Taking away their helmets is a violation. The capturing party is required to safeguard the prisoners.
Tieing the prisoner up and abandoning the prisoner is also a violation, not to mention just incredibly inhumane. Again, the capturing party is required to safeguard the prisoner, and also to speed the prisoner away from the battle.
Booker: Do you have any actual knowledge regarding this issue or are you just rehashing lame comic book motifs?
The real answer for a soldier behind enemy lines who can’t take prisoners is, IMO, kill the opposition before they have a chance to offer surrender. There are no rules that say you must give an enemy an opportunity to surrender.
Also, is past wars like Viet Nam, there were so-called “free fire zones” where everybody not on your side was presumed to be the enemy and subject to killing without worrying about such details as whether they are soldiers or civilians.
Monty, what about the actionsblackclaw and YPOD described in the Gulf War and WWII? It certainly doesn’t sound like they were “safeguarding” anyone, but they weren’t exactly endangering anyone either. Can you simply let them go, even?
It would sure be helpful if someone could post a quote or a link to the relevent text of the Geneva Convention. . . .
Practically speaking, the mission comes first. If you can take prisoners and still complete your mission, great; if not, you play it by ear. Your first responsibiliy is to your own side, and a guy who’s sitting around guarding prisoners is a guy who’s not watching his friens’s flank.
Bear in mind, sometimes killing the enemy is the mission.
Well I did find the Geneva Convention treatment of POW’s here:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
It’s a fascinating read. In my next life I want to be a POW in a country that abides by the it. Gotta hope to be a general though so I get 60 swiss francs a month vs. the rank and file 8.
The convention doesn’t really answer any of the questions I originally posed. At least the part that I just cited. Perhaps there is a “conditions of surrender” section somewhere else.
My comments were based on what I would do.
Misread the OP. Never read the Geneva Convention.
Just can’t understand rules for war.
This being the Army and all, there’s a “school solution” for this situation (there’s a “school solution” for just about every situation). Like most “school solutions” (despite popular opinion) it makes pretty good sense.
The “school solution” is that you keep your prisoner properly secured and processed, and you leave him properly secured in such a manner that he can’t follow you, and he won’t be found - for a while, anyway. Then leave the area, as quickly as possible.
There are two major objections to releasing a prisoner, just “letting him go”.
One is that he will go running back to his comrades with all sorts of good information about where you are, how many of you there are, and what you’re up to.
If you leave him properly secured, then he’s not going to be able to do that for a while. By the time he is able to get loose or is found, you’re long gone or even better, done what you came to do and are on your way out of there.
Also, if you’ve been practicing proper OPSEC (OPerational SECurity) and prisoner-handling procedures, he’s not going to know a whole lot that is useful anyway (opsec and prisoner-handling are a whole training manual full of stuff - I’m not going into details, obviously… the point is, they are things that should be Standard Operating Procedure - things that everybody knows and is practicing all the time, anyway).
So, what does the enemy learn when they find their stray lamb? “The enemy was here”. Well, duh, they probably had that one figured out when the guy disappeared or didn’t report in when he was supposed to.
When? Again, when their guy first turned up missing, they had that one figured out. Where? Well, they knew where their guy was supposed to be, so they’ve got a pretty good idea about that one, too.
How many were there? “At least two. One of them stuck a pistol up my nose, the other one whacked me upside the head, stripped off my boots and all my equipment, tied me up, and blindfolded me. That’s all I saw.”
What were they planning to do? “They didn’t exactly give me a briefing. Planning to kill me if I didn’t keep quiet and keep still, that much I know.”
Which way did they go? “I was stuffed into a pig shed, with my face shoved in the dirt and blindfolded. I don’t have a clue. Away from me, that’s all I know.”
And all this wonderful information is a day or two old, if you’ve done your job right. Tremendous value to the enemy, right?
(By the way, happyheathen, he isn’t going to die of exposure/thirst/whatever. No man is an island, when he doesn’t show up where he’s supposed to, or report in when he’s supposed to, people are going to come looking for him. I suppose there is a possibility they may never find him, but sheesh, if the enemy can’t organize a competent search party, that’s their problem, not mine)
Now, what happens if you kill the prisoner, instead of letting him go?
The enemy still knows you’re around. Sure, there’s a possibility that he was offed by his pregnant girlfriend’s father or something, but seeing that he’s a soldier and there’s a war on and all, the enemy will probably proceed based on the most likely explanation.
The enemy also knows at least approximately when and where. When is after the last time the guy reported in and before the first time he didn’t, and where is somewhere in the vicinity of where he was supposed to be when he turned up missing.
And by the way, they’re going to find the body. They will be looking for their missing guy and when they do, they’ll find the body. Dead bodies are awfully hard to conceal, something generations of murderers have discovered for themselves. The time you spend trying to locate a deep well, mine shaft etc. or digging and elaborately camoflaging a deep grave is time that would be more profitably spent hauling ass.
Besides, the first thing the enemy will do is search all the deep wells, mine shafts, and/or looking for signs of recent and somebody-tried-to-hide-it graves. They will find the body. Don’t think they won’t, you aren’t that slick. State prisons are packed full of people who thought they could hide the body where the cops would never find it. They were wrong and so are you.
So you see, intelligence-wise, you don’t gain much, if anything, by killing your prisoner. You will succeed in really pissing people off, however. When the enemy finds their comrade with his hands tied behind his back and his throat cut, they will be highly motivated to catch you, and have a strong desire to do maximum harm to you when they do.
This isn’t helpful to you.
Which brings up the second objection - “If you capture him, and just let him go, you’ll just have to fight him again some time in the future. Might as well just go ahead and kill him now, while you got the chance.”
Well, sure. But this quickly leads you to a place where you don’t really want to go. Best to stay away from there…
First, kill prisoners because it’s not possible to take them with you. Then kill them when it’s possible, but still awfully inconvenient and difficult to do so. Then, just kill them even when it’s possible to take them along or send them to the rear, just because dealing with them is an aggravation. Much easier just to shoot them, leave them, and move on.
Then start killing teenage boys, too, while you’ve got the chance. Easier now than in a year or two when they reach military age. Come to think of it, any civilians you run into could give the enemy information, too. Better shoot them, too, just to be on the safe side.
Just keep slidin’ down that slippery slope, you probably won’t like the place you find yourself at after a while.
No. What you need to do is keep the enemy person from interfering with your mission. Tie him up and stash him in a chicken coop or basement or something - so it’ll take a day or two for him to get free or for someone to find him. By that time, you’re long gone and he can’t really threaten your mission any more - and that’s all you worry about.
Besides, there’s another point, too. One that most civilians are not aware of and that most people have the wrong idea about. The goal of a war, after all, is NOT to “kill the enemy”, believe it or not. The goal of a war is to persuade the enemy to surrender.
Think about it. “Killing the enemy” - all the enemy, every single one, every swingin’ dick (and woman and child?) is simply not a practical or paying proposition.
The war ends when the enemy quits fighting - when he surrenders.
“Kill the enemy” (or more precisely - the threat of death) is merely a means to that end - a means of persuading (very forceful “persuasion”, granted) the enemy to surrender. “Surrender or die” is pretty easy to understand, a pretty clear communication in most circumstances.
“Surrender” is the desired behavior, you want the enemy to surrender, you encourage surrender, you don’t punish it.
If you make a habit of killing prisoners, word gets out (they WILL find the body) and it gets really hard to persuade enemy personnel to surrender. Why should they, if you’re going to kill them anyway? Might just as well die fighting, and who knows, there’s at least a slight chance that your fanatical resistance will allow you to win, even if the situation looks hopeless. Why not try it? You’ve got nothing to gain by surrendering (they’re going to kill you anyway) and nothing to lose by fighting to the death. Go for it.
Kill prisoners and what you get is enemies who fight to the death instead of surrendering. Enemies who fight to the death are an enormous PITA. You don’t want them.
I hoped I’ve explained some of the reasoning behind the Army’s doctrine on dealing with prisoners.
For raiding parties and patrols deep behind enemy lines, when it’s not possible to send prisoners to the rear or practical to drag them along with you (by the way, very rare for modern American forces, who usually receive periodic re-supply by air - the helicopter that slips in to bring your supplies in can carry your prisoner out):
Practice aggressive and careful reconnaisance so as to avoid enemy contact in the first place.
Practice careful opsec procedures so that the enemy isn’t able to learn much even if you are observed.
Practice proper prisoner-handling procedures so that the enemy person isn’t able to learn anything of your numbers, status, mission etc. during his period of captivity.
Secure the prisoner in a manner and location so that he isn’t able to follow you, or re-join his own forces; and where he won’t be found for some time. (Generally this means take his boots, belts, etc. - which makes it much more difficult for him to move - and leave him tied up and hidden in a basement, barn, chicken coop or whatever.)
Leave the area where the prisoner was captured, as fast and far as possible (he isn’t going to be found until the search party pokes into every dark corner of every basement, barn, shed and shithouse in the area - that should take a while and all the time they’re doing that you are making tracks). By the time he’s found you are long gone.
Well, if you had any deep body of water nearby, it wouldn’t be hard to weight a body down and dump it; it would take months for the body to come back up. I don’t know if the enemy is going to go through the lengths of dredging a lake or ocean to find one missing guy.
There’s the old story of the Irishman who went to war and during one engagement shouted to his CO, “I’ve captured a Tartar!”
“Bring him along, then.”
"But he won’t come,” cried the Irishman.
“Then come along yourself.”
“Arrah!” replied the Irishman, “I wish I could, but he won’t let me.”
Yesterday there was a thing on the History Channel about tanks. In the Gulf War, a U.S. tank crew encountered a couple stray Iraqi soldiers that were surrendering. The tank crew made the mistake of stopping and trying to figure out what to do with them.
It turned out to be a trick, the Iraqi’s had a tank buried in the sand a few hundred yards away and it was able to easily get a direct hit on the American tank.
They interviewed the tank crew and commander and they said from then on the policy was changed about taking prisoners. They would no longer do it because tanks do not have the equipment/training/space/ etc and any tank sitting still is going to be shot.
FSimons
I tend to agree with your post. There is no perfect way to do it but I think tying them up is a reasonable solution. I know that if I was a soldier who found my comrades tied up, I would be grateful to the enemy for not killing them. If they died while bound, which i believe is unlikely, I would still not fault the enemy because I think it’s a reasonable chance that the guy would live. Of course the problem is when you just don’t have the time/resources to even tie them up. Andy McNab, a British SAS who went behind enemy lines in Iraq to sabotage scuds told the story (in his great book, Bravo Two Zero) of his small squad hiding amongst some rocks just yards away from a much larger group of Iraqi soldiers when a civilian adolescent saw them and recognized them as the enemy. He had to make the decision whether to kill the kid before he yelled over to the soldiers which would probably have meant certain death. Come to think of it, this is now imho and not even on my own topic but I wont delete because the book is a good rec (which belongs in cafe society 
).
Aeropl, that’s an interesting development and will inevitably lead to an “escalation of degradation” in gentlemanly war.
Kid & FS: I’d be more than proud to serve on your court-martial if you were to perpetrate such a crime against a defenseless prisoner.
And I guess y’all would be interested in which charges you’d be facing:
From the Geneva Convention link posted earlier:
This one prohibits confiscating the prisoner’s helmet (bolding by Monty):
This prohibits the hogtie & abandon manuever:
This one too:
And if the prisoner dies or suffers some serious injury:
[quote]
Every death or serious injury of a prisoner of war caused or suspected to have been caused by a sentry, another prisoner of war, or any other person, as well as any death the cause of which is unknown, shall be immediately followed by an official enquiry by the Detaining Power. A communication on this subject shall be sent immediately to the Protecting Power. Statements shall be taken from witnesses, especially from those who are prisoners of war, and a report including such statements shall be forwarded to the Protecting Power. If the enquiry indicates the guilt of one or more persons, the Detaining Power shall take all measures for the prosecution of the person or persons responsible.
[quote]
From the Uniform Code of Military Justice:
&
This one shows that the hogtie and abandon manuever can get the offender the death penalty:
Maybe even get the offender a conviction for murder:
Or just get the offender a conviction for manslaughter if the hogtied prisoner dies:
So, what some of y’all are suggesting is: (a) inhumane, (b) cruel, © against the convention, and (d) an offense, possibly punishable by death, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Would some kindly mod fix the close quote tag above? Thanks.
FSimons makes some excellent points about the purpose of war.
To add to that, I recall that one of the initial reasons for the laws of war was to promote peaceful relations after the war ended. The conquered people aren’t going to want to be your friends if you were especially brutal during the war.
What valid points are those? The part where he assumes no harm’s going to come to the hogtied and abandoned enemy?
Monty, I was referring to this statement and the explanation thaat followed it:
Do you disagree? Many people on this thread assumed that the best thing to do would be to kill the prisoner because that’s the ultimate goal. But it’s not. The laws of war were devised by military strategists, not human rights types, and they reflect military concerns.
In the Gulf Conflict, we took their weapons if they had them, gave them a card that said they had surrendered, gave them a damned nice blanket (“EPW Blanket”), MRE, and water bottle if they needed it, and pointed back the way we came. Actually “WE” didn’t do that, there were MP’s in the convoy who did that stuff. Once they got far enough back, they were put in camps until everything was over.
Major UncleBill
USMCR
Oh, chula, I certainly agree that the overall objective of war is to coerce the enemy into surrender. What I object to is the cavalier attitude, which you apparently object to also, of certain posters that the best thing to do is just haul off and kill someone for the heck of it.
Just for giggles, let me refer a few folks to two outstanding movies:
[ul]1. Breaker Morant. “Harry” Morant was a commissioned officer during the Boer Wars and was court-martialed for the murder of prisoners of war.[/ul]
[ul]2. Casualties of War. Story about a US Soldier who witnesses the kidnap, rape, and murder of a Vietnamese civilian. Michael J. Fox plays the main character.[/ul]