Specially Protected Persons in Combat Situations (new title)

[jmm99]

Nothing that follows should be considered a legal opinion on anything discussed. It also is not what I would do, since I can't say what I would do. Let's call it it what is within my moral and ethical bounds.

----------------
I said "limited quarter", not "no quarter"; and you first said:

from JMA
I do not advocate shooting prisoners but I am not a proponent of taking prisoners (if you know what I mean) unless they are really needed for intel gathering purposes.

So, some people become "prisoners" because they have intel value, but the others (not "useful" for lack of intel value) never make to the status of "prisoners".

and said earlier:

from JMA
4. And unofficially you put the word out that if your forces come across a unit which includes kids it will be "unlikely" that any of the older soldiers and leaders will be taken prisoner. (let them figure that out).

So, another group (defined by you; and probably guilty of war crimes) that will never make it to the status of "prisoners".

That adds up to "limited quarter" in my book; but it is not "no quarter".

-----------------------------
I see the answer to the following:

from JMA
OK so where do you draw the line as to how much preparatory bombardment and supporting fire is needed on a given objective?
...
But can you accept that if you have given a said objective a solid stonking the issue of prisoners, wounded or otherwise, is less likely to arise.

to be the military advantage or not as perceived by the field commander dependent on the assets at hand.

Given that I would go with the Hague rules, the legal (and as far as I am concerned the moral and ethical) burden is on the defender to separate civilians from combatants - not on the attacker. The Additional Protocols to Geneva turn that concept on its head and the attacker is made responsible for civilians caught in the attacked position (so also the current US ROEs I've seen). Which is why this post should not be read as a legal opinion (strictly a personal moral and ethical opinion).

But, if the field commander is confronted with a village occupied by combatants and civilians - combatants being spread throughout with multiple observation and firing points, I'd say the field commander would be within bounds to flatten the village and (at least) degrade its military capacity, rather than conducting a house by house infantry clearance operation.

Of course, well dug-in combatants (e.g., Monte Cassino) may survive a "solid stonking"; and if so, the bombardment might make a subsequent infantry assualt more difficult. The field commander would also have looked at bypassing or cordoning as well as the attack options.

What I've just described (as such) did not involve any reasoning to apply a "solid stonking" to avoid the issue of prisoners, wounded or otherwise. One could probably posit sets of circumstances (especially in the special ops arena) where prisoners are not in the cards. In that case, "solid stonkings" could avoid the issue of shooting them after the fact.

At what point does the field commander and his "solid stonkings" leave the "laws of honest warfare" and become an Anne de Joyeuse ?

--------------------------------
"Limited quarter" and "no quarter"

from JMA
What constitutes "no quarter given"? I understand that to mean that no prisoners are taken. That would include in shooting the wounded and any you try to surrender. I don't advocate that.
...
And as I asked M-A L: "Are you suggesting that a soldier is obligated to attempt to take prisoners under all circumstances or do you accept that it is enough to honour bona fide attempts to surrender where and when they occur?"

Agreed as to "no quarter given" meaning no prisoners are taken.

But even Subotai used the wagon wheel height as a test of whether prisoners would survive or not. So, mostly we deal with "limited quarter" issues, whether that is expressly admitted or not.

Given an infantry assault where opposition is continuing, two cases come up: a combatant who attempts to surrender; and a combatant who is downed (could appear dead or appear wounded). If the attacking soldier cannot safely take the surrender, or care for wounded, his military need could call for him to shoot both types of combatants. If he bypasses, either might shoot him in the back. On the other hand, where the dynamic situation has become static - complete end of firefight, the military reason (making sure you leave no enemy combatant alive behind you) disappears. Again, this is not the "school solution" and doesn't claim to be "legal".

Regards

Mike