Actually semantics boy, when I called you a chickenshit, I was calling you just that. Ydmv of course 
**
Well thats Gus’s problem now isn’t it?
Actually the mission is just beginning for the squad that has to go clean up your mess.
The important thing to remeber here is that we’ve deduced your course of action, and realized that is has just as many flaws as the others put forth. Congratulations chickenshit, you’re human!
Just an ignorant fool checking in (after having read this rollercoaster of a thread).
Since Monty agreed with this, I’d like to ask a question:
Monty (or anyone else fit to answer): How would an acceptable mission be planned so as to successfully deal with taking a prisoner?
Surely there is an answer to this. There must have been many covert missions which required this eventuality to be accounted for.
Actually, maybe my above thread is better suited to GQ?
Lesse if there are any bites
It’s a shame that of all the flammable aspects of Monty’s posts in the initial thread this was the one chosen to pit. I really don’t understand why Monty was being so evasive about the DETAILS of what he would do - I felt like we were asking a question and getting name, rank, and serial number. Perhaps he doesn’t like being interrogated like any good POW. Monty you sound too intelligent to have such a black and white view of things. Do us all a favor and don’t NOT disarm the Iraqi nuke just to get a pow back to camp.
You prove yourself a complete moron if you think that would be my course of action when escorting a POW, KidC. Of course I’d disarm the POW.
A coward goes moooooooo.
A chickenshit goes bok!
A Montyshitard makes no sound, just slithers.
Monty, read again. I said nuke, not POW. I’m speaking of a hypothetical mission wherein you are charged with disarming some nuke but decide to abandon the mission to safely evacuate a POW caught along the way.
Dr. Wen - not exactly an auspicious beginning here at the SDMB
It’s pretty unfair to keep making up outrageous scenarios and then grilling Monty about what he’d do in that particular situation. He’s not going to give anyone a clear answer, so why are you people still demanding one from him?
So, Dr. Wen, what sound does a sock make?
<Cyndi Lauper>
Yes UB’s scenario was totally outrageous!
</Cyndi Lauper>
You should email the Mods, where they can investigate your claim, and take action if necessary. If you are implying it’s me, your wrong.
you’re
From context, I would have thought it’d be obvious that I was referring to KidCharlemagne’s nuke scenario. I guess it wasn’t so obvious.
I was implying no such thing. You may unwad your panties now.
I wasn’t wearing any to begin with.
Going commando, eh? 
No, commando’s are “outrageous” and “unrealistic”.
I believe you take the enemy soldier into custody. They become a pow and the soldier or unit becomes responsible for the prisoner. A soldier doesn’t get to give the answer… “I couldn’t. It was impossible.” My understanding is that you follow the law on this even if it places your life on the line.
I was only in the Reserves and never saw combat.
Also when the law transcends common sense?
Common sense? My experience was that this was why so much training is required. “They” want you to do what you are trained to do. Common sense would make me want to get the hell out of there.
My “opinion” is that good soldiers follow the law. Hopefully, commanding officers avoid placing units in these situations. Just a guess, but I would bet hundreds of good men have given their lives following the Geneva Convention and UCMJ dealing with a pow that they could have shot. Common sense will not save a soldier’s life. Training will. Also, a mission must be planned so that these situations are avoided. I know this does not always happen but I think officers are not at all reckless or short sighted when they design missions.
99% of the time that is true. The OP clearly asked what to do when taking them prisoner was NOT feasible. Why is this so hard to understand? It CAN happen, it HAS happened, and it WILL happen again. Rarely? Yes. Try to avoid the situation? Yes. But if the mission is important enough, time is critical enough, and discovery of the team by the enemy main force means the mission fails, and mission failure means horrible atrocities will occur, BAM, we have a bad situation where breaking the law is the best option.
I just read the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners. I think you are in the know about what the law says on the subject of treatment of prisoners. The hypothetical situation described imho does not make the decision about what to do difficult. You follow the law. The unit or soldier that has captured the prisoner should care for the prisoner and take every precaution to not place the prisoner in danger. I think the situation would be handled almost like you were dealing with a wounded comrad. The mission may be more successful without the wounded fellow soldier. Still, you must carry-out the mission to the best of your ability and this would not include shooting the wounded soldier and leaving him behind because he would be a burden. The law is very clear on what you must do with a prisoner of war. You must provide for their safety and if that means placing your life in jeapordy or compromising the mission, so be it. I really think there is no decision to be made. The decision has already been made. The law is there. You follow the law.
I have to say I agree. Uncle Bill, you allowed capturing the prisoner (even though it dooms the mission) as a possible option. Monty’s choice of abandoning the mission seems in keeping with the intent of the OP and your senario. I’m still pissed off that he stonewalled us for so long*, but he did finally answer the question, and his answer was perfectly valid.
*Yes, Monty, you did stonewall. You answered the OP, sure. You said you would obey the law. But several of us said that we couldn’t tell what that meant. We asked you. You only responded by saying that you had already answered. Apparently, you either thought that we were being deliberately obtuse or were so ignorant that we didn’t deserve a better answer. If the former, you were wrong. Hard as it may be for you to believe, some of us (myself, no expert on military law, included) really couldn’t tell which courses of action would or wouldn’t comply with the law. We wanted you to tell us, and you refused. If you knew we weren’t simply feigning ignorance, but decided we simply didn’t deserve a better answer, then you were being a jerk. As Daniel aptly said, we’re “asking you to fight [our] ignorance, not point it out.” If you aren’t willing to do that, what the hell are you on the SDMB for?