Question for officers or nco's about the code of conduct/ucmj?

Question

The ucmj requires you to obey all lawful orders of those of higher rank. The "code of conduct" requires the same should you become a prisoner of war. The "code of conduct" also says that in war you will continue to fight as long as you have the means to resist. It also requires that if captured you will attempt to escape if possible. My question is: If in combat a unit commander determines that to continue fighting would be futile and lead to unnecessary loss of life and decides to surrender, are those under him required to lay down their arms and surrender, or may they continue to engage the enemy? I was an nco myself and at the time I never thought about those circumstances and don't recall it ever being covered. Please if you are just making an educated guess say so. If you know for sure please state that too. Thanks.

Lee Ann...No that didn't happen to me thank God. When we were taught the code of conduct they added one (marines never surrender) which suited me fine because I would rather die fighting than be captured...not because I'm that brave...I just always found the idea of being a prisoner...uncomfortable.

Answer 1

Wow, that's an AWESOME question. Probably the best I've seen here.

OK, speaking as an officer, here's my thoughts. I'm no more qualified to answer this than anyone else I know--call it an educated guess.

First off, surrender is obviously only a last resort--when you realize that your unit no longer has the means to EFFECTIVELY resist, meaning that you could inflict no meaningful casualties or damage upon the enemy and further resistance would mean your deaths.

Secondly, the code of conduct technically only applies once you become a prisoner of war, so it isn't immediately in effect upon the order of a surrender. You have to actually be a POW.

If I was put in some unimaginable position which required surrender, I would expect my order to be followed. Short of some circumstance like "die in place" orders from above, my surrender order would be a lawful one, meaning those under me would be required to carry it out. I'm supposed to be the one with the info and I'm supposed to have the best understanding of the battlespace. For others beneath me to make their own decisions without knowing the big picture could further endanger us all.

My thoughts would be to escape and evade if at all possible, and definitely leave surrender as a lost possible option.

Honestly though, I can't imagine any enemy we, as Americans, will fight in the near future who would give any quarter to surrendering troops. Better to die on your feet with rifle in hand than to end up beheaded in some sick video for al-Jazeera. If all I had left was my teeth, you can bet I'd be biting some terrorists rather than go quietly and meekly to my death.

Answer 2

This would kind of depend on the circumstances. If, for example, the units orders were to hold their ground at all costs, then the officer attempting to surrender is going against a direct order, so it is the duty of the soldiers under him to relieve him of his position and continue to fight and hold their position.

If they were given no specific order as to what ends they are to stay in position, then they would be required to follow their officer's command and lay down their arms and discontinue engagement.....at least in theory. The problem in that scenario is, as you mentioned, you have a duty to attempt to escape as a prisoner, thus you would also have a duty to attempt to not be captured at all. So if you were standing by a tree line or something, you wouldn't get into trouble if you managed to escape during the process of surrender.

Answer 3

No Name,
You have stated the Code of Conduct well, and yes, you are right to an extent. If the Officer decides to surrender, the surrender does not have to go with the whole team. The next available senior grade will take charge and determine from there. If you still have the means to exist, you do. I hope this hasn't happened in your previous military experience, if it has, i'm sorry for your experience, very un-becoming of an Officer.

Answer 4

So, your question is officer or enlisted? there's a huge variety of incorrect information in this thread. you may't commence out being an NCO. you would possibly want to be promoted to that respective rank. no longer all NCOs are E5's, with the aid of ways. A Corporal contained in the Marine Corps is considered an NCO. A Corporal is an E-4. you do not commence out being a warrant officer in maximum branches. you would possibly want to commence out enlisted and meet up from there. maximum Warrant officials that i comprehend contained in the Marine Corps were E-6s and E-7s previously the switched over. this suggests they were occupation Marines. i think the military takes civilian applicants for particular fields at diverse cases. in any case, I do agree that the great officials that i comprehend were earlier enlisted. maximum made it to Corporal or Sergeant and then switched over to the darkish side. I had extra appreciate for previous enlisted officials, because they particularly comprehend what their enlisted squaddies and Marines go with the aid of on a everyday foundation. i comprehend some officials that are rather "fingers on". at the same time as i ought to judge some officials to be extra political, you receives that at any rank contained in the service. i comprehend some Infantry officials that i ought to judge to be very complicated adult men, that ought to care a lot less about administrative subject matters, and politics, yet do them because it is needed help their Marines and the project. On yet another note, growing a member of as an enlisted member is a lot less of a lengthy time period dedication. you may hate the militia, and opt to get out. the technique is so a lot extra complicated as an officer. best of success on your selection!

Answer 5

well, the commander is wrong. In my infantry battalion we are trained that if we have amunition left we continue to shoot and kill until dead ourselves unless: therre is an ammunition point that the unit or team can fall back to (retreat) and resupply. Basically, the means to resist part means that you are able to resist capture. If i can still swing the butt of my rifle at an enemy, I still have a duty to kill that son of a *****.

The commander would be wrong because his Soldiers under his command still have the means to resist, thus rendering the order to surender an un-lawful order due to the fact that it can bring injury or death to those he is ordering.

Keep in mind that each unit/MOS has a different outlook on these rules and it varrys somewhat between them.

Answer 6

****EDUCATED GUESS****

When it says

"in war you will continue to fight as long as you have the means to resist"

If it comes to the point that you fighting is going to kill all the men around you and you have to surrender then you obviously dont have the means to resist anymore.

I think for the most part it is a case by case situation and personally if my commander is thinking logically and told me its time to just surrender then I am going to put down my weapon and listen.


"Surrender today so that you may fight tomorrow"

Answer 7

Second in command may challenge that order but if they agree... I would follow orders. If they didn't agree, I'd fight. Just because you are in command does not mean you are always right. This is how it is legal for an XO to relieve a CO of his authority.

It's a good valid question!