At what point does military action cross into murder?

[Ares Tyr]

If you kill a civilian and you arnt ordered to then its murder, or at least under UCMJ

It's considered murder even if it is ordered. If they aren't considered an "enemy combatant" it's punishable by life imprisonment, and even death. If you follow through with an order to kill a civilian, then that is an unlawful order you, as a soldier, are required by UCMJ and your superior oath, to disobey.

Killing a civilian, purposefuly, is murder under the UCMJ. Killing an unarmed enemy combatant is considered illegal as well. Under UCMJ, the only people soldiers are allowed to kill are armed enemy combatants.

Most enemy combatants right now like to hide as civilians making the line a bit blurry in most cases.

Which is why this war is such a sticky situation, and it is easy for soldiers to be painted in a bad light so often.

snip

I take offense because you both consider soldiers as mindless murderers who blindly follow orders. I don't take kindly to be called mindless, or a murderer.

People like you just don't understand how fucking lucky you are to be here, where you are, doing what you're doing right now.You take for granted and insult people who give up everything they have, die horrible deaths, in order to provide other people freedom from tyranny. I'm liberal, I'm a Buddhist, I'm a non-comformist, I'm an individual, and I'm a soldier. And you insult me and every other soldier on every front with the things you're saying because its all based on assumptions and ignorance.

I really hope I am a pain in your ass, in that case.

 

[Silver]

Every single time you kill someone. That's it. You don't get excuses.

 

[Ares Tyr]

Every single time you kill someone. That's it. You don't get excuses.

Excused from what?

 

[Cody211282]

If you kill a civilian and you arnt ordered to then its murder, or at least under UCMJ

It's considered murder even if it is ordered. If they aren't considered an "enemy combatant" it's punishable by life imprisonment, and even death. If you follow through with an order to kill a civilian, then that is an unlawful order you, as a soldier, are required by UCMJ and your superior oath, to disobey.

Killing a civilian, purposefuly, is murder under the UCMJ. Killing an unarmed enemy combatant is considered illegal as well. Under UCMJ, the only people soldiers are allowed to kill are armed enemy combatants.

Most enemy combatants right now like to hide as civilians making the line a bit blurry in most cases.

Which is why this war is such a sticky situation, and it is easy for soldiers to be painted in a bad light so often.

snip

I take offense because you both consider soldiers as mindless murderers who blindly follow orders. I don't take kindly to be called mindless, or a murderer.

People like you just don't understand how fucking lucky you are to be here, where you are, doing what you're doing right now.You take for granted and insult people who give up everything they have, die horrible deaths, in order to provide other people freedom from tyranny. I'm liberal, I'm a Buddhist, I'm a non-comformist, I'm an individual, and I'm a soldier. And you insult me and every other soldier on every front with the things you're saying because its all based on assumptions and ignorance.

I really hope I am a pain in your ass, in that case.

Thank you for that, I have a a few friends in Iraq and a friend in Kora right now, I'll be going into basic at the end of the year, and its nice to see them being stuck up

 

[SamuraiAndPig]

I think another thing to help this discussion would be to define war itself. Going back to world war 2 as per my earlier example: it was a clear war against two sides with likeminded ideals - and if not that at least the same enemy, as was the case with the Japan/Germany alliance - and it was fought over with a clearly established set of intentions. I'm not saying that it was a legitimate war because there were good guys and bad guys, just that it lacked ambiguity and had a clearly defined goal.

It's a little harder to define war today because, specifically, the US is fighting "terrorism." How the hell do you declare war on "terrorism?" It's an idea, an intangible conglomerate of definitions that varies from country to country. Regardless of where you go, a standing army is a standing army, but terrorist cells are vastly different depending on their respective situations. Columbian drug runners are "terrorists" and their main motivation is profit by selling narcotics to places with strict drug laws (i.e. the US). Religious terrorists think they're doing the good work of the lord and that upon their glorious death angles will come down from heaven and take them up to eternal relaxation and comfort and glory. And then there's domestic terroists like The Unibomber or the Columbine kids - people who've just been pushed too far and want to send a message. Terrorism isn't part of a nations self-defense arrangement but more of a social dynamic, which isn't something you can cure with bombs.

I know this is getting off topic but here's the crux: as I said earler and as some people have restated, soldiers sign up for the job. It's a contractual agreement - it helps to believe in the cause you're fighting for but really isn't a core requirement. When you throw terrorism into it, the line between solider and civilian is blurred so much that you can hardly tell there was a line to begin with, and the result is a totally different kind of war. Instead of bombing factories and killing enemy troops, you essentially have to drop cluster bombs in everyone's living room from Baghdad to Khmer-Rogue and hope at least some of them were aformentioned "terrorists." When I said earlier that casulties become out and out murder is when you kill civilians, that applies when killing civilians is an inevitable by-product of killing enemy combatants.

Sorry this took so long to get out, but the backround is needed.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Ostensibly at the point when a life is taken for any reason. War isn't an excuse to kill people.

 

[Kikosemmek]

Murder is the premeditated killing of another person.

War is definitely premeditated and planned, and war does account for some people to die, therefore war is murder.

Whether that is immoral or not is yours to decide, but we have to call a spade a spade. Whether killing a combatant, a criminal, or an innocent, a human life is still being ended. In war, chances are it's a violent end.

 

[Amoreyna]

The only time murder isn't murder is when its in self defense. And even then should only EVER be used as a last resort. Murder is murder plain and simple. Even if war still makes us do horrible things we can at least make the better choices rather then take the life when there is a simpler solution.

So under your definition, it would be murder to shoot someone who is about to stab my wife in the neck with a knife? I have the power to stop him from committing that act, and save her life, am I not justified in doing so? He knew he was probably going to meet at least some resistance with his plan to stab someone, and in this scenario, should have expected it. Does that make me a murderer still?

No, it's not murder. And your right to look at the other person's responsibility in the situation. The attacker knew what he was doing, planned things out well enough to have a weapon, have a location as to where to do his thing and have a victim if his intent was to kill. Even if he only wanted to rob your house, the very fact that he was entering someone's home without consent should have signaled to him that he might very well be hurt or killed, or have to hurt/kill someone in order to get out. That's why we have felony murder in the US for the later situation.

It would be nice if all the countries in the world could sit down and have a nice chat about what they want and be able to make compromises, but it just doesn't work like that. There are many countries, now and throughout history, that want to impose their beliefs, their way of life on the rest of world. In order to maintain our freedom we have to fight and unfortunately kill those who choose to threaten our way of life.

I know this is getting long and saying this will probably get some irked, but I highly doubt that all those declaring that all killing is murder etc have ever been in combat or even been threatened by warfare, let alone lived in a war-torn country. There is a big difference between murdering someone because you want to/in the course of a crime and killing them because you are trying to keep your country and way of life intact.

It's very easy to be an armchair quarterback when looking at how a war is handled. Everyone always believes that they would have done something different, or something more noble etc. Desicions to bomb areas where there are civilians, or to invade areas where there is thought to be a heave non-combantant population are never, never made lightly. It is easy to judge when a war is over.

So, short answer: no killing in a wartime situation is not murder. Now if you happen to go on a murder spree while a war is going on and chop up fellow townspeople, that's another thing entirely.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Yeah, killing is killing is killing.

Pretend you have noble reasons, but in the end, you still pulled the trigger. Worse still, you did it because you were told to.
That's who you are.


At least people who kill for pleasure or to satisfy a need are getting something out of it.

Okay. How about all the American soldiers just quit their jobs. Hang up the hat, go home, and just defend their own asses from now. I'm sure nothing bad will come from it.

Ever.

Murder is the crime of killing. Killing the innocent, the unthreatening, those not involved in a conflict. That's where war-crimes come in, like the Holocaust. War is when warriors and soldiers from opposing sides meet on the battlefield.

But where is the boundary in which military action becomes genocide, take for example the rwanda genocide, in which the military regime got the people to murder opposing 'rebel faction' members? If they were going to fight him, then it be in the leaders best interest to defeat the threat would it not?

 

[Aesir23]

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.

What about random acts of violence though? When there's no connection between the person killed and the murderer.

 

[Ares Tyr]

Yeah, killing is killing is killing.

Pretend you have noble reasons, but in the end, you still pulled the trigger. Worse still, you did it because you were told to.
That's who you are.


At least people who kill for pleasure or to satisfy a need are getting something out of it.

Okay. How about all the American soldiers just quit their jobs. Hang up the hat, go home, and just defend their own asses from now. I'm sure nothing bad will come from it.

Ever.

Murder is the crime of killing. Killing the innocent, the unthreatening, those not involved in a conflict. That's where war-crimes come in, like the Holocaust. War is when warriors and soldiers from opposing sides meet on the battlefield.

But where is the boundary in which military action becomes genocide, take for example the rwanda genocide, in which the military regime got the people to murder opposing 'rebel faction' members? If they were going to fight him, then it be in the leaders best interest to defeat the threat would it not?

I'll say again. Killing unarmed people, whether they are considered combatants or not, is murder (genocide being mass murder).The whole raping, pillaging, killing women and children, that's when it becomes a war-crime.

 

[sethwood]

Well, I have to say when Dick Cheney or Charles Manson tells you to stop.

 

[Jaranja]

The second it begins.

 

[ArcWinter]

Well, you see, when is military action in war not murder?

You kill someone, it's murder. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE. I believe what you mean is, at what point are you persecuted for it.

My response: You should be held to the consequences of your actions - killing someone is killing them, no matter who, when, where, and under what circumstances. I think taking away your firstborn and slaughtering them, then using their feeble body for dog food would be adequate if not over the top punishment.

Then I'm pretty sure nobody would kill anyone.

I'm so glad you have such a high opinion of soilders

I don't see why I should. They kill people, and get paid for it.

And since I am referring to all soldiers, not just those from the country I live in, please don't post that "they r protecting u OMG ur so dum!!!11!". Because they are also attacking me.

 

[Ares Tyr]

Well, you see, when is military action in war not murder?

You kill someone, it's murder. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE. I believe what you mean is, at what point are you persecuted for it.

My response: You should be held to the consequences of your actions - killing someone is killing them, no matter who, when, where, and under what circumstances. I think taking away your firstborn and slaughtering them, then using their feeble body for dog food would be adequate if not over the top punishment.

Then I'm pretty sure nobody would kill anyone.

I'm so glad you have such a high opinion of soilders

I don't see why I should. They kill people, and get paid for it.

And since I am referring to all soldiers, not just those from the country I live in, please don't post that "they r protecting u OMG ur so dum!!!11!". Because they are also attacking me.

Soldiers do more than kill people you stupid ass. ALOT MORE.

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

There is no such thing as pure killing.

There is justified killing, though.

 

[Silver]

Every single time you kill someone. That's it. You don't get excuses.

Excused from what?

Killing people.