin’ spelled it out for us at the beginning, Monty, this wouldn’t have dragged on so long!!!
But now it’s over, and I don’t see anything to criticize about his long-awaited answer.
Agreed, Monty would abort the mission and head back to the HQ with the unit, and the POW. I hope in the future you will spare us all the fucking headache, and cut to the chase.
:wally
You called me a coward when you called me chickenshit.
Look, and pay attention this time, this particular thread was started by Gus who was incredibly peeved at my factual answer to a question that required a factual answer. It’s a vindictive and weak attack on me, and laughable at that. If it wasn’t so funny and weak, I wouldn’t have responded to it at all.
And try to figure this out, putz yerself, if the mission is compromised, it’s over!