Wartime moral quandary

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Post Reply
User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Wartime moral quandary

Post by Who is like God arbour » Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:33 pm

I just read a thread at SDN concerning wartime moral quandary.

The OP is as follows:
        • Darksider wrote:So I was watching my dad's DVD of Saving Private Ryan the other day, and the whole deal with the Nazi prisoner who they let go and then came back and killed the Jewish guy in the end got me thinking. What would you do in a situation like this? What should you do?

          On the one hand, killing an unarmed prisoner is morally reprehensible, but on the other, if you're just a small squad without the resources to care for prisoners or the ability to hand them of to other friendlies, and just releasing them might lead to them being re-taken by their own forces and put back into the fight.

          Assume for the sake of argument that you are in a similar situation. You are in command of a small squad (8-12 men) and you have captured an enemy prisoner. You obviously don't have the resources to care for a prisoner and taking him with you could jeopardize your mission. You are traveling in contested territory, so while there is no guarantee that the enemy will get him back into circulation if you let him go, it is a definite possibility.
Sea Skimmer answered as follows:
        • Sea Skimmer wrote:I would have tied him to a tree so he can’t quickly race off and tell a Nazi unit that my little patrol is strolling by. He won’t die of dehydration in less then three days and is pretty certain to be found long before then since a radar station will be a magnet for units on both sides.
                • [deleted because that blathering is absolutely irrelevant for the in the OP presented moral quandary]
          Of course another option would also just be not to take prisoners. You are not required to accept a surrender.
I found the last two sentences of Sea Skimmers answer especially interesting.

According to Art. 23 lit. c of the Hague Conventions, it is especially prohibited, to kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion.

According to Art. 41 paragraph 1 and 2 lit. b of the additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, a person, who clearly expresses an intention to surrender shall not be made the object of attack. According to paragraph 3 of the mentioned article is a person, who is entitled to protection as prisoners of war, to be released and all feasible precautions shall be taken to ensure his or her safety, when this person has fallen into the power of an adverse Party under unusual conditions of combat which prevent his or her evacuation.

After reading that, what would you have done in the described situation or in a similar situation - assuming that your nation has ratified both international conventions?
Do you think that »you are not required to accept a surrender«?
Would you have killed the German soldier?

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: Wartime moral quandary

Post by Cocytus » Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:13 pm

I'm reminded of that scene in The Longest Day when an American soldier shoots a German soldier who came out from behind him saying "bitte, bitte." After shooting him, he turns to his comrade and says " I wonder what bitte bitte means."

Bitte means please.

In the heat of a battle, with adrenaline rushing and reflexes in high gear such things are understandable. Lamentable, but understandable.

But in the context of soldiers who have laid down arms and surrendered, the Geneva Convention is quite clear. Killing prisoners of war who have laid down their arms and surrendered is a war crime. Anyone who kills an unarmed POW is a war criminal. (See Malmedy)

If I did not have the resources to hold the prisoner until we arrived at a base or found a larger unit to take him off our hands, I would let him go. If he gets reabsorbed by his own forces and put back into the fight, that's a chance I have to take. I can't prognosticate that outcome. Should he rejoin the fight and kill other soldiers from my side, those deaths would fall at least partially on me. One might very well say that by killing this one person now I could save many more later. Which may well prove true, but I have to make the moral decision that is before me now. I can't kill him by law and morality, and I can't keep him with me by simple logistics of time and resources. So I have to let him go.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Wartime moral quandary

Post by sonofccn » Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:30 am

Who is like God arbour wrote:Do you think that »you are not required to accept a surrender«?
I honestly can't see the differnce between not accepting a surrender and simply killing a POW taken on the battlefield. Do you give the guy back his gun, let him run twenty paces and restart the battle or what?

Who is like God arbour wrote:Would you have killed the German soldier?
The killing of a defenesless man sickens me, thats a butcher not a soldier, but my options seem limited. I can't leave him tethered to a tree, if a patrol finds him too quickly my men and I could be in a world of hurt nor can I in good concious risk the lives of my fellow soldiers. Ultimatly I guess it would depend on if I'm heading back towards my lines or away from them. If I'm moving towards them I'll risk dragging him along, bound and gagged with the understanding if he so much as blinks wrong I will kill him, until I can link up with the rest of my forces.

If I'm heading away on a mission however...it isn't right, it isn't moral and it disgusts me but he knew the risks when he put that uniform on. In that situation I don't have the boon of worrying about etheral moral concerns. On that mud splattered field I either condem one of my own to death or an enemy. I have to pick the enemy.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Wartime moral quandary

Post by Who is like God arbour » Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:13 am

Cocytus wrote:I'm reminded of that scene in The Longest Day when an American soldier shoots a German soldier who came out from behind him saying "bitte, bitte." After shooting him, he turns to his comrade and says " I wonder what bitte bitte means."

Bitte means please.

In the heat of a battle, with adrenaline rushing and reflexes in high gear such things are understandable. Lamentable, but understandable.
If it were only a case of misunderstandings - that the expressed intention to surrender is not understood - it would be tragic but condonable.

If such things happen because of an adrenaline rush and fury or wrath, it may be understandable but it is not condonable. Otherwise the Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions (and all other the war regulating conventions) have no relevance any more. Because in war an adrenaline rush and fury or wrath is normal. But it is expected that such conventions are observed nevertheless.

It is the responsibility of the leadership to make it clear that such behaviour is not accepted and will be prosecuted and to prosecute it if it happens nevertheless. A leadership that fails to do that is responsible for the committed war crimes.

That also means that a leadership can not demand that you put your mission above all.
        • For example:
                    • I have seen a long time ago a part of an episode of the series JAG (The One That Got Away), in which Mac deals with a Marine who has let a 10-year-old Iraqi boy leave a combat area unhindered, which led to the boy notifying Iraqi fighters of the Marine's position and then the deaths of two Marines. One of the officers of the JAG team argued that it would have been the duty of said Marine to kill that innocent child. In the end, even said soldier admitted that it would have been his duty.

                      You can't really believe how angry I was after seeing that war propaganda.
The gist of theses conventions is, that there are things which simply are not done - even in war and even if that means that you loose the war. You do not kill non-combatants and POWs. You do not bomb non-military targets.

And you do not do it to save your own miserable life. If you are a soldier, you know that you can get killed. That's the risk you are taking by becoming a soldier (or that your inhuman government is enforcing upon you by drafting you). That risk encompass also that you can not save your life by killing innocents.

These conventions are an attempt to make war more civilised. That may be stupid because war is the epitome of uncivilised behaviour. But a nation that has agreed to these convention has to observe them.


sonofccn wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:Do you think that »you are not required to accept a surrender«?
I honestly can't see the differnce between not accepting a surrender and simply killing a POW taken on the battlefield. Do you give the guy back his gun, let him run twenty paces and restart the battle or what?
I do not know, how exactly Sea Skimmer imagines to not accept surrender. You have to ask him or other denizens of SDN. They seem to agree with his assertion because nobody has objected.

It is possible that he means that he would shoot on enemy soldiers even if they have no wepaons and have clearly expressed their intention to surrender (no hostile actions any more, no weapons, hands above the head).



Another maybe interessting part of the Hague Convention:

Art. 10 of the Hague Convention (II):
        • Prisoners of war may be set at liberty on parole if the laws of their country authorize it, and, in such a case, they are bound, on their personal honour, scrupulously to fulfil, both as regards their own Government and the Government by whom they were made prisoners, the engagements they have contracted.
          In such cases, their own Government shall not require of nor accept from them any service incompatible with the parole given.
Art. 11 of the Hague Convention (II):
        • A prisoner of war cannot be forced to accept his liberty on parole; similarly the hostile Government is not obliged to assent to the prisoner,s request to be set at liberty on parole.
Art. 12 of the Hague Convention (II):
        • Any prisoner of war, who is liberated on parole and recaptured, bearing arms against the Government to whom he had pledged his honour, or against the allies of that Government, forfeits his right to be treated as a prisoner of war, and can be brought before the courts.

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: Wartime moral quandary

Post by Cocytus » Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:50 am

W.I.L.G.A wrote:If it were only a case of misunderstandings - that the expressed intention to surrender is not understood - it would be tragic but condonable.
Well in the film it was a misunderstanding, specifically he couldn't understand German. Such situations are why I argue constantly that one of the biggest hinderances to our effots is the language barrier, and why every unit should have someone who speaks the local language and understands customs. The military has to be able to do more than simply execute attack orders. It has to have every tool we can give it to maximize efficacy, and language is a serious component of that. Hence, programs like Human Terrain, something started by Bush's Pentagon, something I absolutely agree with and would fund to no end.
W.I.L.G.A wrote:For example:
I have seen a long time ago a part of an episode of the series JAG (The One That Got Away), in which Mac deals with a Marine who has let a 10-year-old Iraqi boy leave a combat area unhindered, which led to the boy notifying Iraqi fighters of the Marine's position and then the deaths of two Marines. One of the officers of the JAG team argued that it would have been the duty of said Marine to kill that innocent child. In the end, even said soldier admitted that it would have been his duty.

You can't really believe how angry I was after seeing that war propaganda.
Yeah, that's why I don't watch much television.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Wartime moral quandary

Post by 2046 » Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:26 pm

That's not pro-war propaganda, that's anti-war propaganda. The killing of ten year old prisoners is not something that is a part of warfare, nor should it be.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Wartime moral quandary

Post by Praeothmin » Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:00 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote: These conventions are an attempt to make war more civilised. That may be stupid because war is the epitome of uncivilised behaviour. But a nation that has agreed to these convention has to observe them.
That's the problem here WILGA, is that War isn't civilized in the least, and all these nice conventions, while very honourable, are barely respected by the countries that signed the treaties, and then only when others are looking at them and can catch them.
also, you are fighting against an enemy soldier, who then hides in a building full of innocents.
what do you do?
The tactically sound thing would be to blow up the building, and if you fight the War to win, that's what you'll do.
But then morality comes into play, and you cannot fathom killing innocents to get the enemy.
But if you don't, many innocents may die on your side...
Nothing is clear cut in War, and we can say what we want, the reality of it is, if we were Commanders in Wartime, behind enemy lines, we cannot know for certain how we would act and whether we would or would not kill the soldier...

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Wartime moral quandary

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:49 am

The Geneva convention should allow to shibaru POWs.

Post Reply