Originally Posted by alessandro.pirisinu

Dear NP8901 Sir,
how a true soldier can shoot a foe who had clearly indicated that he has surrendered?

a lot would depend on the circumstances. if the foe has just taken part of an ambush on your squad, platoon, company.... folks might be a bit pizzed and wanting a *wee* bit of payback... would be a dangerous time for the bad guy...

also, if said bad guy would not talk to tell where is buddies are after said ambush, again it could be a very dangerous time for him....(talk or I shoot your azz)

also, if on a mission and a foe is captured... and you are undermanned and the mission is critical - and the foe is a low ranking person (meaning he doesn't know schit about anything) then he may be *terminated* because you do not have the manpower to spare to watch over him or transport him back to the rear....

note: the above scenario's work on both sides of the fence........ such is life in the trenches..... no right or wrong about it - it just is.

now, I date myself for sure - maybe attitudes are different now.

You´ll be in deep **** if you did it today.

Dear Sirs 42RM and M551SHERIDAN,

first of all, thank you very much for your answers.
With all due respect, 42RM Sir I don't think I'm mixing things... but the risk is to oversimplify this important issue.
I agree 100% with M551sheridan: it depends on the circumstances!!
I invite both of you to take a look a at this link:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/new...irectives.html
It's very interesting the difference between ROE's and tactical directives (what you can do and what you should do) in a given situation.
And there's a big deal of difference between "a foe who is unarmed and clearly surrendered" and "a foe has just taken part of an ambush on your squad, platoon, company...": you're right, Sir!!
But I keep on insisting on the responsibility that every soldier has.
In that document I linked, the ISAF spokesman (German Army Brig. Gen. Josef Blotz) indicates a clear example of what I said above:
“If our troops are fired upon from a compound, under the laws of armed conflict…international law, that compound is a legal target... However, the current tactical directive will ask our troops to consider the minimal level of force that’s required to handle the situation”.
I think this is the key point: a military intervention is needed? ok, with all the consequences in terms of enemies killed... but the "policy" is to reduce as much as possible the human losses. (I can make a comment: N.A.T.O. is very precise on this delicate matter, I don't think Afghani are the same...)
And the German Gen. finally underlines that "... ISAF always retain the right to self defense, if commanders believe their forces are in danger they are required to make decisions to protect themselves”. This is the essence of the ROE's (in every time and every war): defence must always be proportional to offence.

In the end, 42RM and M551Sheridan I'd like to thank you again for your contributions.
And let me say something I deeply believe: I can say anything and report any spokesman's conference... but I'm here in my home, while you are on duty, maybe in an operative theatre. So, I'm with you and I support you in the job you're doing... I am (I was) an officer... so I don't question the way in which you fulfil your mission, I fully understand the pressure you're in.
And I thank you for what you're doing.

Respectfully
Alex

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

Also if it was not nailed down we would take any thing we needed

When was that then? I'll just take some notes!!

Thats the difference between Paras and Bootnecks.
We would have nicked the nails as well.

Originally Posted by 42RM

You´ll be in deep **** if you did it today.

what about Special Ops operations....... you mean the mission would be aborted because you had a prisoner?

Originally Posted by m551sheridan

a lot would depend on the circumstances. if the foe has just taken part of an ambush on your squad, platoon, company.... folks might be a bit pizzed and wanting a *wee* bit of payback... would be a dangerous time for the bad guy...

POW´s must at all times be protected and reprisal is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Originally Posted by m551sheridan

also, if said bad guy would not talk to tell where is buddies are after said ambush, again it could be a very dangerous time for him....(talk or I shoot your azz)

This is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Originally Posted by m551sheridan

also, if on a mission and a foe is captured... and you are undermanned and the mission is critical - and the foe is a low ranking person (meaning he doesn't know schit about anything) then he may be *terminated* because you do not have the manpower to spare to watch over him or transport him back to the rear....

This is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Originally Posted by m551sheridan

what about Special Ops operations....... you mean the mission would be aborted because you had a prisoner?

Yes, it can be the outcome since you and your mission has been compromised. Normally you avoid all contact with both friends and enemies.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Article 12
Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

Article 13
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.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

And it´s my goddamn duty as an officer to ensure that these rules are enforced.

Originally Posted by 42RM

And it´s my goddamn duty as an officer to ensure that these rules are enforced.

I like these words, Sir.

Originally Posted by 42RM

POW´s must at all times be protected and reprisal is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

This is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

This is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Yes, it can be the outcome since you and your mission has been compromised. Normally you avoid all contact with both friends and enemies.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Article 12
Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

Article 13
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.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

And it´s my goddamn duty as an officer to ensure that these rules are enforced.

I am not arguing *any* of what you have said... is what I was taught also... just saying there are circumstances when smaller groups are involved that schit happens...... has always happened........... will most likely continue to happen.

Originally Posted by m551sheridan

... will most likely continue to happen.

Unfortunately and regretfully...