• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it ever acceptable to execute prisoners if you have to retreat?

M

Moderate71

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Messages
333
Reaction score
36
Political Leaning
Moderate
Let's say a unit has prisoners and they need to retreat in order to prevent from being killed or captured. They can't travel fast enough with the prisoners. Is it acceptable to kill them in order to prevent them from re-joining the enemy after you retreat?
 
If it is between that and being captured or killed yourself? Yes. The smarter and arguably more humane thing to do, though, would be to shoot them all in the legs. That way the enemies resources are tied up in treating them so it is more likely you will escape AND they still get to live.
 
Moderate71 said:
Let's say a unit has prisoners and they need to retreat in order to prevent from being killed or captured. They can't travel fast enough with the prisoners. Is it acceptable to kill them in order to prevent them from re-joining the enemy after you retreat?
Click to expand...

The handling of prisoners of war is outlined in the Laws of Land Warfare, FM 27-10 Section III. General Protection of Prisoners of War, 85:

A commander may not put his prisoners to death because their presence retards his movements or diminishes his power of resistance by necessitating a large guard, or by reason of their consuming supplies, or because it appears certain that they will regain their liberty through the impending success of their forces. It is likewise unlawful for a commander to kill his prisoners on grounds of self-preservation, even in the case of airborne or commando operations, although the circumstances of the operation may make necessary rigorous supervision of and restraint upon the movement of prisoners of war.
Click to expand...
http://www.aschq.army.mil/gc/files/FM27-10.pdf

There are different steps that can be taken, depending on the circumstances to leave/release them, but killing prisoners is forbidden (at least in the U.S. military codes).

To the best of my knowledge this is still in effect.

The Geneva Convention also applies:

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950.
Click to expand...
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950.

Short answer? NO, you can't kill prisoners of war.
 
Last edited:
Moderate71 said:
Let's say a unit has prisoners and they need to retreat in order to prevent from being killed or captured. They can't travel fast enough with the prisoners. Is it acceptable to kill them in order to prevent them from re-joining the enemy after you retreat?
Click to expand...

Why did they bother to capture them in the first place?
If it is a small unit doing a raid, they seldom take prisoners anyway.
If it is a small unit separated from a larger one, then NO, do not kill the prisoners.
 
Insofar as there are many contexts in which the crux of your central question must be considered, I suggest, OP-er, that you read the following documents:

If all you want is a short answer from readers here, mine is "no."
 
Skeptic Bob said:
If it is between that and being captured or killed yourself? Yes. The smarter and arguably more humane thing to do, though, would be to shoot them all in the legs. That way the enemies resources are tied up in treating them so it is more likely you will escape AND they still get to live.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I'd go so far as to deem your solution humane, but I agree it's a better one than killing the prisoners.

I would hope that one's humanity outweighs one's will to wage war, but I suppose some folks just aren't that civilized.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
If it is between that and being captured or killed yourself? Yes. The smarter and arguably more humane thing to do, though, would be to shoot them all in the legs. That way the enemies resources are tied up in treating them so it is more likely you will escape AND they still get to live.
Click to expand...

What is that argument?
 
Moderate71 said:
Let's say a unit has prisoners and they need to retreat in order to prevent from being killed or captured. They can't travel fast enough with the prisoners. Is it acceptable to kill them in order to prevent them from re-joining the enemy after you retreat?
Click to expand...

Not today.

But in the past....

The Byzantines defeat the Bulgarians at Kleidion... King Basil was left with 8000 prisoners. The prisoners were split into groups of 100 men. They blinded 99 men in each group and left one man in each with one eye to lead the others home...
 
Xelor said:
I don't know that I'd go so far as to deem your solution humane, but I agree it's a better one than killing the prisoners.

I would hope that one's humanity outweighs one's will to wage war, but I suppose some folks just aren't that civilized.
Click to expand...

Despite what most people seem to think, waging war is NOT an honorable exercise, it is to be blunt, the organized destruction of property and the murder of people. There is nothing civilized about it. It is by its very definition the absence of rules. To claim honor or civility in such acts is a fools errand. Sherman said it best, "War is hell.", and it should be waged as brutally as possible so as to hasten its end. Sherman is one of the few military men who have a more pragmatic approach to fighting one.
 
Captain Adverse said:
The handling of prisoners of war is outlined in the Laws of Land Warfare, FM 27-10 Section III. General Protection of Prisoners of War, 85:

http://www.aschq.army.mil/gc/files/FM27-10.pdf

There are different steps that can be taken, depending on the circumstances to leave/release them, but killing prisoners is forbidden (at least in the U.S. military codes).

To the best of my knowledge this is still in effect.

The Geneva Convention also applies:

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950.

Short answer? NO, you can't kill prisoners of war.
Click to expand...

But that begs the question : Are US commanders bound by the law? Shouldn't there be an exception for them?
 
Thoreau72 said:
But that begs the question : Are US commanders bound by the law? Shouldn't there be an exception for them?
Click to expand...

What?

Of course "US Commanders are bound by the law." I referred to FM 27-10 which is the Army Field Manual, however there is also the Dept. of Defense Law of Land Warfare Section 9.5.2.1:

9.5.2.1 Prohibition on Killing of POWs. A commander of a force may not put enemy prisoners to death because their presence retards the force’s movements or diminishes the force’s power of resistance by necessitating a large guard, or by reason of the prisoners consuming supplies, or because it appears certain that they will regain their liberty through the impending success of enemy forces. It is likewise unlawful for a commander to kill enemy prisoners in the force’s custody on grounds of self-preservation, even in the case of airborne or commando operations, although the circumstances of the operation may make necessary rigorous supervision of and restraint upon the movement of POWs.104 Older sources that permitted commanders in dire circumstances to deny quarter do not reflect the current law.105
Click to expand...
http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/Law-of-War-Manual-June-2015.pdf

The law applies to ALL U.S. military commanders. How it is applied in the field? Well suffice it to say if such an incident is reported, or discovered, then the commander (and any military personal involved) can face criminal charges under the UCMJ.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
What?

Of course "US Commanders are bound by the law." I referred to FM 27-10 which is the Army Field Manual, however there is also the Dept. of Defense Law of Land Warfare Section 9.5.2.1:

http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/Law-of-War-Manual-June-2015.pdf

The law applies to ALL U.S. military commanders. How it is applied in the field? Well suffice it to say if such an incident is reported, or discovered, then the commander (and any military personal involved) can face criminal charges under the UCMJ.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I forgot to include the "sarcasm" or "tongue in cheek" emoticon in the previous post.

Yes, a US commander can/could face charges for such violations, but in reality the odds are low of that happening. Only enlisted men were sacrificed for violations of "law" at Abu Ghraib, and that would be the likely result were this hypothetical to become reality.

There is a method to our madness in not joining the ICC.
 
If a war truly of national survival against a genocidal enemy that will kill your civilians, yes, otherwise no, they have to be let go. The only exception would be if any of the specific prisoners had for certain committed war crimes. In that instance, an impromptu military tribunal could decide if any did so warranting execution.
 
Fledermaus said:
Not today.

But in the past....

The Byzantines defeat the Bulgarians at Kleidion... King Basil was left with 8000 prisoners. The prisoners were split into groups of 100 men. They blinded 99 men in each group and left one man in each with one eye to lead the others home...
Click to expand...

None made it back. It was a particularly sociopathic, psychopathic and sadistic thing to do.
 
Captain Adverse said:
The handling of prisoners of war is outlined in the Laws of Land Warfare, FM 27-10 Section III. General Protection of Prisoners of War, 85:

http://www.aschq.army.mil/gc/files/FM27-10.pdf

There are different steps that can be taken, depending on the circumstances to leave/release them, but killing prisoners is forbidden (at least in the U.S. military codes).

To the best of my knowledge this is still in effect.

The Geneva Convention also applies:

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950.

Short answer? NO, you can't kill prisoners of war.
Click to expand...

I think this answers the question in full.
 
Moderate71 said:
Let's say a unit has prisoners and they need to retreat in order to prevent from being killed or captured. They can't travel fast enough with the prisoners. Is it acceptable to kill them in order to prevent them from re-joining the enemy after you retreat?
Click to expand...

This is certainly a course of action numerous commanders have made throughout history.

But if the unit in question is retreating in the first place, leaving behind dead prisoners isn't exactly a great thing for the pursuing enemy to find.
 
Moderate71 said:
Let's say a unit has prisoners and they need to retreat in order to prevent from being killed or captured. They can't travel fast enough with the prisoners. Is it acceptable to kill them in order to prevent them from re-joining the enemy after you retreat?
Click to expand...

There are certain instances where I feel that 'honor before reason' should be practiced, and my bar for that is whether or not the risk to the cause is great or minimal. I don't consider a relatively small group of enemy soldiers to be of great importance. Those soldiers may go on to kill some of the people on our side, but with people dying left and right on both sides, perhaps it's that much more important we practice a shred of humanity in such situation.

I keep thinking about M*A*S*H*, and a portion of the game, 'Valkyria Chronicles'—two of the main characters cared for a dying enemy soldier, and in return, the man's commanding officer, when he found and captured the two, let them go, and expressed regret that they would probably meet again on the battlefield. Yeah, I'm probably a bit too idealistic, but **** it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom