I’ve been doing some research, and I’ve reached the conclusion that you have to let the prisoner go if you can’t take them with you.
By the way, the US Army Field Manual “The Law of Land Warfare” is useful. It incorporates the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Convention and adds the Army’s interpretations.
Tomorrow I’ll have the chance to talk to a leading authority on this subject. I hope this question comes up!
I disagree. “What are you supposed to do?” doesn’t necessarily mean “what are you supposed to do according to the Geneva convention and the international law?” . It can mean “what are you supposed to do according to your instructor/commanding officer?”.
And personnally, I’m much more interested in the second question, since in most cases what the soldiers will do is what they have been told, instructed or ordered to do, not what is written in the Geneva convention.
OK. I reread the OP and it did indeed refers to the existing conventions. I was wrong.
So, since this question has been answered, I’m going to expand it : “What soldiers belonging to units likely to operate in peculiar/dangerous situations, in particular elite units, are actually instructed to do?”
If you were to do that, then you would be a murderer.
Apparently you recognize that action would be murder.
Ah, you recognize that there is a law and you are supposed to abide by it.
One always has the ability to follow the rules (putting that word in quotes was disingenuous), provided one is willing to suffer the consequences for following them.
That’s your opinion.
This might’ve escaped your notice, so I’ll go ahead and mention it now: Armed Soldiers (combatants, mind you) die in war.
Then you and those who follow such an unlawful order would be murderers since the unarmed prisoner of war is a noncombatant.
Actually, they’re international treaties.
Oh? So what facts do you deign to accept as facts? Last time I checked, the Geneva Conventions exist in fact.
Tough. The United States Armed Forces, though, do tend to conduct training of their military personnel in what and how to deal with prisoners of war and also on what war crimes are. Judging by 'Uigi’s post above yours, 'Uigi’s not interested in following either the Convention or the law of his own country’s armed forces.
Oh, so you mean in the sense of obeying an unlawful order? One’s not supposed to obey those either.
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.
Please be so kind as to correct my misspelling of “United States” above. Thanks.
Well, who here has ACTUAL time behind enemy lines in a combat situation with actual experience of a 5-8 man team deep inside the lines with a specify objective to perform and had the prisoner thing come up?
Who was in that kind of outfit? Who has stated to his fellow soldiers while in the field that if they don’t use the Geneva’s Convention to the letter, they will turn them in and help prosecute them at the court martial? Who had gone up the chain of command with the complaint that his patrol buddy did in fact kill a prisoner and have the squad leader bump it to the company commander and on up. Where they , after the court-martial of soldier then sent to a secure area for their own safety or did they go back out with their buddies? ::: oh yeah buddy…::::
There are errors, mistakes, plain old murders in war. It is not right, IMO but, even in Uncle Bills position, if a member of his team was searching a prisoner, and was seen to scuffle, and then shoot and kill a prisoner and say, “He acted like he was going for a weapon.”, when no weapon was found later, who put that soldier under arrest and started an investigation into it.??? Hmmm What say you Uncle Bill? Every situation is different and can unfold in different ways. What should happen sometimes does. A lot of times it doesn’t. What do we tell civilians about what we have really done? What we have really been ordered to do? Get real. That can still bite ya in the butt in certain situations and all the military guys know it.
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.
I am sure no soldier of this nation ever killed needlessly in any situation. No pilot ever made sure of a kill when the plane of the enemy was surely hurt too bad to continue the fight that particular day. Oh, is the aviation branch bound by the G Convention?
he he he
Come on people. Yeah, it is not always easy but bad things do happen to good people.
So far, we have only Uncle Bill who claims to have been in actual combat and that was in a particular fight / campaign with the opponent behaving in a certain way.
There have been many more scenarios played out. what were the orders and how closely were the followed.?? You think anyone is going to say they actually did kill outside of the Geneva Convention and give dates and places? Bwhahahah…
I have always had the best of intentions to it all by the book. Did it always work that way? Do I consider myself a murder? Does someone with out actual behind the lines patrol experience , and that is where most of the question are centering, going to pipe up and say the were told to do it by the book regardless and that it always went down that way?
No one ever really knows what it will be like every time and what they will do. If they think that there is no exception, then they will never survive actual combat more than a few hours at most. IMO / experience. This is what I was told you understand. I make no claims about what I have or have not done, but anyone who will let me tell them how the cow ate their cabbage and believe \ my ideas are right and I some how am more capable of telling them what they are to do / believe under those circumstances, should never get in those circumstances.
YMMV.
Monty, I feel like you’re deliberating misinterpreting my post. A link to a treaty is an insufficient response when the audience is made up of people who have no training in this area.
Another reason why the Geneva Convention is insufficient that it only defines what you can’t do in this situation. We are trying to find out what soldiers actually do. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you have not yet told us your answer to this question. Do you agree with my interpretation that they must always let the prisoner go if they can’t take him along?
Also, insufficient does not mean the same thing as useless.
Witness testimony would be very important here, as would past behavior of the man pulling the trigger, but it would be investigated at some level, normally starting with the Lieutenant.
**You are either being sarcastic or ignorant.
**Recall this is GQ. Now you are being sarcastic AND ignorant. A plane it the air retains Potential Energy. A plane in the air under control remains a missile. It is very difficult to surrender while flying.
No shit.
and chula tying the prisoner up, reporting his position to higher command, then leaving his ass in a secure area would work for me.
With all the whooo-ha in this post, I think UNCLE BILL has made the most sense. The ONLY option other than murder is hogtie.
I`ll prove it here — Just ask the prisoner!!
(refering to the OP when clandestine is of most importance)
Oh, for all the “wars and rules don’t make sense” folks that have been in and out of here:
Just keep in mind that without rules to war, the United States of America would be allowed to conquer any country by any means at it’s disposal. That is how rules first get started, as a treaty to prevent one bad ass mofo from nuking say…Iraq…or dropping enought chemicals on Afghanisatan and a certain areas of Pakistan to flush out a few hundred people…
…and those rules grow because each party at the table has a vested interest in following them…right down to things like no bombing red cross trucks, or shooting prisoners.
The countries that sign up for such treaty and conventions have a vested interest in the things in there, but it places some restraints…
…and in case you haven’t noticed, those restraints work at various levels…
…and while many people live in the fantasy world of “but there should be no war at all!”, well those people will just have to thank the people who live in reality and understand that, yes, rules are sometimes necessary because of the way the world actually IS…not the way it SHOULD be.
We can aspire to get it to where it SHOULD be, be in the meantime, if countries sign treaties or set rules and agree to those rules, they are dealing with reality.
Also, not all countries are bound by things like the Geneva convention, but might have signed other deals…
…like a little ol’ country named Iraq.
Based on the rules they agreed to after the Gulf War, they have to abandon weapons of mass destruction, etc, etc…
See how it all works in the real world?
Yes, there should be no war…but there is war and we deal with it because it is in the best interest of soooo many to deal with it.
I wish there were no rules so we could shove a few special missles into the middle east. But there ARE rules, so we don’t.
chula: You are now corrected. I did answer what I would do. Read the thread.
Uncle Bill: Hogtie and abandon is prohibited. See my earlier post in which I quoted both the Convention & the UCMJ. Although it would work for you, if you were to do that, then you would be liable for prosecution.
This comment shows that you are likely a very dangerous person under arms. You want to bomb a region, mostly composed of civilians? For what purpose? Due to what hatred?
I know. Given the small unit (let’s say 8) running undetected behind the lines on a critical mission scenario, and the sudden surrender of an enemy soldier, I would not kill him, and I would not release him, and I would not abort the mission at that point, and I would not carry the prisoner forward with me, and I would not sacrifice two men to guard the prisoner in place while the rest of the small unit went on. War is full of these no-win situations, where you have to do SOMETHING wrong. The greater good would be my choice, and I would defend my actions at my court-martial.
In all honesty, I would report the situation to the higher ups and ask for guidance, provided this eventuality was not covered in the Mission Order, but the specific handling of prisoners is a vital part of a full Mission Order.
And if someone is willing to face the music, and do the time? The Geneva Convention is not the last word on the battlefield – the last word is the volition of an individual who understands the Convention and yet is willing to suffer what consequences are due.
IOW, there is a legal way of approaching the OP, and a practical way. UncleBill and FSimons are covering the practical side, while you are laying out the legalities.
IOW2, despite the GC, sometimes gray-area stuff happens. Also despite the GC, sometimes the gray-area stuff goes essentially unpunished.
Monty, I assume you are referring to these two statements:
and
If the OP’s question is interpreted as “What course(s) of action may I lawfully take?” then your answer above is nothing more than a tautology. If you are unwilling or unable to refine that sweeping response into a specific course of action, fine. I’ll make an attempt.
SOP: by this I’m guessing you mean the Standard Operating Procedure? I have no knowledge of what the SOP contains. Please tell me, or point me to a link.
The Law: Here, do you mean an appropriate synthesis of the Geneva Convention, the UCMJ, and whatever other rules & orders I may not be aware of which govern the situation?
Reading the link to the Geneva Convention provided earlier, I gather that whatever action you took would be governed by the following restrictions:[ul][li]You would ask the prisoner only for his name, rank and serial number, or equivalent information[]You would not take his identity card from him, should he present one to you[]You would not subject him to physical or mental torture, or in any other way coerce information beyond that required above[]You would hand him over to the medical service if he is unable to state his name. They would make all efforts to establish his identity.[]You would question him in a language that he understands. Should this be impossible because you share no common tongues, I assume you would not question him at all.[]You would not take from him personal effects and personal protection articles (e.g., his helmet), nor clothing or eating utensils. You may remove from his person weapons, horses, and military documents. Nor shall you remove badges of rank and nationality, or decorations[]You would supply him identity documents, should he have none[]You would deal with any money he had on his person in accordance with Article 18. Similarly, you would remove “articles of value” only for "reasons of security, and if you did so said articles would be handled in a like manner to money.[]You would evacuate him out of danger “as soon as possible,” unless he is injured such that evacuation would be a greater risk to his health. In such a case, he may be temporarily be kept in the danger zone.[]You would not expose him to unnecessary danger while he awaits said evacuation.[]You would treat him humanely, providing him conditions similar to those you experience.[]Simply killing him is right out.[/ul]In accordance with those restrictions, there are still some choices to be made. Should you find yourself commanding a party of 8 soldiers on a mission behind enemy lines, and an enemy combatant surrendered to you, I see the following options:[ul][]Disarm him and immediately detach a party to return him behind your own lines, “out of danger.”[]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.[]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.[]Disarm him and release him.[]Abort the mission and return promptly to the rear of your own lines, bringing him with you under your protection.[/ul]As I read the convention text, any of these choices are permissible. Which may be more desirable to you probably depends on the specifics of the situation. I have a feeling the SOP you refer to, as well as the Mission Plan for the operation, might also provide guidance. Is this to any extent correct?[/li]
My point is that “following the law”, so far as The Law has been presented, still leaves decisions to be made, and I believe those decisions are the root of the question.
If I’m mistaken in my interpretations of the Convention, I would appreciate a more specific correction than “Wrong. Read it again,” as that does little to dispel ignorance. However, you’re of course free to be as helpful or as obstructive as you prefer.
Brad_d–thanks for providing Monty with the apparently necessary multiple-choice fill-in-the-blank answer.
So what’s your choice, Monty–A, B, C, D, or E?
Brad_d, the choice you have laid out are the ones reasonable available to someone who would follow the letter of the law. Thank you.
(bolding mine) While this prohibits hogtie & abandon if evacuation is possible, it doesn’t say what to do if evacuation is not possible. If it is to be interpreted to mean you must evacuate the prisoner, thereby disallowing hogtie and abandon, it also disallows releasing the prisoner. Article 20 doesn’t seem to say anything about hogtie and abandon.
Monty, you’re going to have to connect the dots for me. I couldn’t find anything in either of those about the hogtie and abandon.
I don’t see how Article XII applies to soldiers one has captured immediately on the battlefield. It defines PoW’s as
The 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?
While the Detaining Power has a responsibility to see to it that the Prisoner is humanely treated, doesn’t the real obligation begin when the unit that has captured the Prisoner turns him over to the part of its command structure intended to handle such a task?
Okay, for those who really want this to run over the Pit: Not going to happen. You’re making invalid comments about me. Re-read your postings AND THE REST of the thread. Then get back to me.
The “connect the dots” or “multiple-choice” scenario has always been there. As Manny said earlier, it’s your damage if you don’t like the answer.
Plus, the query in the OP was what is one supposed to do. Asking me what I would do is a request for an IMHO answer. I actually answered that and for those of you who decide you don’t like that anser, again, your damage.