Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
What commands ? The context of JW's example suggested a group of good guys acting independently in fact - thus, no assumption of "legalisms" or ROEs for that matter.
Not so, he gave no context, you assumed that -- and it's incorrect.
So, good guys decide what to do individually or do what their commander tells them.
The 'good guys' will determine what to do individually only so much as the situation allows, if the ROE governing contacts say capture, the commander on the ground will almost certainly follow the rules. However, if Joe decides that a given person he sees had been seen before, he may ignore his commanders desires and the ROE -- IF he thinks he can get away with it. That is far from an unknown phenomenon.
Aside from capture (detention), accepting surrender and leave in place is another (lots of variations here if you have an imagination - which you do).
Thank you for the acknowledgment of my imagination; an accolade from the cretaor of the Chimps...
I see - OK to kill them (#3), but not disable them (BTW a necessary wounding assuming your team cannot detain prisoners). More humane to kill than to maim. Perhaps true to a majority of Americans.
Correct in my observation and experience -- not in my imagination; yours is the one that went to maiming.
Nope, won't let you cop out so easily
Watch it. I'm not trying to cop out of anything.

- BTW: agreed that there is a lot of slack in a firefight & so, a surrender is a risky proposition until the situation becomes stable. I'm assuming a stable situation after the firefight, where the choice has to be premeditated and deliberate.
There you go with the ass u me bit again. That is very unlikely to occur, the chances of detection are too great and penalties for doing that are too severe. If it occurs, it will be in the heat of a firefight or not at all.
(omitted as unnecessary)... let's simplify this. Mission (one person team) is to get from point A to B. AQ retread (one person) fights and surrenders. Your (or my) choice is (1) detain AQ as captive, bring AQ back to A and abort mission; or possibly leave him in place in some way so he won't screw up you getting to B; or (2) disable him so he probably won't screw up you getting to B; or (3) kill AQ so he will not screw up you getting to B (and also correcting the screwup in someone releasing him in the first place). Add to it: no Operational Law Handbooks, ROEs, etc. - in short, only White's Law (or McCarthy's Law) applies.
I strongly doubt anyone can say what they'd do in your hypothetical situation; you say "'one person team" and if that means an individual operating alone (improbable but possible) then none can accurately say what they would do in a situation until they're in that situation, there are simply too many variables.
I don't think that situation is that simple - and probably has no correct answer. However, your move ...
It never is; few do; and I'm not moving anywhere.
What is your factual basis for the assertion that the book is fiction. Since I'm a Dalton Fury neutral, I stand to be educated by facts. If the man is "not factually accurate" (he says the book is fact), I'd like to hear the facts.
My factual basis is that he could not tell everything that occurred in the book due to the classification of the actions involved, that his was not the only unit that had that mission and thus that his book may be mostly fact -- but cannot be totally so. I used the word 'fiction' simply to point out that his book, like many others will ALWAYS leave out some things and will be a one person view of what occurred and thus not all encompassing. Memoirs and "I was there" books are seldom totally factual, they cannot be for a variety of reasons, thus there's always an element of fiction or "I think what happened was...' I can also say that I hear among his former compatriots there are mixed emotions about that specific book
...I would add that our troopers see even less reciprocity where American detainees in AQ hands are beheaded, mutilated, etc.
Based on what I hear, they seem to be very much aware of that; the word is that avoiding capture is paramount...
Trying to figure why you read me wrong.
It's an imperfect medium for communication; my excessive wordiness is an attempt to add clarity in view of the lack of expression and context due to the medium; even that frequently doesn't work as this exchange shows -- as one of my kids says, the internet doesn't do nuance...