At what point does military action cross into murder?

[MakerOfRoads]

The question I want to know the answer to is, at what point does killing someone in an act of war change from being just that, to being murder?

I think a key point to be factored into this question is the existence of guerilla warfare (ala vietnam, iraq, etc.) where even seemingly innocent people can become lawful combatants in a moments notice with the production of a hidden weapon, and the concept of Total War, where not only those with weapons, but civilians as well, aid the war effort of a specific faction.

This was brought on by another, separate topic, something about carpet bombing ppl, and how that would make the offending country mass murderers.

 

[MakerOfRoads]

But what if someone is just defending themselves? What if, due to this other person's malicious intent and drive to commit bad acts, you have to kill him to prevent the invasion of your home? Or to prevent harm to come of other innocents? Is that not justified?

 

[nickdon1]

Killing someone is always murder it's just a matter of degree. Therefore as glefistus said war is always murder. Whether it's right or wrong to do so under the circumstances is subjective, but it would be a lie to call it anything else.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

Well, killing someone is always murder. "Justified murder" I suppose is what you wish to ask about.

It stops being "justified" (depends on if you'd call it justified or not, but this is my opinion on it) when the enemy can't defend themselves. Killing an unarmed man isn't justified, unless it's self-defence and he's strangling you of course.

 

[MakerOfRoads]

But the concept of Murder, by its very definition, is dispelled by right justification.

"# To kill (another human) unlawfully.
# To kill brutally or inhumanly."

 

[TaborMallory]

It's always murder. What might be considered "too far" is when they start killing without reason.

 

[TaborMallory]

EDIT: Sorry, double post.

 

[Mray3460]

Murder is killing for "personal" reasons (Revenge, Sex, Psychosis, Money, ect.). In war, two soldiers on opposite sides of a fight have no personal connection, and nothing to gain from killing a specific person. Therefore, it is not murder to kill someone in a war or war-like context.

 

[Abedeus]

Murder isn't the same as killing someone in defense or in the military.

If a cop kills someone who is pointing a gun at someone and is clearly going to shoot, it is NOT a murder. Or if someone breaks into your house with a knife in hand, attacks you and you use your own knives to throw at him and kill him. You are defending yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

Unlawful killing of other human being with intent. War's laws are different - kill or be killed.

But if someone bombs a village full of people because "a suspect might be there", then it IS murder. They didn't have to kill everyone, just the suspects and only if they were either wanted dead or neutralized by any means necessary.

 

[wordsmith]

Well, killing someone is always murder.

What about manslaughter?

 

[Nmil-ek]

In times of war its always murder but with varying degrees of severity, troops killing troops is the natural order of things and thats what we deem as acceptable they are trained and agree to kill and risk being killed. Civlians on the other hand its never okay, they do not want to kill or risk being killed and never agreed to do so, militant civilians fall under the same category as troops as far as I see it.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

Well, killing someone is always murder.

What about manslaughter?

I'd consider it indirect, unintentional (not as in "I shall beat you up and hope you don't die", because they should've been prepared for that possibility when they went and beat someone up) or justified murder.

 

[MakerOfRoads]

Murder isn't the same as killing someone in defense or in the military.

If a cop kills someone who is pointing a gun at someone and is clearly going to shoot, it is NOT a murder. Or if someone breaks into your house with a knife in hand, attacks you and you use your own knives to throw at him and kill him. You are defending yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

Unlawful killing of other human being with intent. War's laws are different - kill or be killed.

But if someone bombs a village full of people because "a suspect might be there", then it IS murder. They didn't have to kill everyone, just the suspects and only if they were either wanted dead or neutralized by any means necessary.

I appreciate your point of view, but thats where the other factors come into play.

In this villiage scenerio, how does one know that they arent lawful combatants? Just because someone doesnt have a gun in their hand doesnt mean they arent ready and willing to commit grievous harm if given the opportunity. Do we have to wait until they produce a weapon and harm someone to take action?
That and the concept of Total War.
Under that ideal, they are directly aiding those who seek to destroy others, whether they know it or not (though, for example, working in a factory that produces tanks, id like to think any normal person would understand their role in the situation). Does their direct involvement in the war effort make it "ok" to kill them? Or is that still classified as murder?

 

[kawligia]

Always is murder. Always. Keep that in mind if you ever get into a war, also keep in mind that out of war you can kill if the other guy gives you no other option and is threatening you with equal force.

Well, killing someone is always murder. "Justified murder" I suppose is what you wish to ask about.

It stops being "justified" (depends on if you'd call it justified or not, but this is my opinion on it) when the enemy can't defend themselves. Killing an unarmed man isn't justified, unless it's self-defence and he's strangling you of course.

The definition of "murder" is an unjustified killing. A justified killing is just a killing, not a murder.

You can argue about whether a killing is justified until you are blue in the face though.

IMO, a killing in wartime is unjustified and becomes murder when it is not necessary to kill them. Such as soldiers who have surrendered or non-combatants, but even then there may be some exceptions. Those will have to be taken on a case-by-case basis and are probably pretty rare.

 

[Oneirius]

Murder is alwayes murder. A murder in a war still is one. Sometimes, however, it's you or them. As terrible as the idea is, it is true. And you want to be the one to come out alive.

 

[generals3]

If in times of war you can chose to kill or be killed and kill you're not a murderer . Or at least not on the way it is used these days. If there are any murderers it's those on top of the echelon who declared the war. The soldiers were trained to obey and kill , and how more they do it how better they are at what they applied for . Blaming them for doing a good job is like blaming a banker making good investments with your money . Now off course there are some limits , as killing innocent civilians and such. But on an other hand , as we can see these days , civilian are used as military weapons by some factions and at that point Every civilians becomes a threat. And i think that by then in case of doubt the Military has all right to kill a civilian as even though he could have been innocent he could have just as well killed a whole squad of soldiers. The only ones you can blame are those "insert insult" who uses civilians as weapons. It is all a matter of cause and reaction , the cause is guerillas using civilians as weapons and the reaction is the armies being forced to shoot civilians. Dont blame the reaction but the problem!

 

[Tsaba]

Definition
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
(The rest of it is pretty much slang so I decided to not throw it in there http://www.thefreedictionary.com/murder)

When you have an enemy such as the insurgents in Iraq who will "play dead" and have a bomb strapped to themselves it's pretty hard to define the line between self defense and murder.

(don't pull that Thou shall not kill crap it was originally murder. God had David kill Goliath, he had Moses bring about a plague of death that killed every first born. So was David a murder for killing a Goliath? Was Moses a murder for following God's words and bringing about all the plagues?)

 

[SamuraiAndPig]

I think one of the problems in this question is that it assumes that all a military is supposed to do is kill people, and if you're American like me then that's all your military seems to do anyway (badly), but a military is primarily a peacekeeping device. People who enlist in the military go in knowing that getting killed might be part of the job (again, unless you're American and you do it because you want to go to college or something.) Every soldier understands (or *should* understand) that donning a uniform and picking up a gun does tend to make other people hate you and want you dead.

Military casulties cross into murder when soldiers kill civilians. Civilians are the one's military exists to protect, whether you're invading a country or defending it. Case and point: World War 2. The Allied forces killed German soliders with the intent of saving civilian lives. Sure, we/they invaded Germany, but that doesn't mean they went up and down the streets of Munich shooting anything that wasn't British, French or American.

Of course this changes somewhat in a country like Iraq where the general sentiment among the people you are trying to protect is, "Get the fuck out of my house, asshole." But that is getting a bit off topic. Short answer: in a world only somewhat more ideal than this, soldiers would be the only casulties of war because they signed up for it.