“anser” of course should be “answer.”
Monty, I was just making a point.
jeesh.
The Conventions clearly and deliberately apply in all combat situations, whether or not war has been declared.
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.
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:
- 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.
But, I would acknowledge that most readers would quickly recognize that none of these solutions is ideal.
- This option reduces your fighting force, which may endanger your mission as well as the lives of your men
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
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.
It is spelled out very clearly here
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.
I meant Above. It was Below in the Preview mode.
Divorce Court?
[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.
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.
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.
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.
MONTY - for those of us who are Galacticly dense, could you please restate your position, briefly, maybe just one paragraph?
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.
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.
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!
certainly, not certain!
==================================================
**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
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.
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.
I agree