Private Manning sentenced to 35 years in prison

[Ace Pace]

How is trying to prevent war crimes not deserving of the peace nobel prize?


Oh, and could we please change the thread title to "Private Manning sentenced to 35 years in prison" or somesuch, so that its at least gender neutral?

Because nothing he did prevented war crimes. Not one single entity worldwide would change its behavior following those leaks. No organisation involved in military activities or foriegn policy was surprised at how the U.S. acted, nor were the diplomatic cables more than a serious embarrassment.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Are people not reading the thread or are they just being assholes about continuing to use masculine pronouns after this news came out?

[Serafina]

Are people not reading the thread or are they just being assholes about continuing to use masculine pronouns after this news came out?

At least Wikipedia already changed their relevant article.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well, I think there is a distinct difference between people on a lifeboat in the sea and ground forces with weapons nearby. Those in the lifeboat need to be rescued by friendly forces or make it to land where they can regroup with friendly forces. Ground forces can immediately pick up their weapons and resume whatever operation they were engaged in.

This is the same crew that callously killed children and people attempting to rescue said children. The Conventions make no such distinction either. If, at the time you want to shoot at them, they are not engaged in hostilities, you cannot shoot them. At minimum, if they lay down their arms, they are inviolate. It does not matter if you can take them prisoner. If they pick up their weapons again, they are fair game, but until then not so much.

You can make the argument that on an actual battlefield, this might be silly, or may not apply, because for example the helicopter gun ship might fly over and the guys pick weapons up and start shooting at your infantry five minutes later. However, this is urban warfare. If nothing else, it is a vital protection for civilians and aid workers, who need some way of showing they are not combatants. If they cannot put their hands up, raise a white flag--something--to show they are not hostile and have it count for something, then your rules of engagement constitute a war crime.

How do you know this? Have you taken your camera into a combat zone and tried to distinguish the quality of your optics?

Combat zone vs not-combat zone should not affect properties of optics.

That Apache crew that killed the journalists the engagement range was roughly 800 meters.

And? Would you like to know how it determined whether those targets were hostile? The camera it uses is a monochrome TV camera from 1970s. They are finally upgrading to color...

My Nikon L610 (a decent point and shoot) can take images at 80 meters which, when scaled to what it would be at 800 meters, gives you this:



I will see about confirming my image scaling on an 800 meter distant object, but it is kinda hilly around here.

I can't tell what those objects are but carrying such things in a combat zone without some type of color coded marking seems unwise to me.

The entire country is a combat zone. It is not as if the population "enters" said warzone. They live there. The combat zone enters their homes--often literally, resulting in various american service branches raging out and executing entire families.

The fact that the army's imaging systems cannot discriminate between an RPG, a 2x4, or a camera tripod at 800 meters--while relying on said same imaging systems for friend/foe designations at 800 meters--is my entire point. Laying aside the fact that these motherfuckers knowingly shot children and people trying to render medical aid in abrogation of not just the geneva conventions but any sort of conscience whatsoever, this is the US Army in the 21st century.

The proper response should have been "We cannot tell at this range what they are carrying, this area is swarming with civilians going about their business. We need to get eyes on" rather than chomping at the bit to engage.

That is why not being able to tell what people are carrying is not an excuse. And it should not be an issue in the first place, because the US Army, with its vast amount of money, should be able to afford periodic optical upgrades to their targeting systems. Because at this point, they are better off using a good set of binoculars, or strapping a remote controlled Nikon D3200 with a with a 400 mm telephoto lens to their guns, and looking at the image feed on a god damn jailbroken Ipad.

[NecronLord]

Oh, and could we please change the thread title to "Private Manning sentenced to 35 years in prison" or somesuch, so that its at least gender neutral?

Done. Only not using Chelsea because people might not know the name.

[energiewende]

What is the applicability of the war-governing treaties here? The Geneva Conventions don't seem to allow just anyone to act in just any manner and then surrender safely when things go wrong. It recognises non-state resistance organisations but only if they themselves obey the laws of war acting in a similar manner to state armed forces:

"4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

The Iraq insurgents don't meet any of these criteria except possibly the first one so I would think they are only subject to US martial law or to Iraqi law, with no protections from the treaties. Is this interpretation correct?

As for surrendering to an aircraft, this is problematic in ways that should be too obvious to need stating.

[Serafina]

Oh, and could we please change the thread title to "Private Manning sentenced to 35 years in prison" or somesuch, so that its at least gender neutral?

Done. Only not using Chelsea because people might not know the name.

That was my idea as well. Thanks for doing it.

[K. A. Pital]

The Iraq insurgents don't meet any of these criteria except possibly the first one so I would think they are only subject to US martial law or to Iraqi law, with no protections from the treaties. Is this interpretation correct?

They meet three out of four, actually, except for the recognizeable sign. But it does not matter at all, since:

Under the present provision, the Convention applies to persons who "fall into the power" of the enemy.

That's it. Even persons in doubt are specifically protected.

Should any doubt arise whether any of these persons belongs to one of the categories named in the said Article, that person shall have the benefit of the present Convention until his or her status has been determined by some responsible authority

That is also already laid out in Article 3 - even without having a POW status persons who surrender shall be treated humanely. At all times. Murder strictly prohibited.

...each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

Article 4 makes another reference which you omitted:

Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

So of course they should be treated humanely.

[Grumman]

What is the applicability of the war-governing treaties here? The Geneva Conventions don't seem to allow just anyone to act in just any manner and then surrender safely when things go wrong.
...
As for surrendering to an aircraft, this is problematic in ways that should be too obvious to need stating.

It is a war crime to pretend to surrender to gain a military advantage. But it is not reasonable to assume that is what they were doing just because they made their intentions known to the helicopter despite it being unable to accept their surrender, rather than just hoping the helicopter wouldn't shoot them until they found some infantry.

[energiewende]

The Iraq insurgents don't meet any of these criteria except possibly the first one so I would think they are only subject to US martial law or to Iraqi law, with no protections from the treaties. Is this interpretation correct?

They meet three out of four, actually, except for the recognizeable sign.

They neither carry arms openly (most casualties are inflicted by bombs planted by people in civilian clothes) nor obey the laws of war (they are responsible for the majority of civilian deaths in Iraq, and do not take PoW*). In any case, the minimum requirement is that all must be satisfied.

* for instance from Manning's own leaks, "2,700 previously unreported deaths are of Iraqi Police and other Iraqi security forces killed after capture.". That means the insurgents have murdered almost as many Iraqis after surrender as the total US military deaths in the same period. Interesting news to an impartial observer, one might have thought...

But it does not matter at all, since:

Under the present provision, the Convention applies to persons who "fall into the power" of the enemy.

That's it. Even persons in doubt are specifically protected.

"Under the present provision, the Convention applies to persons who "fall into the power" of the enemy. This term is also used in the opening sentence of Article 4 [ Link ] above, replacing the expression "captured" which was used in the 1929 Convention (Article 1 [ Link ] ). It indicates clearly that the treatment laid down by the Convention is applicable not only to military personnel taken prisoner in the course of fighting, but also to those who fall into the hands of the adversary following surrender or mass capitulation."

The full quote. This means that the provisions apply to people who have not themselves offered surrender but who are included in a more general surrender. The purpose is to exclude legalistic wranging (Captain X is in the Army of Y, not in the Army of Z that offered its surrender, so he is still a combatant), not to extend PoW status to people who are specifically excluded from such status by the terms of the Convention.

Should any doubt arise whether any of these persons belongs to one of the categories named in the said Article, that person shall have the benefit of the present Convention until his or her status has been determined by some responsible authority

That is also already laid out in Article 3 - even without having a POW status persons who surrender shall be treated humanely. At all times. Murder strictly prohibited.

If there is doubt as to their status. There isn't doubt that the Iraq insurgents are not lawful combatants as defined by the Convention. So this would only be applicable if there were doubt someone was actually an insurgent.

Murder is always prohibited since the definition of murder is killing that is prohibited!

...each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

Insurgents are taking active part in the hostilities and are not members of armed forces.

Article 4 makes another reference which you omitted:

Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

So of course they should be treated humanely.

Because I can parse the reference - Iraq is not a non-occupied territory, and the insurgency is not a spontaneous response to an approaching enemy. The purpose of this provision is to give exemption to people who may have intended to join organised militias that obey the laws of war but were unable to do so because of the suddenness of the attack. It still imposes requirements for their conduct that the Iraq insurgents fail.

It is a war crime to pretend to surrender to gain a military advantage. But it is not reasonable to assume that is what they were doing just because they made their intentions known to the helicopter despite it being unable to accept their surrender, rather than just hoping the helicopter wouldn't shoot them until they found some infantry.

That's not just reasonable, but overwhelmingly likely. There was a semi-serious question in the Second World War: what if bombers arrive over some city and the mayor radios that he wants to surrender? I am not sure what the strict legal case is - perhaps it is an example of technology advancing faster than law and there is no clear statement on the matter - but it's certainly grasping at straws to make one of your key examples of bad US practice one where any other action would facilitate widespread abuse of the laws of war (to the extent they apply to these people at all) and make the insurgency practically impossible to fight.

[K. A. Pital]

So, just as I imagined - even the Geneva Convention of 1949 does not satisfy bloodlust of government murderers, they still seek loopholes to create a "illegal combatant" concept, which then allows them to behave in a no quarter fashion and commit mass murder.

nor obey the laws of war (they are responsible for the majority of civilian deaths in Iraq, and do not take PoW*)

So machine-gunned people laid down their IEDs and shaheed belts, right? Because the validity of surrender is judged for any particular group or militia, the fact that some people blow themselves up does not give you the right to machinegun a random Arab who lays down his RPG or Kalashnikov - at the very least until you ascertain that he is a part of the militia group that blow themselves up. But even after that the breaches by some members of a militia or army do not give you the right to summarily execute or murder within the lines of the hideous no quarter concept other members of the same army or militia. Wehrmacht was breaching laws of war everywhere, but murder of surrendering German soldiers was prohibited by the convention.

Just wanted to get that straight.

[Simon_Jester]

The problem with ignoring surrendering infantry when you're in an aircraft is that they might pick the weapons back up when you fly away.

The problem with killing surrendering infantry when you're in an aircraft is that you are killing unarmed men. You have no way of knowing if their desire to surrender was sincere.* But you do know they are unable to offer any resistance.

In my opinion, deliberately massacring those people is as grotesque as having your ship come back to machine-gun sailors in lifeboats who abandoned their vessel in mid-ocean. Sure, in some theoretical sense you are 'denying the enemy a resource' by doing that. But historically this argument is very strongly associated with armed forces that we today call the poster boys for committing war crimes: the WWII Japanese military, the Waffen SS, and so on. If you ask me, it's bizarre and nightmarish when someone's trying to present this as normal behavior for a military.

What is the effect of telling your enemies that if they throw down their weapons, they still die if it's inconvenient to imprison them, and that if they do get imprisoned they may well be tortured or held for life like the inmates at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo? That's a recipe for a war that drags on forever, because the enemy has basically nothing to lose by fighting you to the last breath.

*At least one Iraqi Army unit tried surrendering to a UAV during the initial offensive into Iraq, and as far as I can tell they really meant it because they wanted out of the war.
_______________________________

Now, I grant that there's a real problem in the context of the laws of war- to take an extreme example, suppose that Nagasaki's local government had radioed "We surrender!" to the approaching nuclear bomber Bockscar? But is the answer invariably "slaughter them all?" Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of even having laws of war in the first place?

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's not just reasonable, but overwhelmingly likely. There was a semi-serious question in the Second World War: what if our bombers arrive over Berlin and the mayor radios that he wants to surrender? I am not sure what the strict legal case is - perhaps it is an example of technology advancing faster than law and there is no clear statement on the matter - but it's certainly grasping at straws to make one of your key examples of bad US practice one where any other action would facilitate widespread abuse of the laws of war (to the extent they apply to these people at all) and make the insurgency practically impossible to fight.

Here is the problem, and why I harped on the photography. In the incident under discussion, the helicopter shot at civilians and journalists. It shot at journalists because its optics were shit--no surprise, given that the targeting optics are not designed for this--and could not differentiate between an RPG and a tripod. It shot at children because the van they were in was in the process of evacuating wounded persons--without knowing who they were because the Apache was 800 meters away. And they KNEW they were shooting at children. They also shot the people attempting to help the children later.

Incidentally, even after the military knew about the civilian deaths, everyone killed was classified as an enemy killed in action.

Insurgents are taking active part in the hostilities and are not members of armed forces.

Except those people listed above were not. Moreover, the conventions list ALL persons. Not just Protected Persons, as being immune to being shot at when they are not participating in hostilities. The conventions make it clear that this includes wounded soldiers, but it does not exclude anyone.

To WIt: if they are not shooting, engaged in combat operations, or logistical support, you are not allowed to shoot them. No, caring for wounded does not count as logistical support.

If nothing else, this is an important protection for Civilians. Iraq is an urban combat zone. Unless there is some mechanism by which a civilian who finds themselves in a Very Bad Place can indicate that they are non-combatants, you end up killing civilians... like... what happened in this instance.

Moreover, insurgents in Iraq come in a lot of flavors. Many factions, different operational procedures. Some target civilians. Some dont. Some more or less follow the rules of war. Others dont. So you cant lump them into a "these people" category.

Lastly, you dont get to use the murder of civilians as a benchmark for whether or not armed persons are legal combatants, while also covering an entire belligerent side of the conflict. If you do, with tens of thousands of dead civilians under its belt, the whole of the US armed forces is not protected by the Conventions.

[Metahive]

In my opinion, deliberately massacring those people is as grotesque as having your ship come back to machine-gun sailors in lifeboats who abandoned their vessel in mid-ocean. Sure, in some theoretical sense you are 'denying the enemy a resource' by doing that. But historically this argument is very strongly associated with armed forces that we today call the poster boys for committing war crimes: the WWII Japanese military, the Waffen SS, and so on. If you ask me, it's bizarre and nightmarish when someone's trying to present this as normal behavior for a military.

I agree. In WW2 the Waffen SS justified the killing of children with "wartime necessity", because "they would try and avenge their parents (which we just murdered) when they grow up". Wartime necessity isn't really a moral excuse for anything.

Now, I grant that there's a real problem in the context of the laws of war- to take an extreme example, suppose that Nagasaki's local government had radioed "We surrender!" to the approaching nuclear bomber Bockscar? But is the answer invariably "slaughter them all?" Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of even having laws of war in the first place?

The act is declaring a city "open". The French did so in WW2 with Paris for example, to save it from wartime damage. The Germans accepted under the condition that the French had to take their frontline back several miles as well as remove all military from the city. I don't know if that would have saved Nagasaki or any japanese city.

[eyl]

In my opinion, deliberately massacring those people is as grotesque as having your ship come back to machine-gun sailors in lifeboats who abandoned their vessel in mid-ocean. Sure, in some theoretical sense you are 'denying the enemy a resource' by doing that. But historically this argument is very strongly associated with armed forces that we today call the poster boys for committing war crimes: the WWII Japanese military, the Waffen SS, and so on. If you ask me, it's bizarre and nightmarish when someone's trying to present this as normal behavior for a military.

I don't think the two cases are really comparable (leaving aside the question of whether your ship is more capable of taking prisoners than an aircraft). The sailors may return to be a threat, but their ship has sunk or at least been disabled, so they're not an immediate threat. In the case of soldiers on the ground, they may become a threat again as soon as the helicopter leaves.

Consider the following hypothetical. A group of insurgents finds a spot where they can ambush American forces (say with mortar fire) but the latter can't fire back or easily reach (a clifftop, say). A helicopter is brought up and the insurgents surrender as soon as it arrives. As soon as it leaves, they can resume firing (and the helicopter can't just hover in place indefinitely, after all).

Even if the capturing force is a ground force, it doesn't guarantee that they are capable of taking prisoners in various edge cases. For example, the capturing force may be starving even without the addtional mouths to feed.

Another situation can be with raids or covert ops and such. Consider the following tale from Israeli history. In the early part of the 1948 war, the Gush Etzion settlements came under siege. Since the roads were effectively impassible, the Yishuve leadership decided to dispatch a group of 38 soldiers carrying supplies to assist them. They were detected, ambushed, and 35 of them were killed (one man had injured his leg and was sent back with two escorts prior to the ambush), the mission failing.

This much is historical fact. In addition, the tale goes that they encountered an old Arab shepherd on the way, bringing up the dilemma of whether to kill him or not (they could leave him tied up, but that would likely just be a crueler method of killing). They chose to let him go, and he reported their presence, leading to the ambush.

If a force encounters such a situation, what do you think they should do?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Consider the following hypothetical. A group of insurgents finds a spot where they can ambush American forces (say with mortar fire) but the latter can't fire back or easily reach (a clifftop, say). A helicopter is brought up and the insurgents surrender as soon as it arrives. As soon as it leaves, they can resume firing (and the helicopter can't just hover in place indefinitely, after all).

Then you either

a) Force them to leave their position, radio ahead to your infantry and let them know they have incoming prisoners and either go with them, or stay until a drone arrives to ensure compliance

b) Alert infantry to their position, and let your artillery or other strike craft know exactly where they are

If and Only if such surrenders are regularly done in bad faith might it be acceptable to not take the risk. But NOT in an urban environment where you are just as likely dealing with civilians who you cannot tell are actually unarmed due to shity optics, or where your armor penetrating rounds will likely pass through buildings and kill civilians. In an urban environment, it might be best to bias decision making on the side of not engaging with a death-machine, when you have infantry a few hundred meters away who can readily get eyes on or accept a surrender if only you would stay on station for 5 minutes, rather than chomping at the bit to kill.

Even if the capturing force is a ground force, it doesn't guarantee that they are capable of taking prisoners in various edge cases. For example, the capturing force may be starving even without the addtional mouths to feed.

You disarm them and send them back across lines. Thankfully, we have modern logistic trains now, and that is not an issue for modern militaries.

If a force encounters such a situation, what do you think they should do?

Take the risk, make sure you dont get caught in the first place, or, failing that, wait until your mission is over or well enough under way that you dont risk opsec and alert your own command to the existence of a shepherd tied up along a road junction, so an aid worker can be sent out. He will keep until then.

That "tale" I suspect exists so as to justify killing civilians. It is not as if the IDF has a clean record in that respect.

[eyl]

Consider the following hypothetical. A group of insurgents finds a spot where they can ambush American forces (say with mortar fire) but the latter can't fire back or easily reach (a clifftop, say). A helicopter is brought up and the insurgents surrender as soon as it arrives. As soon as it leaves, they can resume firing (and the helicopter can't just hover in place indefinitely, after all).

Then you either

a) Force them to leave their position, radio ahead to your infantry and let them know they have incoming prisoners and either go with them, or stay until a drone arrives to ensure compliance

b) Alert infantry to their position, and let your artillery or other strike craft know exactly where they are

That assumes you have a surplus of combat resources available, enough that you can dedicate a helicopter or drone to loiter around them (and you'll note that in my example, the infantry can't reach them).

If and Only if such surrenders are regularly done in bad faith might it be acceptable to not take the risk. But NOT in an urban environment where you are just as likely dealing with civilians who you cannot tell are actually unarmed due to shity optics, or where your armor penetrating rounds will likely pass through buildings and kill civilians. In an urban environment, it might be best to bias decision making on the side of not engaging with a death-machine, when you have infantry a few hundred meters away who can readily get eyes on or accept a surrender if only you would stay on station for 5 minutes, rather than chomping at the bit to kill.

I was referring to a more general case.

Even if the capturing force is a ground force, it doesn't guarantee that they are capable of taking prisoners in various edge cases. For example, the capturing force may be starving even without the addtional mouths to feed.

You disarm them and send them back across lines. Thankfully, we have modern logistic trains now.

Ideally yes. But conditions aren't always ideal.

Take the risk,

And possibly doom a lot of people (the battle I mentioned above? Let's assume that the mission was make or break, that the Gush would definitely have fallen without them, and on the other hand could hold on until reinforcements came if the supplies made it through. Defeat means the death of the defenders*)

make sure you dont get caught in the first place,

If everything goes all right, we don't have a problem. A nice situation if you can get it, I suppose.

or, failing that, wait until your mission is over or well enough under way that you dont risk opsec and alert your own command to the existence of a shepherd tied up along a road junction, so an aid worker can be sent out. He will keep until then.

Depending on the mission, that could take days.

That "tale" I suspect exists so as to justify killing civilians. It is not as if the IDF has a clean record in that respect.

Actually, when it comes up (e.g. in IDF command courses), the consensus is that letting him go was the correct decision. I'm not completely convinced I agree.

*Historically, after Gush Etzion fell and the surviving 250 or so defenders surrendered, almost all of them were massacred.

[LaCroix]

Consider the following hypothetical. A group of insurgents finds a spot where they can ambush American forces (say with mortar fire) but the latter can't fire back or easily reach (a clifftop, say). A helicopter is brought up and the insurgents surrender as soon as it arrives. As soon as it leaves, they can resume firing (and the helicopter can't just hover in place indefinitely, after all).

The correct approach after they resume firing would be to load a squad into a helicoper and let it join the attack helicopter. If they "surrender" again, keep them at gunpoint until the other helicopter lands and takes them into custody. If they try to resist, gun them down, as they obviously did not surrender.

If they let themself taken, fly them to your base and try them for the war crime of misusing "surrender".

[Metahive]

Question, is convenience an acceptable excuse for warcrimes? Should soldiers be allowed to kill civilians because letting them live would make things harder for them? I don't know what you think, but my answer is a resounding NO! So what if a civilians spots your covert ops team? Here's a thought, abort the mission and send troopers who don't suck next time.

[eyl]

Question, is convenience an acceptable excuse for warcrimes? Should soldiers be allowed to kill civilians because letting them live would make things harder for them? I don't know what you think, but my answer is a resounding NO! So what if a civilians spots your covert ops team? Here's a thought, abort the mission and send troopers who don't suck next time.

Do you employ ninjas? Guess what, no matter how good your troops are, that doesn't immunize you to Murphy's law. Bad luck (or good luck, I suppose, from the enemy's POV) can always come into play. And aborting a mission is not always an option.

Let's play with some hypotheticals (extreme cases, but you made an absolute statement, after all). If the alternatives are killing one civilian or suffering a hundred military casualties, should the civilian be spared? What if the alternatives are 1,000 of your civilians? (e.g., your spotted specops team was trying to disable an enemy ICBM sile located in a city before it launches at one of yours*)

*Arguably, under GC4 Article 28, blowing up the entire neighborhood with and air strike is legal, so long as you don't have a more precise method available.

EDIT - and I should point out we're discussing on whether there are circumstances where killing civilians is allowed under the laws of war - if the answer is "yes", then doing so under those circumstances is not a war crime by definition.

[Thanas]

You people are all missing one point: It is completely unreasonable to assume that people are insurgents in Iraq just because they were funny clothes and are armed. EVERYBODY there is armed. There is no difference between a peaceful group of people celebrating or just meeting up (who put their weapons in the air as a sign that they are happy) or a group of insurgents who have not started shooting yet.

In those circumstances it is completely unreasonable to just think of every Person as a military insurgent just because he carries a weapon.

[Korto]

Consider the following hypothetical. A group of insurgents finds a spot where they can ambush American forces (say with mortar fire) but the latter can't fire back or easily reach (a clifftop, say). A helicopter is brought up and the insurgents surrender as soon as it arrives. As soon as it leaves, they can resume firing (and the helicopter can't just hover in place indefinitely, after all).

Then you either

a) Force them to leave their position, radio ahead to your infantry and let them know they have incoming prisoners and either go with them, or stay until a drone arrives to ensure compliance

b) Alert infantry to their position, and let your artillery or other strike craft know exactly where they are

If and Only if such surrenders are regularly done in bad faith might it be acceptable to not take the risk. But NOT in an urban environment where you are just as likely dealing with civilians who you cannot tell are actually unarmed due to shity optics, or where your armor penetrating rounds will likely pass through buildings and kill civilians. In an urban environment, it might be best to bias decision making on the side of not engaging with a death-machine, when you have infantry a few hundred meters away who can readily get eyes on or accept a surrender if only you would stay on station for 5 minutes, rather than chomping at the bit to kill.

So first, you've got to work out how to communicate with your prisoners, since they may not be on your radio frequency, to tell them to move and in which direction.
Second, a multi-million dollar aircraft has got to travel at walking pace to escort a couple of prisoners to base. Close to the ground, and in hostile territory. It isn't sufficient to be high up and far away buzzing around, because you've got to keep your prisoners close together and away from bolt-holes.
Or you can hang around in the area, waiting an indefinite amount of time for ground support. In hostile territory. I believe I've already covered this problem.
Your idea of sending a drone is just silly. You have to be able to communicate with the prisoners on at least a basic level, to tell them where to go, where to not go, and that you know what they're thinking so just stop thinking it.

There's some talk about whether the surrender is sincere, as if it makes a difference. The surrender can be completely sincere, and I have assumed it was in my posts, but a surrender is null and void as soon as it cannot be properly enforced. Honestly, if a opponent got the drop on one of your nation's soldiers, causing him to surrender, and then the opponent wandered off elsewhere, what would you expect your soldier to do? Would you expect him to walk up to the enemy headquarters and turn himself in? Or pick his gun up and high-tail it off in the opposite direction?
(Yes, I have assumed the aircraft leaves the area. It's the only reasonable course. It probably has a job to do)

Simon, what people will learn from being shot up by helicopters when attempting to surrender is, you cannot surrender to aircraft. You want to surrender, find some infantry. Being shot up by a machine that you can't defend yourself from isn't very nice, but you decided to take that risk when you decided to fight in the first place.
The situation with sailors in a lifeboat is completely different, since the sailors have lost a rather vital piece of kit, and are out of the fight for an indefinite (but not short) period. I would think in naval combat killing sailors is probably entirely besides the point. Comparatively, an infantryman who's put down his weapon is as out of the fight as one who's stopped to take a shit. All he's got to do is pick the gun up again, and he will if you can't secure the prisoner.

Non-accidental shooting of non-combatants (grossly negligent is not an 'accident'), torture and indefinite detention are crimes, but they're also red herrings for the subject of surrendering to aircraft.

LaCroix, if instead the insurgents, realising their ambush is a bust, pack their gear and leave to try again another time, was this a good result as far as the helicopter is concerned?

I want to make it plain that I'm NOT saying that it is legal for the aircraft to kill them. The bit posted by KS seems to say it isn't, but it leads to a silly circumstance that no military would put up with, and with law interpretation is everything. There may be sub-clauses, exceptions, etc. I don't know. I'm not Queen's Counsel. Therefore, I'm unconvinced.

[Thanas]

In World War II German soldiers regularly executed captured enemy soldiers because it was impractical for them to stop the whole armored column to take prisoners of war, or, in the time of allied air superiority, and shitty one-track roads, it would have posed a safety risk for them to reliably transport them. Nevermind that sending a halftrack back or so would have weakened the already depleted assault columns further. Do you think these executions justified? After all, the same principles apply here as well. Surrendering would have posed a risk to the soldiers and put valuable machinery at risk.

What I am getting at is that a conquering army does not get to decide which surrenders to accept and which not. If it presents problems for you? Tough titties, shouldn't have invaded then.

[Metahive]

Do you employ ninjas? Guess what, no matter how good your troops are, that doesn't immunize you to Murphy's law. Bad luck (or good luck, I suppose, from the enemy's POV) can always come into play. And aborting a mission is not always an option.

So when soldiers fuck up it should be civilians who pay the price? Sorry, unacceptable. When you become a soldier you have accepted that death is an occupational hazard. Civilians have not. It will be hard for you to convince me otherwise.

Let's play with some hypotheticals[...]

Let's not. Hypotheticals are cheap and, as I said above, can lead to soldiers massacring children because some hypothetical scenario painted them as potential threats.

*Arguably, under GC4 Article 28, blowing up the entire neighborhood with and air strike is legal, so long as you don't have a more precise method available.

Make an argument or not, don't just throw stuff out there.

EDIT - and I should point out we're discussing on whether there are circumstances where killing civilians is allowed under the laws of war - if the answer is "yes", then doing so under those circumstances is not a war crime by definition.

Legal definitions and moral definitions don't always go hand in hand.

[Korto]

Thanas, did the Germans accept the surrender (even if only long enough to get them into their power)? If they did, then they murdered prisoners.

However, if a "reasonable person" would know that surrender is not an option in some set circumstance, then "tough titties" indeed.