A world war has broken out in which millions of soldiers on both sides are killed.
An army succeeds in occupying a city after a very fierce battle in which thousands of soldiers on both sides are killed.
After the city has been effectively occupied and secured, a General visits his soldiers in the city to bolster the morale. While he is talking to his soldiers, a kid (15 year old) aims a hunting rifle at him from a window and fires. The bullet misses the General by a few inches.
Soldiers drag the General to safety while troops storm the building and capture the kid. The kid is not in a military uniform and is not part of a military unit.
The kid is disarmed and brought before the General. The kid begs for mercy but the General said that the kid had already "picked a side." The General tells his soldiers to execute the kid. Very shortly after, the kid is executed by a firing squad.
...
Please discuss the morality of the General's decision to have the kid executed.
Assume the following is true:
1. International law and "laws of war" remain (on paper) in their current form; no one has bothered to change the rules before this world war broke out
2. Both sides have, by this point in the war, violated the above rules numerous times because of the blurring of the lines between military and non military combatants
3. The war has already killed millions of soldiers and civilians on both sides
4. The General does (according to his own national laws and military protocols and rules regarding POWS), have the legal right to order this execution on the spot by invoking a "special circumstances clause," however, in most situations, killing civilians (armed or unarmed) is "frowned upon"
Remember, please focus the discussion on the MORALITY of the General's actions. This may or may not be the same thing as the legality of the action for you personally. Please explain your assessment.