The General and the Kid

[Internationalist Bastard]

The general on a battlefield is a legitimate target. How is that so difficult to understand.

in my view so is the kid once he picked a side, it ought to work both ways

Until he surrendered
Now you’re just murdering a person

[Heloin]

The general on a battlefield is a legitimate target. How is that so difficult to understand.

Honestly why did he even go to a recently occupied city? That’s just asking for someone to shoot you

I'm going to bet this general is wearing his service uniform as opposed to his combat fatigues.

[Infected Mushroom]

in my view so is the kid once he picked a side, it ought to work both ways

Until he surrendered
Now you’re just murdering a person

I would consider it a summary execution for a battlefield act against an officer

[The New California Republic]

I'm not sure why you think the Geneva Convention is actually an unassailable moral guide.

Because it is one as far as codified battlefield morality is concerned.

---

Its simply an agreement between self-interested nations and depending on the context, it may or may not be enforced.

The International Criminal Court would like a word with you, as they don't just treat it as a simple agreement. Stop trying to downplay the importance of The Geneva Conventions, it is getting tiresome.

---

I don't see it as a moral codification of any kind.

And you are entirely wrong.

---

Of course, when you want it enforced (and when you can enforce it), you will argue that it has moral force too; some rhetoric is expected. But on its face its just a legal document, its powerful when it gets enforced, not powerful when it gets ignored and no one can enforce it.

That isn't really an argument, it is just rhetoric, as you could say the same thing for any law in existence.

And I noticed you conveniently ignored the comment I made regarding a case of The Geneva Conventions being ignored. I'll post it again, to remind you:

Geneva Convention says to me a bunch of countries said "let's play ball this way"... says nothing about why its wrong to play ball a different way when a specific situation occurs you know?

Nazi Germany did that. They shot Russian POWs en masse and buried them in mass graves. That's why it's wrong. That's why.

[Heloin]

The general on a battlefield is a legitimate target. How is that so difficult to understand.

in my view so is the kid once he picked a side, it ought to work both ways

But if he's surrendered then he's not a threat or contributing to the war anymore, thus not a legitimate target.

[Heloin]

Until he surrendered
Now you’re just murdering a person

I would consider it a summary execution for a battlefield act against an officer

You may but your wrong.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Until he surrendered
Now you’re just murdering a person

I would consider it a summary execution for a battlefield act against an officer

But why do that when you can just send to pow camp
Hell by this point you’d probably have a camp specifically for ununiformed prisoners, unless they’re just executing everyone

[The New California Republic]

Until he surrendered
Now you’re just murdering a person

I would consider it a summary execution for a battlefield act against an officer

And again The Geneva Conventions would block you from doing that. I know this is a fictional scenario you have created here, but at least try to make it slightly realistic, otherwise all of this is just farts in the wind, and may as well be placed in the RP section of the forum.

[Ifreann]

Until he surrendered
Now you’re just murdering a person

I would consider it a summary execution for a battlefield act against an officer

Everything that happens in war is a battlefield act against officers. You're effectively proposing a standard of it always being acceptable to kill surrendering or captured enemies.

[The New California Republic]

I would consider it a summary execution for a battlefield act against an officer

You're effectively proposing a standard of it always being acceptable to kill surrendering or captured enemies.

*COUGH*

I'm not sure why we can't execute people who have surrendered if we decide that it benefits the war effort

[Infected Mushroom]

I would consider it a summary execution for a battlefield act against an officer

But why do that when you can just send to pow camp
Hell by this point you’d probably have a camp specifically for ununiformed prisoners, unless they’re just executing everyone

you could send him to a POW camp, I just find that both options are on the morally acceptable side

[Infected Mushroom]

I would consider it a summary execution for a battlefield act against an officer

Everything that happens in war is a battlefield act against officers. You're effectively proposing a standard of it always being acceptable to kill surrendering or captured enemies.

I would say it depends, on the circumstantial factors, case by case

[Heloin]

But why do that when you can just send to pow camp
Hell by this point you’d probably have a camp specifically for ununiformed prisoners, unless they’re just executing everyone

you could send him to a POW camp, I just find that both options are on the morally acceptable side

Then send him to a POW camp because that's the only one that is morally justifiable no matter how much you think they're equal choices.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm not sure why you think the Geneva Convention is actually an unassailable moral guide.

Because it is one as far as codified battlefield morality is concerned.

---

Its simply an agreement between self-interested nations and depending on the context, it may or may not be enforced.

The International Criminal Court would like a word with you, as they don't just treat it as a simple agreement. Stop trying to downplay the importance of The Geneva Conventions, it is getting tiresome.

---

I don't see it as a moral codification of any kind.

And you are entirely wrong.

---

Of course, when you want it enforced (and when you can enforce it), you will argue that it has moral force too; some rhetoric is expected. But on its face its just a legal document, its powerful when it gets enforced, not powerful when it gets ignored and no one can enforce it.

That isn't really an argument, it is just rhetoric, as you could say the same thing for any law in existence.

And I noticed you conveniently ignored the comment I made regarding a case of The Geneva Conventions being ignored. I'll post it again, to remind you:

Nazi Germany did that. They shot Russian POWs en masse and buried them in mass graves. That's why it's wrong. That's why.

I see no reason to be concerned about what the Germans did or didn't do in World War II; as it stands, I don't really care

as for the ICC playing up the moral authority of the Geneva Conventions, sure, its in their interest to do so; I completely get that

[Infected Mushroom]

you could send him to a POW camp, I just find that both options are on the morally acceptable side

Then send him to a POW camp because that's the only one that is morally justifiable no matter how much you think they're equal choices.

i don't object to him being sent to a POW camp either, I just think its an acceptable outcome for him to be summarily executed too because of what he did

the legality of the General's action isn't really my concern, only the morality of it, and I think that some measure of retribution (if proportional) against an illegal combatant seems to me to be reasonable

[Internationalist Bastard]

Then send him to a POW camp because that's the only one that is morally justifiable no matter how much you think they're equal choices.

i don't object to him being sent to a POW camp either, I just think its an acceptable outcome for him to be summarily executed too because of what he did

the legality of the General's action isn't really my concern, only the morality of it, and I think that some measure of retribution (if proportional) against an illegal combatant seems to me to be reasonable

If you have the choice between removing a partisan peacefully or by killing that’s the easiest moral question in history

[Alvecia]

But why do that when you can just send to pow camp
Hell by this point you’d probably have a camp specifically for ununiformed prisoners, unless they’re just executing everyone

you could send him to a POW camp, I just find that both options are on the morally acceptable side

Based on what reasoning?

[The New California Republic]

Hell by this point you’d probably have a camp specifically for ununiformed prisoners, unless they’re just executing everyone

you could send him to a POW camp, I just find that both options are on the morally acceptable side

its less about which is the best option vs which option(s) are acceptable... and I feel that both options fit within the range of acceptable actions

I see no reason to be concerned about what the Germans did or didn't do in World War II; as it stands, I don't really care

[Infected Mushroom]

i don't object to him being sent to a POW camp either, I just think its an acceptable outcome for him to be summarily executed too because of what he did

the legality of the General's action isn't really my concern, only the morality of it, and I think that some measure of retribution (if proportional) against an illegal combatant seems to me to be reasonable

If you have the choice between removing a partisan peacefully or by killing that’s the easiest moral question in history

its less about which is the best option vs which option(s) are acceptable... and I feel that both options fit within the range of acceptable actions

[Infected Mushroom]

you could send him to a POW camp, I just find that both options are on the morally acceptable side

Based on what reasoning?

based on his attempt to kill the general from a hidden position

[Dumb Ideologies]

Leniency reduces the future breadth of appeal for partisan movements, and as part of this general policy the child should only be imprisoned along with anyone else who happens to be captured while attempting to engage in partisan action.

You would kill the child if you were seeking to dissuade rebellion by a temporary strategy of widespread brutality to warn people of the consequences of non-compliance. If you have overwhelming power and your aim is to destroy rather than occupy this may be viable, but otherwise it can often be shortsighted and create bad feeling which will swell the next generation of freedom fighters. In a war of a global scale there is also always the chance that your cities may receive bad treatment if normlessness is normalised. It would make sense to try to maintain the standards of war behaviour as far as possible even if they are beginning to slip.

The general has lost control of his temper. What's more, he has lost sight of his position in the greater conflict and how his behaviour in a small way impacts the bigger picture. It is understandable behaviour in the conditions, but it is neither good nor smart.

[Alvecia]

Based on what reasoning?

based on his attempt to kill the general from a hidden position

That was his action yes, but what’s the reasoning behind finding killing him and imprisoning him morally equivalent?

[Ifreann]

Everything that happens in war is a battlefield act against officers. You're effectively proposing a standard of it always being acceptable to kill surrendering or captured enemies.

I would say it depends, on the circumstantial factors, case by case

And you keep saying that these are special circumstances. But there's nothing special about them. I don't know why you don't understand this, but in war people shoot at each other all the time. Everyone who is captured or who surrenders is someone who was shooting at the people who captured them or who they surrendered to.

[Heloin]

Then send him to a POW camp because that's the only one that is morally justifiable no matter how much you think they're equal choices.

i don't object to him being sent to a POW camp either, I just think its an acceptable outcome for him to be summarily executed too because of what he did

the legality of the General's action isn't really my concern, only the morality of it, and I think that some measure of retribution (if proportional) against an illegal combatant seems to me to be reasonable

Ok the fucking morality of it which I'm talking about. He was a combatant in a combat zone who took a shot at a legitimate target. He was then rightly chased down by soldiers of the force opposing him. If they had shot and killed him while he was running away that would be fine, him escaping would make him a continued threat therefor morally a legitimate target. He instead surrenders and is taken prisoner. At this point he is a threat to no one and can do no one any harm. Anything the general does after this has nothing to do with morals but his own twisted desire for revenge.

The general took the risk that there may still be enemy combatants in the newly captured city, thus when someone trying to kill a general takes a shot the general is equally at fault if that assassination had succeeded. Frankly this sounds like a hotheaded terrible general who probably needless wastes the life of those under his command.

[Infected Mushroom]

based on his attempt to kill the general from a hidden position

That was his action yes, but what’s the reasoning behind finding killing him and imprisoning him morally equivalent?

they are both forms of proportional retribution for the attempted act