The General and the Kid

[A m e n r i a]

I assume the boy has gone through puberty since he's 15. That means whatever sins he commits counts. I know for a fact that harming civilians is wrong, but I'm not sure if civilians who fight count (I'll have to look up hadits and, if possible, verses for it). I'll lean on unacceptable, seeing the difference in circumstances the two have, but my answer isn't final yet.

[The New California Republic]

I assume the boy has gone through puberty since he's 15. That means whatever sins he commits counts. I know for a fact that harming civilians is wrong, but I'm not sure if civilians who fight count (I'll have to look up hadits and, if possible, verses for it). I'll lean on unacceptable, seeing the difference in circumstances the two have, but my answer isn't final yet.

He is still protected by The Geneva Conventions in any event.

[A m e n r i a]

I assume the boy has gone through puberty since he's 15. That means whatever sins he commits counts. I know for a fact that harming civilians is wrong, but I'm not sure if civilians who fight count (I'll have to look up hadits and, if possible, verses for it). I'll lean on unacceptable, seeing the difference in circumstances the two have, but my answer isn't final yet.

He is still protected by The Geneva Conventions in any event.

Multiveral laws by omnipotent deity > planetary laws by humans

[The Grims]

So again: why is the kid not allowed to execute the general for his crimes ?

Honestly, I don't know. The general was posing a danger, and in a war situation I guess it's far more acceptable than the opposite way around. But still I don't like capital punishment, however I get that the kid had no ability to imprison or otherwise punish the general. The general had that ability with the kid.

That seems like a decent reason to call the generals actions amoral. Thank you. I will concur.

[The Grims]

He is still protected by The Geneva Conventions in any event.

Multiveral laws by omnipotent deity > planetary laws by humans

Though neither stopped the bullet.

[The New California Republic]

He is still protected by The Geneva Conventions in any event.

Multiveral laws by omnipotent deity > planetary laws by humans

The Geneva Conventions apply to everyone regardless of faith. If I was in a conflict and I had a bunch of POWs who were Muslim then I would apply The Geneva Conventions to them regarding their treatment. I wouldn't look upon them differently because of their faith. If I was captured by Muslim soldiers I would expect the same, and would remind them of their obligations under it, rather than waiting for them to piss around with deciding my fate in a religious court hastily thrown together on the battlefield or behind the lines.

The Nazis engaged in a similar kind of exceptionalism from the rules regarding treatment of POWs, as did many of the other participants in that war, and it led to the most monstrous crimes imaginable. There is a reason that The Geneva Conventions apply to all regardless of faith/race/creed, precisely to stop that kind of exceptionalism.

[Infected Mushroom]

Multiveral laws by omnipotent deity > planetary laws by humans

The Geneva Conventions apply to everyone regardless of faith. If I was in a conflict and I had a bunch of POWs who were Muslim then I would apply The Geneva Conventions to them regarding their treatment. I wouldn't look upon them differently because of their faith. If I was captured by Muslim soldiers I would expect the same, and would remind them of their obligations under it, rather than waiting for them to piss around with deciding my fate in a religious court hastily thrown together on the battlefield or behind the lines.

The Nazis engaged in a similar kind of exceptionalism from the rules regarding treatment of POWs, as did many of the other participants in that war, and it led to the most monstrous crimes imaginable. There is a reason that The Geneva Conventions apply to all regardless of faith/race/creed, precisely to stop that kind of exceptionalism.

I'm surprised you hold the Geneva Conventions in such high regards.

I personally don't see them as the supreme arbiter of morality (there are situations, where killing someone who has surrendered in a war time context would seem to me to be a fair move)... anymore than I see the US Constitution as the supreme arbiter of what should/shouldn't be allowed in the USA.

my morality is not 100% firmly grounded in legal documents; legal documents only show one enforced understanding of right and wrong, they are not necessarily, on a philosophical level, the supreme and most accurate codification of what is right and wrong you know?

...

Just going by my morality here. The kid tried to kill the General, he failed. Then the General killed him. This seems to be fair and balanced.

I don't think its as simple as, "its either in accordance with the Geneva Conventions or its 100% always, all the time Unacceptable"

[Purpelia]

On the other hand the Geneva convention does not protect combatants that do not abide by it. This includes wearing legitimate uniform and insignia to signify them as such. This kid was a partisan and is thus not protected. At least that's my understanding. Also, I like how this discussion has shifted from morality to legality.

[Risottia]

Yea, just like any other generic POW: that doesn't make killing people who have been caught or who have surrendered fine. The kid's not a leader or a flag behind which insurgents could rally. He can be just safely interned in a POW camp until the end of the war.

its not fine under current international agreements and current rules of engagement on a formal level

Which provide a significant hint at a moral code.

but I don't see why it couldn't be considered fine if we had decided otherwise instead (for instance, in an alternate universe where we never codified rules of war to protect the surrendered)

If there were no protection accorded to people who surrender, there would be no incentive to surrender and every incentive to fight to the last.
It's not a great idea, especially when you're winning. You'd prefer the enemy just to surrender instead to continue putting up a desperate fight. The point of war is imposing the political will of your side on the other side, which isn't just "exterminating the enemy, period".

I'm not sure why we can't execute people who have surrendered if we decide that it benefits the war effort (after calculating everything including political ramifications)

CAN'T is one thing. SHOULDN'T is another.

in THIS case, I think the moral outrage will be minimal considering the kid just tried to kill the General. I mean, it just comes across as fair play to me

Every prisoner you caught was trying to kill you one minute before.

[A m e n r i a]

Multiveral laws by omnipotent deity > planetary laws by humans

Though neither stopped the bullet.

Your point?

Multiveral laws by omnipotent deity > planetary laws by humans

The Geneva Conventions apply to everyone regardless of faith. If I was in a conflict and I had a bunch of POWs who were Muslim then I would apply The Geneva Conventions to them regarding their treatment. I wouldn't look upon them differently because of their faith. If I was captured by Muslim soldiers I would expect the same, and would remind them of their obligations under it, rather than waiting for them to piss around with deciding my fate in a religious court hastily thrown together on the battlefield or behind the lines.

The Nazis engaged in a similar kind of exceptionalism from the rules regarding treatment of POWs, as did many of the other participants in that war, and it led to the most monstrous crimes imaginable. There is a reason that The Geneva Conventions apply to all regardless of faith/race/creed, precisely to stop that kind of exceptionalism.

I don't understand your point either. If we had non-Muslim prisoners we'll still have to feed them and generally treat them well not because of human laws, but because it's sinful to mistreat them. Hell, even harming animals for no reason is wrong.

[Infected Mushroom]

On the other hand the Geneva convention does not protect combatants that do not abide by it. This includes wearing legitimate uniform and insignia to signify them as such. This kid was a partisan and is thus not protected. At least that's my understanding. Also, I like how this discussion has shifted from morality to legality.

I foresaw that some people might have a moral sense that is grounded heavily in legality

but yeah... I was inviting that we could consider it from all angles and focus on the morality (not legality) of the action

from a purely moral standpoint, the action seems proportional

[Risottia]

He is still protected by The Geneva Conventions in any event.

Multiveral laws by omnipotent deity > planetary laws by humans

The omnipotent deity can get its omnipotent backside moving and enforce its laws directly and in first person if it can, or else just shut up.

[Risottia]

In my opinion the aiding of the war effort is no justification for killing people who have surrendered.

so if I kill thousands of your soldiers and then get myself in a tight spot, I can simply "surrender" and expect 100% protection? even if I might later escape/be rescued and rejoin the war as a combatant against you?

Yes.

[Risottia]

So again: why is the kid not allowed to execute the general for his crimes ?

Exactly when was the general captured?

Because if you're referring to the kid acting as a sniper and trying to kill the general, that's not an execution (which is a judiciary act), that's an act of war against a military target.

[The Huskar Social Union]

You have captured him and he is now unarmed, throw him in a prison/internment facility till the end of the war. No need to kill him. If he escapes however or is caught escaping then yeah shoot him.

[Infected Mushroom]

so if I kill thousands of your soldiers and then get myself in a tight spot, I can simply "surrender" and expect 100% protection? even if I might later escape/be rescued and rejoin the war as a combatant against you?

Yes.

I prefer the WWI/WWII approach where both sides often opted to execute snipers even when they surrendered (because they took dozens-hundreds of lives)

I can't say such a solid No Killing of Those Who Surrender seems fair when the party who surrendered could have been a massive threat

[Greater vakolicci haven]

You have captured him and he is now unarmed, throw him in a prison/internment facility till the end of the war. No need to kill him. If he escapes however or is caught escaping then yeah shoot him.

Or you could take my approach, war in itself is immoral so anything to do with it by extention also is.

[Ethel mermania]

So basically the execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém but he's aged down and he took a shot at the general? I'd say the same thing in a conversation on that as with this, the general overstepped his bounds by summarily executing an enemy POW. He's in the wrong and should have just sent him to a POW camp.

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

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"

These two points contradict each other. Sure plenty of nations ignore laws of war during war, but saying the laws of war are there and unchanged and saying this country made a law the breaks those law doesn't work. So I'm working that point 1 supersedes point 4 thus am ignoring it for the time being.

Lem deserved it, the mistake was to do it on live TV

For reference


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Nguyễn_Văn_Lém

It's ok to kill the kid as the kid was not in uniform and is not a "legal combatant "

[Ethel mermania]

Killing a person that has been caught and cannot reasonably do further harm is immoral.

he could always escape/be rescued at a later point and resume the war/insurgency against you for instance

Shooting a person in uniform under identical circumstances would be a war crime. The fact that the kid is an unlawful combatant is what makes his execution legal.

[Infected Mushroom]

he could always escape/be rescued at a later point and resume the war/insurgency against you for instance

Shooting a person in uniform under identical circumstances would be a war crime. The fact that the kid is an unlawful combatant is what makes his execution legal.

interesting...

[Risottia]

Yes.

I prefer the WWI/WWII approach where both sides often opted to execute snipers even when they surrendered (because they took dozens-hundreds of lives)

I can't say such a solid No Killing of Those Who Surrender seems fair when the party who surrendered could have been a massive threat

A bomber pilot would be much more of a threat, same for submarine crews. Doesn't seem logical.

[Risottia]

he could always escape/be rescued at a later point and resume the war/insurgency against you for instance

Shooting a person in uniform under identical circumstances would be a war crime. The fact that the kid is an unlawful combatant is what makes his execution legal.

Nope nope nope.
Even non-uniformed combatants who are "in the hands of the enemy" have right to a fair trial and legal defense in case they're indicted of a crime.
The general didn't arrange a trial, he just ordered the execution.

[British Tackeettlaus]

Shocked by how many people think killing a disarmed child begging for his life is "Morally Acceptable"

Remember the question is not wether it is legal within the laws of war (it isn't anyway guys). It's whether it is a morally acceptable action. Over half of you think it is.

NSG

[Ethel mermania]

Shooting a person in uniform under identical circumstances would be a war crime. The fact that the kid is an unlawful combatant is what makes his execution legal.

Nope nope nope.
Even non-uniformed combatants who are "in the hands of the enemy" have right to a fair trial and legal defense in case they're indicted of a crime.
The general didn't arrange a trial, he just ordered the execution.

Not if he is an illegal combatant.

According to the lem article i posted earlier

According to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, irregular forces are entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. If they do not meet all of these, they may be considered francs-tireurs (in the original sense of "illegal combatant") and punished as criminals in a military jurisdiction, which may include summary execution

[The New California Republic]

On the other hand the Geneva convention does not protect combatants that do not abide by it. This includes wearing legitimate uniform and insignia to signify them as such. This kid was a partisan and is thus not protected. At least that's my understanding. Also, I like how this discussion has shifted from morality to legality.

They are covered. Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, Commentary of 1960, Article 4, Sub-paragraph (2).

---

I don't understand your point either. If we had non-Muslim prisoners we'll still have to feed them and generally treat them well not because of human laws, but because it's sinful to mistreat them. Hell, even harming animals for no reason is wrong.

You say that religious law supersedes human law, so can you not see a pretty obvious problem with that, if a religious court sentenced POWs to death, but The Geneva Conventions say that they shouldn't be?

---

I'm surprised you hold the Geneva Conventions in such high regards.

To my knowledge, I have never given you any reason to think otherwise...?

---

I don't think its as simple as, "its either in accordance with the Geneva Conventions or its 100% always, all the time Unacceptable"

Except that it is.

---

It's ok to kill the kid as the kid was not in uniform and is not a "legal combatant "

The kid was inside a building at the time he took the shot. The issue of uniform or insignia is irrelevant in this case, since during the actual engagement there was no way to see the uniform. And as Risottia just said, a fair trial needs to be called in any event.

This is applicable, the source is the link I posted at the start of this post:

Certain aspects of the present struggle have induced the International Committee to envisage the consequences of acts of war committed by or against combatant formations whom their adversaries have not recognized as belligerents, but regard as partisans. The Committee are of opinion that when, in the course of war, situations arise analogous to those of war, but not explicitly covered by international Conventions, the fundamental principles of international law and of humanity should nevertheless be regarded as applicable.

So summarily executing the kid is no bueno.