UncleBill: Once the prisoner is in custody, it is the duty of the unit leader to safeguard that prisoner.
Out of idle curiosity, how do you propose the tied up prisoner eat, relieve himself, and protect himself from whatever else happens by?
Okay, so I work with a guy who was a Major in the Rangers. What he told me was that they would leave a guy behind to guard the prisoner. There are always enough people in the team that one can be spared. They would set a rally point to meet up later. Also said that he would probably leave them with a team member who is operating a SAW MG for better protection.
It is against the Geneva convention to leave them behind and he said, “Yes, you could kill them and nobody would probably ever know, but that isn’t how they are trained to operate.”
Hope that helps some.
We ARE getting hypothetical here, aren’t we?
It is war. I imagine this would be my action:
I would expect that prisoner to piss their pants just as I would demand of myself and men under my command do the same while in an deliberate ambush.
I would expect that prisoner to either not eat, or to eat what provisions I left, for the 36 hours until my unit is clear of the area and his location can be transmitted without compromising my unit or mission.
As for protection from whatever else passes by, well that would be terrible if he got eaten by a bear. But he does not get a weapon.
In that situation, given the options laid out, and a lack of formal guidance from higher up, I would violate the letter of the Geneva Convention in the manner I described, and in my defense at any court matial, I would rely on the importance of the mission and my available options at the time, and state that my choice was the best possible outcome for my unit, my mission, and the enemy prisoner. My actions would not be malicious, nor with any intent to harm the prisoner. A Court Martial takes that into account.
If this were merely a patrol, the situation will be different and his butt comes with me back to the hootch.
On Preview, I see the input from the Ranger Major. I defer to his answer, as he was specifically trained for eventualities such as this.
But to leave a SAW behind???
Actually, that was probably (IMO) the most informative and useful post of this whole thread. Thanks.
So, Uncle, you’d not really be defending yourself at the court-martial. You’d really be introducing mitigating circumstances.
Come to think of it, how’s the prisoner supposed to eat the rations you leave behind if he’s tied up?
Regarding formal guidance: It already exists. I’m pretty sure the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ qualify as formal guidance.
And where did I write “brainless automatons”?
One doesn’t need to be brainless to have other priorities than legal issues.
I would introduce the mitigating circumstances in my defense. Splittings hairs.
A man handcuffed to an iron bar has use of his hands. A man secured with plastic ties can still eat. I never said hog-tied. I said “tying the prisoner up”. You said 'hogtie". I said “reporting his position to a higher command then leaving his ass in a secure area”, you said “abandon”. For someone so black and white with the rules, your interpretation of English is rather more loose.
If you can cite the Articles of the UCMJ which specifically cover the handling of prisoners of war, I would be impressed. If you do better than you did with the interpretion of Article 99, I would be more impressed. The Geneva Convention does cover it, but as Spiny Norman, another veteran, said way back on page one, his training said that “hogtie-and-abandon” was a last resort, but permissible under those circumstances.
The solution from the Ranger satisfies everyone, as far as I can see. As long as you have sufficient manpower to leave a man (or two) back and continue the mission, and the situation allows you to return to that position, or another rally point, that is the best way to handle it.
You’re not even close to being correct about my interpretation of the English language, UB. Here’s one even you should be able to grasp: Tie up the prisoner in any manner and leave him unattended is abandoning the prisoner.
I concede you that.
Monty: your answers, while having the virtue of being correct in the observance of the letter of the law (and in direct response to the OP), leave much to be desired when it comes to operational matters. Your “all-or-nothing” responses leave a lot of dead ground that, realistically and operationally, have to be covered for any sized military unit on any conceivable mission to function successfully.
UncleBill and other veterans have attempted to explain what reasonably sane and humane soldiers might do when confronted with what is, essentially, a military dilema: “What if?”
What all of you have overlooked is the inherent conflict-of-interest within any military organization in trying to report every single infraction of the Geneva convention during a war.
Let’s say that a specforce deep recon patrol did “hog-tie and abandon” an enemy soldier during their patrol, and then safely came home with good intel.
Their buddies aren’t going to report them or try to have them charged; they have to go out on deep patrol with them again. And forget any hoary Hollywierd crap about fratricide; the “snitch” just wouldn’t be trusted by his comrades again. Ever. In an elite unit, that’s a fate worse than death.
Their commanders aren’t going to report them or charge them; it makes them and their unit look bad. As long as the offense isn’t egregious (“we shot him in the head and skull !@#$%& him!”), a strong verbal reprimand, and some unofficial punishments (like denial of R&R priveleges) will go a lot further than a Court Martial in correcting unacceptable, but forgiveable (especially in light of a successfull mission) conduct.
Or perhaps a rescue operation, where terrorists (who are “enemy combatants”) have snatched civillian or miltary hostages. The elites go in and use suppressed weapons to hose down anyone holding a gun; any survivors of the initial entry are screaming “I surrender!” at the top of their lungs; possibly in fear, maybe to alert others nearby. Would I zap 'em? You betcha; two to the chest and one to the head.
Rescuing the hostages and getting my unit’s collective asses out alive take precedent. Who’s gonna snitch? The hostages I just rescued? My buddies? See above.
The terrorists? Pshaw! Even if we didn’t harm a hair on their head, they’d still claim we ruthlessly machinegunned a school full of women and children, and napalmed the survivors.
Even if someone did snitch, what do you think is going to happen? Nothing; see above.
Fortunately, nothing happens in a vacuum. Operational planning often deals with these contigencies.
In our OpOrders in the Persian Gulf, we were told to ignore EPW’s and keep right on moving, calling in their gridref to higher. If they still had weapons, we were to waste them; if they got in our way, we were to waste them; if they turned around and tried to run, we were to waste them. We dropped lots of little leaflets in Persian explaining that to them. I know; I traded for one of those little leaflets with an Iraqi EPW for a deck of smokes.
Of course, we were essentially an Armored Cavalry unit; the REMF pukes could play patty-cake with the EPWs all the live-long day; as far as we were concerned, there were Iraqi tanks out there that needed our attention, and we didn’t have time to stop and hold hands, sing “Kumbaya” and roast marshmallows with EPWs.
And no, we didn’t need to interrogate them to find out where the enemy formations were; we already knew where the enemy formation were. 
So, in essense Monty, your terse, factually and legally correct answers are practically worthless to a bunch of civillians, who may have only considered such things as Law of Land Warfare in the abstract, if ever.
As in the case of most situations with multiple permutations (such as the complexities of various levels of military operations) one answer to one questions merely spawns more questions, as these permutations are explored. You don’t have to be a soldier or a veteran to grasp that situations with multiple variables can have complex answers.
All of the “what ifs,” while obviously annoying to you and your cut-and-dried worldview, sound just like I remembered my Law of Land Warfare class back in '86 at Ft. Knox, as well as the refresher classes I delivered later in my admittedly short, 8 year Army carreer.
Terse, black-and-white answers just leave people more confused than a reasoned discourse on any given subject, even without resorting to the outrageous, or even the merely improbable.
Good grief, Tank. How many assumptions, as opposed to factual inferences, are in that posting? Might be a SDMB record!
BTW: Read the freaking OP’s question. It clearly says “supposed to.”
Good grief, Monty. Did you even read my post?
I clearly, and in the very first sentence, acknowledge that you did indeed answer factually, correctly, and to the OP.
OH My Gawd, the US of A military told you to break the rules??? ::: Well I Swan!!!:::: Who would a thunk?
:: Hey kid, I like your style… :::
In a strange way, I have arrived at the conclusion that Monty’s answer is correct. The training goes something like this:
“Follow the Geneva Conventions.”
“But what if I’m in a situation where…”
“Follow the Geneva Conventions.”
“But if I’m behind enemy lines and…”
“Follow the Geneva Conventions.”
“But it’s between his life and mine…”
“Follow the Geneva Conventions.”
“I guess in those circumstances it would be OK…”
“Follow the Geneva Conventions.”
I enjoyed the talk with the retired Major General. He very strongly believed in the international system and humanitarian law. At the same time, he described situations in which he would probably violate the law. And that would weigh on his conscience. Good man. It’s unlikely that anyone would be turned in under those circumstances, and luckily this hypo is rare.
IMO, this question cannot be answered any better than it has, so it should be moved or closed.
Chula: Thank you.
Tank: Yes. It’s rife with invalid assumptions. Apparently one of those is that I’m not a Veteran. IIRC, you are well aware that I am a Veteran and that I have also served in combat arms units (one Armor and one Air Defense Artillery during my Army days and ship’s company of an aircraft carrier and a fighter squadron during my Navy days).
General comment: chula’s recap of the scenario is pretty close to being on the mark. It’s not all that unlikely that someone would be turned in, depending on the consciences of the people in the unit. And, as chula noted, the retired General “believed very strongly in the international system and humanitarian law.” A belief in the rule of law is not an anamoly in the United States as it is in some other lands.
p.s. I think that the hypothetical conversation that chula related shows that “my life or yours” isn’t the overriding consideration.
Monty, from your quote on page 1 (emphasis mine):
Am I incorrect in assuming that this means enemies are not considered POWs if they are in the hands of the individuals or military units that captured them? If this is the case, then rules pertaining to POW treatment do not apply to this situation, as they are not considered POWs.
Yes…I hear this method was very effective for our forces during the Persian Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan.
Cheesesteak:
Nope. You’re incorrect. The idea is that the capturing power (the nation at war/conducting war/in conflict with the POW’s nation) is responsible for the treatment of ALL the POWs who happen to be captured. The very second the enemy Soldier is captured, (s)he’s a POW.
I checked out one of the links on the front page, and you’re right, POW status starts when the enemy is captured. I guess that sentence has only to do with the idea that the Power is responsible, and not just the individual soldiers and units.