So, Monty, In the situation the OP provided where taking prisoners with you wasn’t possible, what DO you suggest? You seem to be leaving execution as the only alternative.
** Monty**
I really hope your not reading my and FSimons comments as a willingness to “haul off and kill someone for the heck of it.” I think it’s pretty fair to say if I’m willing to accept that treatment then I probably don’t consider it inhumane. The scenario I spoke of is not a situation where 10 or 15 guys have 3 prisoners. Im talking about an equal number. 3 surrender to 3. Your in enemy territory and you have 3 people who will take every chance they get to get the drop on you - what would you do?
I read a good deal of the convention and most of it dealt with prisoners that have already been moved to at least a temporary base camp where they could be properly detained before being handeded over to the “Detaining Party”. The term used was also “unnecessary harm.” But let me ask - what would you do in the above situation?
I would follow the law and the SOP, Kid. I would not decide that it’s okay to kill an unarmed prisoner because “I’m willing to accept that I’d be killed if the situater were reversed.”
What parts of the convention and the UCMJ which I quoted above did you not understand? Once the enemy combatant surrenders, he is in the hands of the detaining party. You will note that he is not legally in your hands, but in the hands of the detaining party.
FDisk: I don’t see where you say I’m leaving execution of an unarmed prisoner as the only option. I look at my posts and I see that I pretty well covered such an act as criminal.
Monty: So, what DO you suggest one do with prisoners when you can’t take them with you? You haven’t suggested any proper course of action as far as I can see, just talked about what you CAN’T do.
Monty it’s not too hard to envisage a scenario (there are several set out above) where following the law precisely would be very difficult. You are against the “just kill them” solution, as am I. Others have suggested a “tie up and leave” solution, and you are against that. Still others have suggested a “de-arm, remove helmets, send to rear” solution and you seem to be against that too.
Until you are able to say, precisely step by step, what you would do, your above comment is simply a cop out.
[Over to GD maybe?]
FSimons, great post!
Welcome to the SDMB, please keep posting.
The laws of war as they were applied in Her Majesty’s Fireeating Danish Army called for the hogtie-and-abandon maneuver as the very last way out - with the added caveat that you’d abandon the prisoner where you were sure he’d be found, and you’d notify the International Red Cross of his whereabouts, just in case.
If you can’t bring a prisoner with you as you exfiltrate, you bring him as far as you can, then administer a swift kick in the rearside.
Monty, I think you’re wrong in assuming that article 19 & 20 forbids the hogtie-and-leave under all circumstances. Article 19 calls for evacuation from the combat zone “as soon as possible”. It can be argued that a reconnaissance patrol behind enemy lines is not in the actual combat zone - it’s for damn sure that they’d try to avoid combat if they could - and bringing a prisoner with them on the mission might further endanger the prisoner.
Article 20 relates to the actual evacuation, if and when it takes place.
Killing prisoners is a no-no - as FSimons said you want the other guy to surrender and so you make surrender as easy, painless and honorable as you can.
No. Not over to GD. Monty and others have provided a GQ answer to a GQ question.
That you have a beef with it is your damage.
This topic is asked and answered, and, thus, closed.
On reconsideration and after correspondence with some of our members, I’m re-opening this thread.
But I want cites, dammit! If you’re proposing to shoot prisoners, or leave them tied up, or whatever, you ought to have statute or case law to back it up!
This is General Questions, not the Pit.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Not necessarily, since the question revolves around what is (or would be) actually done as much as what should be done according to the laws. Then someone telling “we’ve have been instructed to do this or that” is as much of a response as citing the Geneva convention.
And I doubt one can find some official site of whatever army stating : “in cases where prisonners can’t be conveniently dealt with according to the Geneva convention, here’s what we instruct our paratroopers to do :…”
Well surely a cite consisting of one’s personal experience as to what one was told to do when in the army is still a cite?
I think what has not been posted is a useful interpretation of the Geneva Conventions.
I disagree, Clair. The question in the OP is “What are you supposed to do?” It’s not “What do you think you would actually do?” As I indicated above, one is supposed to obey the Convention and the UCMJ and not murder the prisoner.
BTW, I already provided links to the appropriate citations.
Sorry, kill them. I wouldn’t under every situation. If I’m a part of the final march to Berlin or something I’d take prisoners and follow the law to the best of my ability. Deep behind enemy lines, on an important mission with little or no reasonable ability to follow the “rules” then I would have to put a bullet in the prisoners brain to spare me the trouble(and maybe my life). The situation in Saving Private Ryan where the group took the German soldier captive only to release him was stupid. It cost the lives of two in the group. The German soldier would have died if I was in command of the group. The Geneva Conventions are just an ideal luxury for how war should be fought. In real life wartime situations, you’d be naive, ineffective or even dead if you always followed them.
See, this is exactly what I was worried about.
To be clear, I don’t give even an eensy, teensy little flying fuck what “you” or anyone else would do. There is a legitimate factual question about the established rules of war on the table.
If it’s OK to kill the prisoner, than someone somewhere faced a Court Martial for it and was acquitted or (more likely) the act was documented and no Court Martial was taken. If that’s the case, let’s see the cites.
If it’s not, take it to the Pit or shut up.
Oh, and in answer to a previous question, yes, “I was personally told this by a CO” is a citation. Clearly, it may not be as definitive as statute or case law, but I’m not looking to dismiss things that may actually have happened. I’m looking to ward off all the war-movie heroes that are infecting this thread.
Marine Corps Reference Publication 4-11.8C, Enemy Prisoners of War and Civilian Internees states you should Search, Silence, Segregate, Safeguard and Speed (to the rear). There is to be no collective punishment, but only for personal misconduct. You cannot place the prisoners in any greater risk than the Marines guarding them.
Military Police are deployed with combat troops to handle Prisoners, so many times they handle the situation when a large formation is operating in an area. If there is a small unit operating independently (Special Ops, Recon) they may avoid taking prisoners, but their tactics tend to be to strike and be gone before the echoes fade away. If the situation is in their favor, they sure as hell WOULD take a prisoner back, they have the discipline many on this board do not profess to have, and know both the value of intelligence, and the psychological effect of the enemy KNOWING they took a prisoner.
A small unit sneaking through the brush on a two day crawl to blow up a bridge, and on day one a single enemy soldier stands up and puts his hands in the air? Operational security is tantamount, as is keeping light on their feet, and keeping all hands involved in the op. Tough call. Killing the prisoner opens them up to War Crimes prosecution. War is Hell, and veterans have nightmares.
Sheeesh…
NEVER let the “enemy” EVER get the opportunity to surrender once the shootin’s commenced.
As soon as the shootin’ has commenced, kill the enemy before he has any opportunity to load his gun, get away from the pier, or get out of garrison/start looking for you/try to kill you.
Smoke check the bastards…before they have a clue that they’re dead meat walking.
Thanks for a factual answer, UncleBill. Would it be possible to explain how one would operationalize “Search, Silence, Segregate, Safeguard and Speed”? I think that would get to the heart of the question.
Monty, I don’t believe a link to the Geneva Conventions is sufficient to answer the OP. We’re not all trained to interpret international law.
Hey, Uigi, IMHO your post sounds a lot like the war-movie hero stuff that has been prohibited. You’re going to get this thread closed again.
If you get 16 enemy combatants who surrender to your convoy, as we did in Kuwait, first thing is to get them to drop all visible weapons and move away from them, as they are covered with your own weapons. Then get them separated from one another (by a matter of yards) and search them for any non-visible weapons or intelligence material. Do not allow talking, except in answer to a direct question, as it can give them courage and possibly signal an escape attempt or some offensive action. The book says gags are a last ditch effort, but legal. Segregation is to break up the rank structure, keep the Privates separate from the Sergeants, separate from the Leiutenants. Safeguard them from harm, per the Geneva Convention, and get them the hell out of the operational area, mostly by sending to higher headquarters (platoon to company to battalion HQ) either by calling for someone to get them, or walking them back with your own people.
OK, so the question is what to do when sending them to HQ isn’t feasible?