Honor, murder and "the law".

[jmm99]

Just a hypothetical question: would those who are calling this act "murder" oppose the reprisal had it been authorized by the theater commander (assuming it had been done as a "last resort")?

Sounds a lot like the Malmedy Massacre on a smaller scale, which militarily was a "last resort" because the prisoners would have held up the SS advance on Stavelot (just down the Ambleve from Malmedy). Thus, a War Crime on the part of both the shooter and the theatre commander (IMO).

Changing the facts (adding more facts) might give a more nuanced response.

[AmericanPride]

Sounds a lot like the Malmedy Massacre on a smaller scale, which militarily was a "last resort" because the prisoners would have held up the SS advance on Stavelot (just down the Ambleve from Malmedy). Thus, a War Crime on the part of both the shooter and the theatre commander (IMO).

Changing the facts (adding more facts) might give a more nuanced response.

IIRC, a theater commander can order a legal reprisal in order to compel the enemy to conform to the laws of war.

EDIT: I believe this is relevant to the present conversation because of the obvious options which reveal themselves should the US decide to pursue said compellence. If that were decided upon, suddenly the shooter's action in this case is not murder, but (possibly) a legal reprisal. The act remains the same, but it's legality and (supposedly) its moral value change.

[jmm99]

OK. I got the idea. I'm the theatre commander. AQ saws off my captured troopers' heads and sends me the videos ("sawed off" was what I saw in the several videos I've watched). I have AQ prisoners.

Can I issue a legal order to saw off their heads ? - let's assume 1 for 1 so there is direct proportionality; and the reprisal is the only way to deter them and cause them to follow the laws of war (personally, I think that's a bad assumption).

Too late (0115) to sensibly discuss this. Some refs (so they are available):

WWII Balkan Cases (German commanders)

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/List1.htm

Swedish Masters Thesis 2005 (expect this would be a common Euro view)

http://www.jur.lu.se/internet/englis...ile/xsmall.pdf

FM27-10 also bears on this (1956)

http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/FM27-10.htm

---------------------------
Without looking at anything legal, this idea seems off the wall to me.

Is there anybody here who has looked at this from a commander's standpoint ?

[AmericanPride]

This was my source btw.

[slapout9]

If that were decided upon, suddenly the shooter's action in this case is not murder, but (possibly) a legal reprisal. The act remains the same, but it's legality and (supposedly) its moral value change.

Justafiable Homicide is what several of my defense attorney friends are saying. More later as I get their final opinions.

[jmm99]

General message -

Try to give a consise fact situation in any hypothetical, or that underlies any opinion. Context is everything in these cases.

At the U of Mich, homicide was the focus of 1st year Crim Law - a combined Law and Procedure course since so many of the key procedure cases have been capital cases. As Slap pointed out in a prior post, there are many degrees in the criminal charges. And, there are many degrees of justification, including shooting the soldier who is not directly threatening you.

The commandant should read: Thou shalt not kill, except ........

[slapout9]

Well I finished talking to my defense attorney friends and they are a strange lot Their opinions were wild to crazy and everything in between. Here is the condensed version.

The military hired this person to find out about and understand the targeted society in order to achieve a military advantage. This contractor understood the Astans so well that in order for him to continue to operate in this environment he needed to shoot this person in order to maintain his safety because that is how this society works unlike ours. If he did not take this action he could not continue to do his job and his personal safety would always be in jeopardy. It was a preemptive strike, hence it was justifiable.

[Ken White]

I thought that was a definite possibility but I wouldn't have considered it a legal defense. Which is why they're Attorneys and I'm not...

[jmm99]

to this topic - hopefully with some intelligent input - after getting myself out of the house to get a bottle of wine for ChickenDay dinner. Wife doesn't like leftovers - so, a very large roasting chicken will substitute for the T-bird, as has become the custom.

To the rest of you all, Happy Turkey Day.