[Skunk]

Originally posted by Black Baron: About your situation-in your place i would have them disarmed, gagged, and sent to my lines asasp. killing surendering prisoners is a crime. Especially if they surendered on their own free will.

Things might have changed over the years, but in my day the average (British) army soldier never carried masking tape for gagging or 'plastic handcuffs' as part of his/her kit unless of course, you were on a specific mission to capture prisoners.

Other than that, finding yourself behind enemy lines can only be for one of two reasons.
1. You got lost and blundered your way to your current location (as the now famous 'Jessica Lynch' convoy did). In that scenario, you are probably very undequipped for the situation you have found yourself in (ie lacking food, ammo etc.). Your only hope of survival is to get back to your own lines asap. Taking prisoners is fine if you have vehicles at your disposal and you judge that it is safe to continue using them.
If you have no vehicle - taking prisoners means that your journey to safety is a lot slower and more dangerous. What happens if your captive decides to make a break for it when you are passing close to an enemy position? What are you going to do to stop him, open fire? That's the same as yelling: "Here I am!"
You'll also have to give up one of your squad to guard duty and share what little rations/water you have to keep him healthy enough to keep up with you...

2. You are on a specific mission (ie capture a strategic point ahead of advancing troops, blow up something, etc. etc.). Once more your prisoners are a liability that will slow you down/give you away. You have no spare men with which you can use to send POWs back to your lines - there are never any 'spare bodies' in such a situation.

Like you, the idea of a 'fatal accident' initially horrified me: later I came to accept it as a reality of war.

Originally posted by Azred: "I was only following orders" is a piss-poor defense for a soldier. It didn't work at Nuremburg; it wouldn't work here. Any order that is going to knowingly injure civilians or knowingly ignore the fact that civilians will be killed when those deaths could be avoided should be ignored. I agree that a soldier's primary job is to obey orders, but soldiers do have a higher responsibility to serve their country. How would it serve Israel, or any country in any situation, to ignore the ramifications of unnecessary civilian deaths?

It didn't work at Nuremburg because the allies didn't want it to work at Nuremburg. No allied commander ever faced trial for the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo because they were only following orders. And certainly, the crew of the Enola Gay never faced any charges for their actions either.
Justice is for the victor and only for the victor - another painful reality of war.

Originally posted by Luvian: That soldier's intentions might have been good, but you don't win wars with good intentions.

And that's really what it's about, isn't it? War is about winning - not about being the nice guy. If the other side deveops 'unpleasant' weapons, then so do you - if they use them, you use them. And if it looks like you're going to lose the war, chances are that it is your side that will be the first to use 'prohibited' weaponry.
If you win the war, you can always dispense 'Justice' and if you lose, being on the wrong end of 'Justice' is probably not going to matter to you (if you've survived that long).
And that's why the most passioned anti-war messages came from folk like Chirac - people with harsh battle experience. Because they know what war entails and that, once you're in one - there are no rules, except survival.

I'd probably find our hypothetical pilot guily of disobeying a lawful command too - but that doesn't mean I'd like myself for it - only that I appreciate the reality of the situation.