A couple of conservative writers have put forward the proposition that US armed forces should kill, not capture, terrorists when they encounter them on the battlefield, advocating a “take no prisoners” approach. I find this a troubling proposition. It’s one thing to kill another soldier in combat, but nothing in Catholic teaching would allow a soldier to kill an enemy who’s not in a position to fight back or who’s surrendering.
One of those writers, Michael Ledeen, whose words I linked above, make a strange claim as well:
Ralph Peters, one of my favorites, has a very strong piece arguing that in almost all cases, terrorists should be killed on the battlefield, not captured. It would be helpful to know how many POWs in previous wars behaved after the conflict, but of course there are many differences between regular soldiers and terrorists. The “kill or capture?” problem has historically been resolved in favor of “kill” for most of human history. Americans are among the very first to reflexively opt for “capture.”
I’m no historian, but I think this is false. In fact, I think until recently the difference between honorable warriors aand barbarians was precisely the treatment of captured enemy. Certainly, Americans were not the first. In the Age of Sail, the officers and crew of captured vessels were treated with dignity and honor, and often the captured officers were allowed free run solely on their word that they would not try to escape, which was called their “parole” (where we get the modern word from although the concept is somewhat degraded).
In the Age of Chivalry, also, captured knights were also treated with dignity as demanded by the chivalric code, sometimes even allowed to keep their armor and horses at the end of the conflict.
But it took “modern” man to develop ideals of cruelty that elevated what was once a battlefield aberration into an expected norm, ironically through doing battle with non-Western cultures that often took no prisoners.
Technorati Tags:prisoners of war, war
bk_keywords:just war, prisoner of war.
Perhaps the writer was thinking of pirates or brigands, men who were certainly treated with less delicacy than a regular soldier.
Certainly the Romans were themselves capable of great barbarity in many ways, e.g. crucifixion, which is why I didn’t cite them.
In general, however, when we speak of Christian ethics on the battlefield, we must acknowledge that when an enemy has been rendered incapable of being an immediate threat, he must be treated with human dignity, and not slaughtered like an animal.
The question of dealing with pirates is more cloesly akin to that of terrorists and raises interesting questions. For example, is it more like a matter of martial law or combat? What is the difference?
Unlawful combatants are not entitled to the protections afforded prisoners of war and this is what we are talking about here. They can be killed or held indefinitely as long as they pose a threat.
As Christians then what should we do? I think we should promote a policy that spares their lives whenever practical and permits their release when they no longer pose a threat. This is mercy and not a matter of justice.
It seems to me that this is our policy – at least in principle and for the most part in practice.
There are people – including Christians – who have muddied the issue by demanding that unlawful combatants be treated as POWs or alternately as domestic criminal suspects as a matter of right.
Mac: But that wasn’t the question I was asking. The scenarios you propose are parts of regular combat operations, although the Special Forces soldiers who take prisoners and kill them would fall under this. I just don’t think you can legally or morally kill someone out of hand after they’ve surrendered.
Certainly people who only pretend to surrender aren’t really surrendering so that has nothing to do with this post.
Charles: The law says that unlawful combatants can be executed judicially. It doesn’t give carte blanche to soldiers on the battlefield to decide for themselves whether someone is an unlawful combatant and play the role of judge, jury, and executioner.
Again, if someone is fighting the soldier, that person can be killed. But if even the unlawful combatant surrenders, he cannot just be slaughtered. Not morally, not legally.
I’m no historian, but I think this is false. In fact, I think until recently the difference between honorable warriors aand barbarians was precisely the treatment of captured enemy. Certainly, Americans were not the first. In the Age of Sail, the officers and crew of captured vessels were treated with dignity and honor, and often the captured officers were allowed free run solely on their word that they would not try to escape, which was called their “parole” (where we get the modern word from although the concept is somewhat degraded).
So you are comparing the treatment of honorable men with animals who fake surrender to kill soldiers, who booby-trap their dead and kill women and children at the market with bombs.
An honorable man, should be treated honorably. A dishonorable man (who impersonates civilians) should be shot like a rabid dog.
If they want the option of surrender, they ought to wear uniforms and behave honorably.
Actually you are putting words in my mouth.
But I also challenge you to re-read your words and reconcile your words with the Church’s teaching on charity and the incalculable worth of every human being.
I’m no pacifist. Had my life going slightly different, I might be in the midst of the fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan right now. But combat is a necessary evil that should never strip us or our enemy of his human dignity, no matter his behavior.
When we start comparing people to animals, we’re dangerously close to making a judgment that Christ would not. He died for their sins too, after all.
Again, if an enemy is fighting, whether straightforward or in a ruse de guerre, he’s fair game. But when he legitimately surrenders or is rendered incapable of fighting back, then killing him at that point is just plain murder.
I’d like someone who disagrees to show me anywhere in 2,000 years of Church teaching that says different and I will reconsider.
Actually you are putting words in my mouth.
Actually, Dom, I didn’t. We were talking about shooting terrorists who dress like civilians, and use our own civility against us. You started talking about captured ship’s captains getting the run of a ship because of the assumption of honor on their part.
These Islamists cannot be given the assumption of honor. The assumption has to be that they will behave dishonorably, and should be treated in a way that will most effectively neutralize them.
But I also challenge you to re-read your words and reconcile your words with the Church’s teaching on charity and the incalculable worth of every human being.
I would pray for their souls as I shot them dead and hoped in their final moments that they could be reconciled with God. Their sins may be forgiven, but they still need to take the temporal consequences of their actions.
I’m no pacifist. Had my life going slightly different, I might be in the midst of the fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan right now. But combat is a necessary evil that should never strip us or our enemy of his human dignity, no matter his behavior.
When we start comparing people to animals, we’re dangerously close to making a judgment that Christ would not. He died for their sins too, after all.
Again, if an enemy is fighting, whether straightforward or in a ruse de guerre, he’s fair game. But when he legitimately surrenders or is rendered incapable of fighting back, then killing him at that point is just plain murder.
I’d like someone who disagrees to show me anywhere in 2,000 years of Church teaching that says different and I will reconsider.
Nope, now you are talking about an entirely different thing. Nowhere in the Peters article did it say that prisoners should be taken out and shot. That is putting words in his mouth (and mine if you think I subscribe to this sort of thing.)
What is a valid tactic is to shoot to kill before the opportunity to take them prisoner occurs. If by chance you simply wing them, and can determine that thay have been rendered harmless then you can safely take them into custody to stand trial for murder. Rules of war do not apply to them because they are not soldiers. In an earlier day they would be considered spies whose punishment was generally (to paraphrase from Pirates of the Caribbean) “a short drop with a sudden stop”.
If Peters is not talking about shooting prisoners then what is he saying here?
If a terrorist throws down his gun and holds up his hands, should an American soldier take him prisoner?
Reading what you wrote, we’re in agreement, but I don’t think you are on the same side as Peters and Ledeen. They’re talking about shooting guys who try to surrender.
Again, I agree that when they’re rendered harmless they should stand trial for crimes against humanity or terrorism or whatever is the modern equivalent to charges of piracy and they should do so in a military court.
But I don’t think that’s what Peters and Ledeen are advocating.
Tony has a point too. Surrender can be a game, so to speak. It’s a strategy for deferring the conflict to another day. Or venue. In this case, it’s not the innocent benevolent thing that Americans might think.
Americans have to be careful not to take the sucker punch. We’re giants of industry but babes-in-arms when it comes to this kind of thing.
Terrorism on the 21st century scale mitigates against the practices of the past. Sorry to say, but it’s true. We are dealing with people who have an entirely different common-sense framework than ours. This is the most IMPORTANT thing that Americans JUST DON”T GET.
Yes, and approach him like a deadly, poisonous snake, and if he so much as twitches, shoot him dead. If he doesn’t twitch, is able to be searched, and the determination be made that he is neutralized, then he should be taken prisoner.
But there have been times in battles, when you are in the middle of a firefight, you have a choice to make. Do you take the enemy prisoner, and open yourself to danger, or do you shoot him dead and continue the firefight?
Sometimes it makes no sense in the midst of battle to stop to take a prisoner diverting your attention from his compatriots who are trying to kill you.
We need to stop second guessing our soldiers.
This isn’t about second guessing the soldiers, who are doing just fine as is with the present rules of engagement. This is about second guessing armchair strategists who want to turn our soldiers into murderers.
Again, I don’t disagree with what you said above. What I disagree with is Peters and Ledeen’s contention that we should have a policy of not taking illegal combatants prisoner when they surrender or are rendered incapable of fighting back, but should only seek to kill them.
Agreed on “we need to stop second guessing our soldiers.” They are fighting for us the best way they know how. It’s a tough world out there and we are doing the best we can and considerably better than anyone else. We should quit carping and appreciate it.
And again, I don’t think many Americans GET IT. Do you think that the iranians (etc) sit around arguing about this in a benevolent way? Do they have to go through a forum on this before they launch that missile into Israel every day? Before they go to work in the training camps every morning? Do you really think this, all?
Michigancatholic:
Which is why we’re not the moral equivalent of extremist radical barbarians. The reason they don’t sit around talking about this is because they’re not Christians. We’ve been given a certain amount of grace and a whole lot of responsibility to follow through on it.
And that means we have to be taken advantage of by them, goes that line of reasoning.
I’d like to have been a fly on the ceiling when the Pope decided to defend Vienna. How did that work?
When I was earning my masters in philosophy, I read and discussed moral issues in depth. It’s not all so easy….
Immanuel Kant had a particular “high road” view, quite similar to what I’m hearing here. Are you familiar with the argument?
What if a raving barbarian comes to the door and asks if the oldest child is in the house, which only Parent X knows he/she is. Parent X knows for certain that the barbarian aims to rape and kill him/her because he has claimed as much. Should Parent X:
1) Admit he/she’s sleeping in the house and take the consequences for the sake of honesty, even though they be rape and murder, or
2) Does Parent X lie and claim he/she is not in the house to save his/her life?
My questions are:
1) Really what would you do? (I can tell you what I’d do.)
2) Is it really all as simple as this?
3) Are there other things to take into consideration, and if so what are they? How does this work? How should it work?
You tell me.
Give me a break. It’s not even close to the same issue. Stick to the topic and don’t give me these red herrings.
It is never moral to murder another human being. Period.
Ever? Under any circumstances?
And what is the definition of murder vs. combat death?
Are you telling me we should not have defended ourselves under Hitler?
This is all another way of asking you if you agree with the Categorical Imperative of Immanuel Kant, which it sounds like you do.
I contend that there is a difference between morality as stated by the Church and the Categorical Imperative as stated by Kant.
PS, I would have lied too, regardless of the fact it would have violated the categorical imperative on my part, because lying is incommensurate with rape and murder, and parents have a divinely ordered responsibility to their children, after all. I would have lied with no remorse and no regret. I would have lied in prayer that I would not have been found out—an enormous act of presumption, in fact, that I believe God would have understood and honored.
In like manner, I am willing to say that I will obey the Church on morals but I’m not so sure that I would say that lives taken in defense on the battlefield are wrongly taken. And these that we are discussing are on the battlefield, yes? I mean, these are not innocent bystanders, after all.
I’m also not willing to say that the definitions are all that clear. Heck, they weren’t all that clear in WWII. Even less so now since that IS the point of the new warfare and terrorism offensive after all—to confound the participant status of offenders.
Michigan: I think you’re just being intentionally obtuse. I have clearly delineated my stance on this matter several times above. Re-read it if you want. I am not advocating pacifism or that one should not defend oneself.
I am simply saying that you can’t kill enemy combatants who have surrendered or are otherwise rendered combat ineffective. Period. If you want to know the difference between murder and combat killing, I suggest you ask a soldier or Marine. They know very well the difference, thank God, because they have it drilled into them in their training.
If you continue to take the discussion into irrelevant tangents I won’t respond further.
I’m really not being obtuse, Domenico. I’m talking about the basic principles of moral philosophy involved in such a decision. But if you prefer I stop, I will.