# What are you supposed to do with the enemy when taking them prisoner isn't feasable? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 16, 2002, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984 "2002-11-16T03:36:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/81 "2002-11-20T19:22:11Z")
“anser” of course should be “answer.” ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/82 "2002-11-20T19:28:51Z")
Monty, I was just making a point. jeesh. ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/83 "2002-11-20T19:56:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GusNSpot \* > **So yeah, all soldiers try really hard to do it right. Of course the Viet Nam thing did not apply because there was no war. Remember, there has to be a WAR for the convention to be binding.** The Conventions clearly and deliberately apply in all combat situations, whether or not war has been declared. ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/84 "2002-11-20T20:06:26Z")
Thanks for your responses, **UncleBill**. The retired Major General and veteran of two wars I heard speak admitted that in some difficult cases one would have to take actions that violate the letter of the law. Your suggestion sounds like a reasonable response to a situation in which you essentially have to choose between your life and the life of an enemy soldier. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/85 "2002-11-20T20:11:37Z")
I apologize for being a dense ignoramus. Even considering my actual, salaried, putting-food-on-the-table job for six and a half years has been writing and editing text so that it will be clear and easy for readers of all levels to understand, I am unable to distill Monty’s answers out of his posts. Here is my stab at a reasonable, thorough, and _clear_ answer to the question. If I were asked to point out the specific solutions to the conundrum facing said troops (not the situations that the law does NOT permit), I would do the following: Regarding the **options that the law allows,** I would take brad\_d’s helpful analysis: 1. Disarm him and immediately detach a party to return him behind your own lines, “out of danger.” 2. Disarm him, detach a party to remain in place to protect/guard him, and continue carrying out the mission with a reduced force. Provide for rendezvous with the detachment at a later time. 3. Disarm him and bring him with you under guard/protection as you carry out the mission, taking care not to expose him to any more danger than you yourself may be exposed to. 4. Disarm him and release him. 5. Abort the mission and return promptly to the rear of your own lines, bringing him with you under your protection. But, I would acknowledge that most readers would quickly **recognize that none of these solutions is ideal.** 1. This option reduces your fighting force, which may endanger your mission as well as the lives of your men 2. This option reduces your fighting force, which may endanger your mission as well as the lives of your men, and may expose the guard detachment itself–left alone behind enemy lines–to an increased risk of capture 3. This option could hamper the free, quiet, and speedy movement of your unit, which may endanger your mission as well as the lives of your men; furthermore, the unit would be greatly exposed to the risk of betrayal to enemy forces, as the prisoner likely wouldn’t want to stand quietly by while the downfall of his own comrades was being effected 4. This option greatly increases the chances that your unit will be betrayed to enemy forces by the freed prisoner, which would endanger your mission as well as the lives of your men 5. This option would cause the immediate failure of your mission, and likely interfere with other planned operations Therefore, I would pose the further question: **Does any legal action remain, or are these the only options?** If no other action is legally permissible, then I would acknowledge that a unit on such a mission would have to face the fact that **any detection by enemy forces whatsoever could quickly lead to mission failure**. If I were the enemy forces in such a situation, and knew that the US forces were playing by Geneva rules, I would surrender at the first sign of fire from any small, isolated group, thereby greatly hampering the group’s effectiveness, delaying or aborting their mission, and increasing the likelihood that friendly reinforcements (presumably of greater strength than the US force, since we’re in enemy territory) would discover and neutralize the US force. Monty, I have no strong opinions on what the single right course of action should be in such a difficult situation. But one can spell out the legal options while acknowledging they all suck to some degree. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/86 "2002-11-20T20:15:48Z")
**Monty** , Article 99 does not deal with the handling of Enemy Prisoners of War, it deals with the subjects’ actions in the face of the enemy forces they are fighting. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Monty_ > This one shows that the hogtie and abandon manuever can get the offender the death penalty: > > ## quote: > > ART. 99. MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY Any person subject to this chapter who before or in the presence of the enemy–(1) runs away; (2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend; (3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property; (4) casts away his arms or ammunition; (5) is guilty of cowardly conduct; (6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage; (7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces; (8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or (9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle; shall be punished by death or such punishment as a court-martial may direct. > > * * * It is spelled out very clearly [here](http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl99.htm) And, **chula** , you are welcome. Below, **GusNSpot** said I claimed to have been in combat. I have neither fired attempting to kill another, nor been fired upon with the intent to kill me, and I do not claim to have been in combat. I was in a war. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/87 "2002-11-20T20:28:18Z")
I meant Above. It was Below in the Preview mode. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/88 "2002-11-20T20:31:32Z")
Divorce Court? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/89 "2002-11-20T20:31:52Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Monty \* \*\* Oh, so you mean in the sense of obeying an unlawful order? One’s not supposed to obey those either. \*\* Absolutely. Once again, I’m interested in what soldiers in specific units (not the average tanker or conscript) are actually instructed/trained to do in particular situations, which certainly have been thoroughly considered by whoever is in charge of defining the content of this training/instruction. > [@](#): > > This comment deserves a pitesque resonse but I won’t post one here. What I will do is say that such a viewpoint displays an immense ignorance of the caliber of personnel in the Unites States Armed Forces and is truly an insult to each and every one of them. \*\* Then, go ahead and Pit. I’m personnally convinced that a soldier from an elite unite will do what he has been instructed and trained to do (and whatever that could be, is certainly backed by a sound reasonning, be it right or wrong), regardless whether these instructions contradict the international and national laws or not. If he’s unwilling to do so, he’ll leave said units or will be evicted. Maybe these people are instructed to scrupulously follow the legal rules in all circumstances. But then, maybe not. And that’s exactly what I would want to know. You may have a great deal of respect for the US armed forces, but it’s not like governments or military authorities would never ever give any order which would contradict national or international laws. As for obeying an unlawful order : Let’s assume the US president order the bombing of some factory in, say, Sudan. Do you think that the pilots will consider whether this bombing is an unlawful agression or not according to the UN? Do you think they are trained to first check the international treaties and then decide on their own whether they will carry the mission or not? If they find themselves in a situation where the moral consequences are much more obvious (say, ordered to shot a prisonner in the head by their lieutnant), perhaps they’ll be more likely to refuse to carry on this order. But then, perhaps they’ve been themselves instructed to do so in some circumstances. I wouldn’t lightly dismiss this possibility. Finally, I would add that my question wasn’t refering specifically to the US armed forces. I mentionned in my first post in this thread that I began to wonder about that following reports concerning the Israelis elite units. Though I must say that i don’t believe that there’s much difference in the rules (moral or immoral, lawful or unlawful) followed by similar kind of military units in in the various western countries, so I certainly include the US army in my doubts, and you may feel legitimately insulted. For instance, I roughly know what french conscripts are instructed to do (or more exactly were instructed to do, since conscription ended at the beginning of this year). They get speeches about the Geneva conventions, etc… But I’ve no clue about what soldiers belonging to, say, the 2nd foreign paratrooper regiment or the Directory of Military Intelligence are told. And yes, honestly, I doubt they’re told exactly the same thing that a random soldier from, say, the engineering corps. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/90 "2002-11-20T20:37:14Z")
Toadspittle ---- As I stated very much earlier the common sense solution is to tie the prisoner and complete the mission. You make all the sense in the world! What alse can be done legally? Nothing. I too have thought about the enemy “strategically surrendering”, and did a google and came up with some book written in 1958. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/91 "2002-11-20T20:38:58Z")
You will never find any damning orders written down, nor is it likely those elite forces will ever tell us if they have orders counter to the UCMJ/Geneva Convention. In my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/92 "2002-11-20T20:40:59Z")
MONTY - for those of us who are Galacticly dense, could you please restate your position, briefly, maybe just one paragraph? ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/93 "2002-11-20T20:50:17Z")
I’m underwhelmed by Monty’s analysis. Nowhere in the quoted text is the proposed action (hogtie and abandon) prohibited. One can only **infer** that, **under the appropriate circumstances** , this action might be a violation of one or more provisions of the GC or the UCMJ. It _might_ be inhumane, it _might_ be unnecessary exposure to danger, it _might_ be a failure to evacuate as soon as possible – but until a ruling is made on a particular case, Monty is only guessing. All legal systems recognize mitigating circumstances and outright excuses, like self-defense, coercion, and emergency. No reasonable legal forum would expect a soldier behind enemy lines to release a prisoner (and doing so is a violation of the UCMJ), and no such forum would expect an officer to endanger his mission or his men’s lives to guard or escort a prisoner – not when the prisoner can be **safely** secured instead. The “wanton disregard of human life” theory of murder is generally only useable when the defendant knew with reasonable certainty that his act would result in the death of a human being. As far as I can see, the hypothetical soldier isn’t liable under ANY of the “death penalty” provisions of the UCMJ. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/94 "2002-11-20T20:56:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by psiekier \* > \*\*I don’t see how Article XII applies to soldiers one has captured immediately on the battlefield. It defines PoW’s asThe statement in the OP says that the surrendering troops are still in the hands of the individuals who have captured them:Doesn’t that mean that certain parts of the rules for treatment of PoW’s do not apply to them? > > \*\* Actually, as I understand the convention, it means that the prisonners are _assumed_ to be in the hands of the ennemy power as soon as they’re captured by an individual or a military unit. In other words, that the ennemy power can’t say “When they were executed, they were in the hands of the individual commander X, not under our protection, so, we aren’t responsible for their summary execution. Only commander X is.” This article, as far as i correctly understand it, is precisely intended to point out that as soon as a prisonner is captured, he’s under the responsability of the ennemy power, hence protected by the convention. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/95 "2002-11-20T21:05:48Z")
Whuck: No. I’ve stated it above. It’s there. clair: What’s convinced you that our elite military are brainless automatons? Uncle: Article 99 is misbehavior, isn’t it? I considered that (3) & possibly (8) applied. General comment: Someone mentioned mission order above–I think that another consideration is what are the contingency plans for if the mission just can’t be accomplished? Lastly: This thread certain (IMHO) shows the value of having a trained, competent, thinking, professional military! ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/96 "2002-11-20T21:09:32Z")
certainly, not certain! ---
**Author:** ![buzzz\_kill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/439d5e/32.png) [@buzzz\_kill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buzzz_kill)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/97 "2002-11-20T21:18:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dqa \* > **Lawrence of Arabia sliced open the soles of the prisoner’s feet, so he wouldn’t be able to get back to warn anyone until Lawrence & Co. were safely out of there. If I recall, this was like a 13 year-old boy.** ================================================== \*\*color=red]ARTICLE 13–Geneva Convention \*\*[/color] Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to _physical mutilation_ or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest. Here is the closest related article listed by the convention. Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; August 12, 1949 [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art19](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art19) ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/98 "2002-11-20T21:22:26Z")
In (3), the words “such command, unit…property;” refers back to the wording in (2) which says “which it is his duty to defend”. In (8) they are dealing with offensive measures. If the subject fails to conduct his killing, maiming, capturing, and whatnot in a sufficient aggressive manner, then he is in violation. Treatment/Mistreatment of Prisoners is not addressed by Article 99, it deals with things more in line with cowardice and malingering. MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY deals actions and inactions when you are engaging the enemy. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/99 "2002-11-20T21:35:59Z")
After further consideration, if I were in command of that 8 man unit behind enemy lines on a two day mission, and that idiot surrendered halfway through Day 1, I would still secure him (note I have never said hog-tie), alert my command of the location, then after completion of the mission, if noone else had picked this guy up, I would either swing by to grab him and then return to safety behind our lines (not likely given security and not returning the way I went in), or send a message to the Red Cross giving that soldier’s location after I returned to safety. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984/100 "2002-11-20T21:45:14Z")
I agree [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-supposed-to-do-with-the-enemy-when-taking-them-prisoner-isnt-feasable/136984.md?page=6)