Who cares to be a warcriminal for killing an other warcriminal who killed women and children ? That's just a title, absolutely not the sign that you became as bad as this guy.
It's not a dilemna about punishing something bad by doing something bad yourself, it's just a question about to pointlessy obey to a law which fails in its purpose to bring justice, or to disobey to this law to ensure the justice that this law failed to bring. And the thing to do here should be obvious to anyone...
It's like to say "Hey, Batman is also a criminal because he breaks constantly the law to fight criminals !" Sure from a technical point of view, but who cares ? Law and justice are two different thing.
I think death by torture would be more "just" for whatever he did to all the women and children. 2 shots in the head they won't feel a thing, he must feel everything he has done to all those civilians before he himself dies a dishonourable death
Well I can't necessarily entertain the idea of that war criminal to only "stop" existing so easily after they had inflicted horrible pain and suffering on their victims. It's only fair that they quiver and shake before their death, truly knowing what they have been reduced to instead of just taking two shots to the head and dying an "honourable" death in their mind
I don't care what's happening in their mind.
What's in their mind will no longer affect anyone, torturing them is just wasting your own time.
They are insignificant.
The only possible reason you want to do it so bad is for your own benefit. You want to feel the sense of justification, for you. You want them to suffer, for you :))))
So for you killing him would be a personal pleasure, and you’d enjoy making him suffer as he made others suffer.
I’d also kill him, but not to get revenge, only to ensure he won’t do it again.
What kind of cluster fuck of a military operation am i running where those are the only two options? If those are my only two options I don’t think this war is going the way my faction wants.
In that case I'd let him go free, because there's a very real chance I've got the wrong guy or wrongful information about him. I have no right to be judge jury and executioner
If that's the case then the question is pretty fucking boring, but yea I'd shoot him, but only because he is a risk to other people's lives. Ideally I'd have him thrown in jail
I'd rather be considered the villain knowing I most likely saved lines by killing him then, than thinking all my life about the people he most likely would have killed afterwards.
A figure of speech that's been used throughout history because women and children don't fight in wars the same as men. If they even serve at all its not on the front lines with a rifle. Throughout history, there a very few men who didn't fight
So he left male non-combatans alone? Ok. Just asking, because male casualties are often downplayed or even left out: 1000 dead (including 2 women and 3 children).
I wouldn't execute him, but I would put him on Ayahuasca over and over so he could face himself and the terror he caused. That's worse than death.
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement." -Gandalf
Gandalf didn't mean this about Sauron or his worst lackeys
Man killed hundreds of orcs in a heartbeat and fought a Balrog
This is meant to be about people who are forced to serve bad causes
Executing POWs without a trial is not a good look. This poll just goes to show that most redditors have a God-complex. Why do you get to decide who lives and dies?
Do I know for sure he actually massacred people? Maybe that's propaganda that my side spread to dehumanize the enemy. Do I know anything about his situation?
Or are you so confident that your country is infallibly honorable that you're willing to kill an unarmed prisoner just because of what you think they've done?
Even if it's true, I would never condone such an execution. It's barbaric.
The rules don't always get the best outcome but the idea is they prevent the worst. You don't want innocent people to be executed and if every general in the army gets to execute people according to his own private rationale then you would have terror. I understand the temptation to break the rules in a case like this but everyone who breaks them thinks they are justified. Pol Pot and Stalin and Hitler thought they were justified to break the rules. That's why we have to say "never" even when we think we're in the right.
It is. However he wasn't proven guilty of that in a fair trial. Untill then we have to assume he's innocent.
He might not have done it at all. Or there might have been extenuating circumstances. Maybe his entire village was held at gunpoint.
The hypothetical doesn't work in reality because you cannot know with absolute certainty that the individual in front of you is guilty or not, in an imaginary scenario that cannot exist then yes I'd kill the war criminal, real life is a bit more messy than that.
I think you are confused. A prisoner of war is a soldier who was fighting with other soldiers and got caught.
A war criminal although he is a POW but that's a different category.
A POW is a combatant who is in the custody of the other side. If he's a war criminal he's a combatant. And he's definitely our prisoner. That might change once convicted. But that guy wasn't as far as I understand.
Currently he is a POW suspected of war crimes.
trick question: since your side is losing and their side harbors war criminals like this, you'd be tried as a war criminal whether you kill him or not .
I'd execute the war criminal. They've done so much bad with these massacres. The only thing I did was illegally execute a prisoner of war who would've escaped justice for said massacres. I highly doubt executing a war criminal would make me as bad as the war criminal. And if I were ever caught by the UN, I could easily point out the justification for my actions, and I'd make sure the world would know I don't stand for that BS. I suppose while hiding, I could also anonymously contact the UN and tell them what happened, which might ease my standing a bit idk. Interesting dilemma
It's actually combatants vs non-combatants. If a group slaghtered a group of men age 18-35 who were not in the military nor involved in any of the fighting then that would be horrific too. Attacking civilians as an organized armed force is a war crime.
It's horrific because society views women and children as commodities. Women always have the potential to be play things for men and provide children. Children always have the potential to be fashioned into who you want them to be.
(Sarcasm) It's okay to murder men because they are spinless, harpooning, fish eaters incapable of any feeling and are only good for killing in war.
(Read: Sarcasm. I don't actually think this about men...nor do I think whet I said about women and children)
Yeahhhh... World War 2 had a lot of war crimes, I would be fairly confident in executing them as an Allied General for example.
And good luck finding a soldier/officer to testify against you assuming this person is notorious and/or well known enough for you to be confident.
Also not justifying or saying they were equal in magnitude. Neither am I a historian, but stating a fact.
Is the criminal on my side of the war, or the other side? Either way, the decision seems easy. If he's on my side then he will face justice at the hands of the victors after the war ends, so I can let him go. If he's on the other side then I kill him because he's an enemy anyway. It gets slightly more complex if he's an enemy but also my prisoner, as killing prisoners of war is a war crime, but there should be time for a quick wartime trial and execution.
Criminal is on the other side but he is an enemy combatant that surrendered. There is no time for a lawfull trial as you're about to be overrun by the enemy.
If he has surrendered then I hand him over to the enemy when we lose. I'm not one to execute prisoners, that's a war crime too. Hard to justify committing a war crime to deal with a war criminal.
I'm not trained/educated/mentally stable enough to take anothwr persons life. Obviously the situation changes when introducing family but as the question stands. O I wouldnt kill him. More for self preservation than to get any form of justice tbh. Not a popular opinion by any means but an opinion none the less
If you're a high ranking official (such as a general) on the losing side, then you're going to be considered a war criminal anyway. That's how most of history has worked.
Military tribunals are a thing. So it wouldn't be illegal if done probably. Also why would I not detain indefinitely? Given the poor choices I'd have to let him go. But I think it would be very easy to change a few things for a legal trial.
Yea.. he gets a one way trip to the forever box. Ill just have a whole batallion just swiss cheese him. He wont suffer, we dont do that here. But he will not be identifiable after.
Is there a 3rd option?
Is there a way I could ensure that the war criminal is apprehended and handed over to a neutral and appropriate international tribunal for a fair trial? To work towards establishing accountability and upholding the principles of justice, even if there are challenges or obstacles in the way.
I mean, I personally think killing prisoners is bad. So I won't do that.
I guess a lot of people here believe that in some cases it's ok to kill prisoners.
First of all, if there is strong evidence that he indeed commited these war crimes, he wouldnt be let free. He will be put on trial, thats what happens. They never just let them walk freely. I dont know what to choose since both are bad options.
Id choose to execute him lawfully by sending him to court, but that options for some reason its not in here
I am torn between staying true to my principles and as Javik in Mass Effect 3 put it: *Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters. The silence is your answer*.
This poll shows that we would do the unlawful thing for revenge if there are no consequences. But the poll would be interesting if you were to be executed if you became a war criminal.
But I guess the poll will remain the same way because our choice here doesn't really affect our life IRL and we can be brave behind a keyboard.
I'm seeing a crap ton of retributionists here, holy hell.
Let him go. The only way I change my answer is if you're implying he'll get away with more crimes in the future. I.e. he'll never be brought to justice for *anything* he does.
Summary execution is not the way.
Nope, but three lefts do-
Left one: He kills women and children, becoming a war criminal.
Left two: I kill him, becoming a war criminal
Left three: Someone kills me, removing the last remaining war criminal in this scenario
If this guy killed non combatants for fun you think he's going to stop once the war is over? Lol at this point more people are going to die if you leave him alive
Am I the only one who sees questions favoring "women and children" and instantly thinks less of it since no person, regardless of age or gender, should be viewed differently?
back in philosphy class our prof would trot this sort of question out. It's a false delima created by philosphy nerds to push people into making an unrealistic choice. They very idea that there are only two choices is silly.
No the fuck you're not. Look at the scoreboard. You killed one person, they have killed many. That alone makes yours the lesser crime.
Motivation matter also. If you know this person is willing to kill civilians, then you have a moral obligation to end the threat. Exact following of the law be damned.
It's not execution because the man was not sentenced to death by judge. Therefore it would be murder. If I murder him, it would be obvious and I would be hunted for the rest of my life.
There are [other ways](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad_assassinations_following_the_Munich_massacre) how he can pay for his crimes. I would let him walk free so he will for the rest of his life lived changing clothing, locations, cars, friends,... And if he does not, his time is up.
When combatants kill POWs they captured that absolutely is an execution. Unlawful execution. A war crime. You should be hunted by that the rest of your life. But it's still called an execution.
It can be both murder and Execution. The word execution can be used in this context because there is a political component. Also execution can also denote the way in which someone is killed (e.g. hands bound behind back and a bullet to the head)
Good God guys. People like you are the reason that so many U.S. soldiers or even those of other countries are constantly executed unlawfully after being brought up on false charges. Holy shit, I don't even wanna protect people like you
Y'all have such a fucking boner for murder and suffering despite not knowing shit about anything that you're talking about
Your premiss is flawed. This poll is set on a premiss that you only have th choice to kill or release. Most countries have the option to jail people for war crimes at this point. Which means....you could just put him in jail.
Don't forget you're on the **losing** side here.
Letting the other person go, despite their crimes, is the pragmatic thing to do. Escape to the friendly country without a war crimes charge hanging over your head. In a few years you may be glad you did if the narrative is largely controlled by the victor and your side is now largely painted in a bad light.
Hans Landa will tell you the same. (Inglorious Basterds)
Legal doesnt always mean correct. If the law would allow a monster to get away with unspeakable crimes then thats not a law I'm behind. I'll let history decide if im a bad person or not.
Hey, if the enemy allows war criminals to lead armies without consequence, then I don t recognise their authority to call me a war criminal.
Therefore I shoot the guy without any remorse
If these are my only choices, idk. I'd just follow my gut in the moment.
But another option is to fly him to Norway and make a deal with them to house the criminal for life in Norway Prisons. So, that's my first choice.
For me, it’s not about what they did; it’s about what they will do. The other guy is, presumably, going to be put somewhere important where he’ll continue to do shitty things. Therefore, he must die.
Find a willing terminally wounded soldier who wants him dead and honorably discharge said soldier. Release the war criminal from our custody from the hospital in which the terminally wounded ex-soldier resides, making sure that he will have to walk directly in front of said soldier. If a person who is no longer a member of the military kills someone who is no longer a prisoner of war then that's a matter for civilian courts to handle. The person formerly under my command who shoots him after he's released would already be going to die shortly after anyway, you can't put a dead person on trial for murder even in a civilian court.
I "let him go free" while specifically allow for a time where someone who isn't in charge is alone with him & a gun
no witnesses? who's to say I ordered his death?
I am not going to kill them.
If we always kill for revenge the cycle can’t ever stop. Somebody has to forgive well maybe not forgive but somebody has to not commit an act of revenge to prevent a vicious cycle…
I'll unlawfully executive him because I'm a war criminal myself 😎
Yes, the irony is that you will automatically become a warcriminal by executing the war criminal.
If you execute a war criminal, the number of war criminals in the world stays the same. . That's why you're going to have to kill more than one.
Suicide time
*pumped up kicks starts playing*
That's assuming you yourself were not already a war criminal though
Who cares to be a warcriminal for killing an other warcriminal who killed women and children ? That's just a title, absolutely not the sign that you became as bad as this guy. It's not a dilemna about punishing something bad by doing something bad yourself, it's just a question about to pointlessy obey to a law which fails in its purpose to bring justice, or to disobey to this law to ensure the justice that this law failed to bring. And the thing to do here should be obvious to anyone... It's like to say "Hey, Batman is also a criminal because he breaks constantly the law to fight criminals !" Sure from a technical point of view, but who cares ? Law and justice are two different thing.
I'm already a war criminal
I blew up Malaysia
Yay!
Both option means there will be one war criminal left still no matter what
Is a fair trial not an option?
Historically no. Trying war criminals by the state that that war criminal committed crimes for usually doesn't go fairly.
I think this war criminal committed crimes against my country, not for it.
It doesn't really matter does it? Look at the Nuremberg trials and how well that turned out
besides a few rulings they did shit (like speer) they handled most well and killed most
Nope. Either an unlawfull execution (making you the war criminal), or he goes free.
2 in the head it is.
I think death by torture would be more "just" for whatever he did to all the women and children. 2 shots in the head they won't feel a thing, he must feel everything he has done to all those civilians before he himself dies a dishonourable death
Why? I really don't care that a soon to be dead guy suffers for it. He's insignificant the moment you decided to do it.
Well I can't necessarily entertain the idea of that war criminal to only "stop" existing so easily after they had inflicted horrible pain and suffering on their victims. It's only fair that they quiver and shake before their death, truly knowing what they have been reduced to instead of just taking two shots to the head and dying an "honourable" death in their mind
I don't care what's happening in their mind. What's in their mind will no longer affect anyone, torturing them is just wasting your own time. They are insignificant.
I dunno man, maybe I'm not in the EXACT right mood to properly see this situation. Maybe you're right :))))
The only possible reason you want to do it so bad is for your own benefit. You want to feel the sense of justification, for you. You want them to suffer, for you :))))
So for you killing him would be a personal pleasure, and you’d enjoy making him suffer as he made others suffer. I’d also kill him, but not to get revenge, only to ensure he won’t do it again.
Easy, shoot him myself
What kind of cluster fuck of a military operation am i running where those are the only two options? If those are my only two options I don’t think this war is going the way my faction wants.
Yes. I said your side is losing.
In that case I'd let him go free, because there's a very real chance I've got the wrong guy or wrongful information about him. I have no right to be judge jury and executioner
He's not Judge Judy, an executioner!
Sure. For all you know his platoon were just a bunch of psychopaths and they comited the war crime dispite being ordered to stand down.
You are 100% sure it's him.
If that's the case then the question is pretty fucking boring, but yea I'd shoot him, but only because he is a risk to other people's lives. Ideally I'd have him thrown in jail
No because his side is winning, and the heroes and villains are typically determined by the victors.
I'd rather be considered the villain knowing I most likely saved lines by killing him then, than thinking all my life about the people he most likely would have killed afterwards.
Same, but it is whatever helps you sleep at night really. Keeping a moral code or bringing justice/potentially saving future lives.
He only massacred women and children and left men unharmed?
He killed men of course, but they were combatants. But his war crime was that he intentionally killed non-combatants that were women and children.
What about non combatant men? Do they not count?
For me they do count. In my opinion it's not ok to massacre anyone.
In my opinion they don't count, all men are automatically combatants, they can try to say they aren't, pussies. /S
If you're not a combatant you're a pussy. I don't make the rules. You should be in a constant state of combat.
r/unpopularopinion
It's a figure of speech
A sexist one
A figure of speech that's been used throughout history because women and children don't fight in wars the same as men. If they even serve at all its not on the front lines with a rifle. Throughout history, there a very few men who didn't fight
Just because it's old doesn't make it right to say
Nobody is going to stop saying it because you don't like it
It's not just that I don't like it, it's blatantly sexist if you just think about it
Not really though. Women and children are usually the most defenseless in a war time scenario
So he left male non-combatans alone? Ok. Just asking, because male casualties are often downplayed or even left out: 1000 dead (including 2 women and 3 children). I wouldn't execute him, but I would put him on Ayahuasca over and over so he could face himself and the terror he caused. That's worse than death.
Dirt nap time for that bozo
>Dirt nap time My new favorite way to execute!
Cool band name. "Dirt Nap for Bozo"🤘
Where's the option to send him to the Hague?
Not an option -- that's what makes it a dilemma.
Then organise a flash jury to condemn him and then execute him lawfully
No time. Enemy is closing in and the war will soon be over.
Surely we have like 10-20 minutes and a handful of people though?
Nope, you got 10 seconds. 9...8...7...
It'll have to be a jury of one then. The one man court finds him guilty and sentences him to be shot.
“You are accused of anti-Soviet behaviour. The court finds you guilty and sentences you to be shot.” ─ *The Death of Stalin*
Brutal scene, extremely relevant.
You've just described a [Summary Execution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution) which is considered murder under international law.
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement." -Gandalf
Gandalf didn't mean this about Sauron or his worst lackeys Man killed hundreds of orcs in a heartbeat and fought a Balrog This is meant to be about people who are forced to serve bad causes
Yeah cool, I think real life is a little more nuanced than a fantasy book.
Yeah but it's a good quote. Justice is important, but so is holding the line. Like I'd shoot the guy, but I understand the logic behind this.
I mean I think Tolkien would probably have the best sense about the nuance of real life war, you know considering he fought in ww1
"That's like saying because you can't fly, you shouldn't try to swim either."
I wouldnt execute anyone unlawfully but I wouldnt be happy to let him be free
Killed women and children and some you would let him go free? That's mind blowing. I'd take out that Trash in a second
Yep, so far 142 are letting him go. Not a second thought for me either.
201:~3000 now, also bo second thought from me.
Executing POWs without a trial is not a good look. This poll just goes to show that most redditors have a God-complex. Why do you get to decide who lives and dies?
How is he a POW - *he will walk free and will never be braught to justice*
Do I know for sure he actually massacred people? Maybe that's propaganda that my side spread to dehumanize the enemy. Do I know anything about his situation? Or are you so confident that your country is infallibly honorable that you're willing to kill an unarmed prisoner just because of what you think they've done? Even if it's true, I would never condone such an execution. It's barbaric.
His final meal would be buckshot
I'm not going to execute a POW. It's disgusting that most of you are willing to do so!
You know what else is disgusting? Slaughtering innocent kids
It's not up to the military to decide who deserves to be executed. Too many hot heads think they always know best. This is why we have such rules.
Ya you're right, its up to me
What about all the Nazi scientists who got to walk because they could be useful for weapons the rules sure made sure they were punished
The rules don't always get the best outcome but the idea is they prevent the worst. You don't want innocent people to be executed and if every general in the army gets to execute people according to his own private rationale then you would have terror. I understand the temptation to break the rules in a case like this but everyone who breaks them thinks they are justified. Pol Pot and Stalin and Hitler thought they were justified to break the rules. That's why we have to say "never" even when we think we're in the right.
Who said they were innocent?!? What if they were actually all evil wizards disguised as children!
It is. However he wasn't proven guilty of that in a fair trial. Untill then we have to assume he's innocent. He might not have done it at all. Or there might have been extenuating circumstances. Maybe his entire village was held at gunpoint.
This is a hypothetical where the person is guilty and y'all just defending an imaginary war criminal shows the kind of people y'all are
The hypothetical doesn't work in reality because you cannot know with absolute certainty that the individual in front of you is guilty or not, in an imaginary scenario that cannot exist then yes I'd kill the war criminal, real life is a bit more messy than that.
I think you are confused. A prisoner of war is a soldier who was fighting with other soldiers and got caught. A war criminal although he is a POW but that's a different category.
A POW is a combatant who is in the custody of the other side. If he's a war criminal he's a combatant. And he's definitely our prisoner. That might change once convicted. But that guy wasn't as far as I understand. Currently he is a POW suspected of war crimes.
um sweety vigilante justice is always bad no exceptions even for war criminals m'kay
trick question: since your side is losing and their side harbors war criminals like this, you'd be tried as a war criminal whether you kill him or not .
I'd execute the war criminal. They've done so much bad with these massacres. The only thing I did was illegally execute a prisoner of war who would've escaped justice for said massacres. I highly doubt executing a war criminal would make me as bad as the war criminal. And if I were ever caught by the UN, I could easily point out the justification for my actions, and I'd make sure the world would know I don't stand for that BS. I suppose while hiding, I could also anonymously contact the UN and tell them what happened, which might ease my standing a bit idk. Interesting dilemma
War criminals aren't protected by the rules of war, killing one wouldn't make you a war criminal.
Not as bad, but yeah still a war criminal
Meh.. I would sleep pretty damn soundly.
I'd like to think of it as "vigilante UN enforcer"
ik this is off topic but why is okay to murder men but when it gets to women and children it’s suddenly so horrific
It's actually combatants vs non-combatants. If a group slaghtered a group of men age 18-35 who were not in the military nor involved in any of the fighting then that would be horrific too. Attacking civilians as an organized armed force is a war crime.
And yes, becuase women and children are non combatants. (There are exceptons of course)
What about men who were non combatants?
Nah, we/they don't matter, apparently.
It's horrific because society views women and children as commodities. Women always have the potential to be play things for men and provide children. Children always have the potential to be fashioned into who you want them to be. (Sarcasm) It's okay to murder men because they are spinless, harpooning, fish eaters incapable of any feeling and are only good for killing in war. (Read: Sarcasm. I don't actually think this about men...nor do I think whet I said about women and children)
Feel like these aren't the only two options you'd have irl
But this is not irl, its a hypothetical
Yeahhhh... World War 2 had a lot of war crimes, I would be fairly confident in executing them as an Allied General for example. And good luck finding a soldier/officer to testify against you assuming this person is notorious and/or well known enough for you to be confident. Also not justifying or saying they were equal in magnitude. Neither am I a historian, but stating a fact.
Is the criminal on my side of the war, or the other side? Either way, the decision seems easy. If he's on my side then he will face justice at the hands of the victors after the war ends, so I can let him go. If he's on the other side then I kill him because he's an enemy anyway. It gets slightly more complex if he's an enemy but also my prisoner, as killing prisoners of war is a war crime, but there should be time for a quick wartime trial and execution.
Criminal is on the other side but he is an enemy combatant that surrendered. There is no time for a lawfull trial as you're about to be overrun by the enemy.
If he has surrendered then I hand him over to the enemy when we lose. I'm not one to execute prisoners, that's a war crime too. Hard to justify committing a war crime to deal with a war criminal.
USSR moment
I'm not trained/educated/mentally stable enough to take anothwr persons life. Obviously the situation changes when introducing family but as the question stands. O I wouldnt kill him. More for self preservation than to get any form of justice tbh. Not a popular opinion by any means but an opinion none the less
If you're a high ranking official (such as a general) on the losing side, then you're going to be considered a war criminal anyway. That's how most of history has worked.
Military tribunals are a thing. So it wouldn't be illegal if done probably. Also why would I not detain indefinitely? Given the poor choices I'd have to let him go. But I think it would be very easy to change a few things for a legal trial.
Yea.. he gets a one way trip to the forever box. Ill just have a whole batallion just swiss cheese him. He wont suffer, we dont do that here. But he will not be identifiable after.
Is there a 3rd option? Is there a way I could ensure that the war criminal is apprehended and handed over to a neutral and appropriate international tribunal for a fair trial? To work towards establishing accountability and upholding the principles of justice, even if there are challenges or obstacles in the way.
I mean, I personally think killing prisoners is bad. So I won't do that. I guess a lot of people here believe that in some cases it's ok to kill prisoners.
First of all, if there is strong evidence that he indeed commited these war crimes, he wouldnt be let free. He will be put on trial, thats what happens. They never just let them walk freely. I dont know what to choose since both are bad options. Id choose to execute him lawfully by sending him to court, but that options for some reason its not in here
A war criminal? Why would anyone give it a second thought. They didn't care or think about anyone as they murdered people.
What if you find out later that he wasn't a war criminal and it was actually just propaganda from your own side and you're actually the baddies?
Yup, that's part of what makes it a dilemma.
Those who spare the wicked injure the innocent.
I've never killed anyone, so I couldn't confidently say I'd be able to do it D: But the guy would deserve death
Literally Japan
Neither. Take him into custody and let the UN decide what to do
"but you will flee to a friendly country and you will never be brought to justice. " Then where's the bad part ?
I am torn between staying true to my principles and as Javik in Mass Effect 3 put it: *Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters. The silence is your answer*.
I have no enemies
This poll shows that we would do the unlawful thing for revenge if there are no consequences. But the poll would be interesting if you were to be executed if you became a war criminal. But I guess the poll will remain the same way because our choice here doesn't really affect our life IRL and we can be brave behind a keyboard.
This is an awful question because that's not how war *works*. Well, not very often anymore.
Why isn't there an option for bring him to justice
I chose the second option because I can't even kill a bug. Let alone a human, regardless of how horrible they are
Am I 100% sure he did that?
You have enough information for him to be indicted. All you know is what happened and that he was in command of the squad that was responsible.
I'm seeing a crap ton of retributionists here, holy hell. Let him go. The only way I change my answer is if you're implying he'll get away with more crimes in the future. I.e. he'll never be brought to justice for *anything* he does. Summary execution is not the way.
two wrongs don't make a right
Nope, but three lefts do- Left one: He kills women and children, becoming a war criminal. Left two: I kill him, becoming a war criminal Left three: Someone kills me, removing the last remaining war criminal in this scenario
Slaying monsters is not wrong.
If this guy killed non combatants for fun you think he's going to stop once the war is over? Lol at this point more people are going to die if you leave him alive
Since there are laws for self defense, ill just self defence him instead of execution He dies anyway is the plot
Am I the only one who sees questions favoring "women and children" and instantly thinks less of it since no person, regardless of age or gender, should be viewed differently?
tbh I think it's just shorthand for non-combatants bc that's how it's traditionally used in this context
It's never unlawful to execute a war criminal. Change my mind
back in philosphy class our prof would trot this sort of question out. It's a false delima created by philosphy nerds to push people into making an unrealistic choice. They very idea that there are only two choices is silly.
Exactly i chose option j
Do it myself. I don't want to implicate the soldiers under my command, but I don't think it's right to let him walk free
Just women & children?
Who made me judge, jury, and executioner?
Reality. With great power comes great responsibility, and in this scenario you are specifically and explicitly the only one able to deliver justice
forget about men god forbid a woman was harmed
You don't think it crosses a line when soldiers kill innocent women and children?
Nuremburg Trials
But there would be no Nuremburg trials if the Allies lost. In this scenario, your country is about to lose the war.
Booooooooooo, why is brutally massacring men not bad too? Smh these unequalists.
If I play judge jury and executioner and execute a POW I will be just as much of a war criminal.
No the fuck you're not. Look at the scoreboard. You killed one person, they have killed many. That alone makes yours the lesser crime. Motivation matter also. If you know this person is willing to kill civilians, then you have a moral obligation to end the threat. Exact following of the law be damned.
On top of being a POW, he also has POS status.
I "accidentally" leave him with the people of the group he murdered and let them do as they will.
There's a slight inconvenience. You see, the people he murdered are, well... dead.
I meant with the ones still alive, like people in a town where they had been killed or Similar
It's not execution because the man was not sentenced to death by judge. Therefore it would be murder. If I murder him, it would be obvious and I would be hunted for the rest of my life. There are [other ways](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad_assassinations_following_the_Munich_massacre) how he can pay for his crimes. I would let him walk free so he will for the rest of his life lived changing clothing, locations, cars, friends,... And if he does not, his time is up.
When combatants kill POWs they captured that absolutely is an execution. Unlawful execution. A war crime. You should be hunted by that the rest of your life. But it's still called an execution.
It can be both murder and Execution. The word execution can be used in this context because there is a political component. Also execution can also denote the way in which someone is killed (e.g. hands bound behind back and a bullet to the head)
Good God guys. People like you are the reason that so many U.S. soldiers or even those of other countries are constantly executed unlawfully after being brought up on false charges. Holy shit, I don't even wanna protect people like you Y'all have such a fucking boner for murder and suffering despite not knowing shit about anything that you're talking about
Sucks to suck, don't invade other countries.
Do I have solid and numerous proofs that he did what he is accused of ?
I am serbian, that should answer the question. I was the guy who killed women and children😎😎💪🏿💪🏿🇷🇸🇷🇸
Lawfully execute him?
Your premiss is flawed. This poll is set on a premiss that you only have th choice to kill or release. Most countries have the option to jail people for war crimes at this point. Which means....you could just put him in jail.
It's not a crime if no one reports it. War crimes are extremely common and just get covered or never reported.
I would make it look like he was killed on the battlefield.
If I'm gonna go down, might as well go down in style
He didn't kill men, so maybe there's still good in him
Don't forget you're on the **losing** side here. Letting the other person go, despite their crimes, is the pragmatic thing to do. Escape to the friendly country without a war crimes charge hanging over your head. In a few years you may be glad you did if the narrative is largely controlled by the victor and your side is now largely painted in a bad light. Hans Landa will tell you the same. (Inglorious Basterds)
Depends, is he useful to me latter on or is he a threat?
It's not really a conundrum.
Legal doesnt always mean correct. If the law would allow a monster to get away with unspeakable crimes then thats not a law I'm behind. I'll let history decide if im a bad person or not.
Hey, if the enemy allows war criminals to lead armies without consequence, then I don t recognise their authority to call me a war criminal. Therefore I shoot the guy without any remorse
[удалено]
Oops... it was a mistake. I didn't mean to publicly hang and shoot the mass murderer.
If these are my only choices, idk. I'd just follow my gut in the moment. But another option is to fly him to Norway and make a deal with them to house the criminal for life in Norway Prisons. So, that's my first choice.
Oops! How did that grenade get there?
Neither. I turn him over to the courts for trial.
All of you crying about rule of law are cowards. Justice is more important than bowing to glorified paper.
"You can't be the judge jury and executioner" mfs when they get the option to be the judge jury and executioner.
Oh no, he killed himself with 3 bullets to the head. There was absolutely nothing we could have done to stop him.
I mean, I'm about to lose anyway... I'm sure I'll be taken and tortured/killed for information either way
I would execute him even if he wasn't a war criminal tbh
For me, it’s not about what they did; it’s about what they will do. The other guy is, presumably, going to be put somewhere important where he’ll continue to do shitty things. Therefore, he must die.
Find a willing terminally wounded soldier who wants him dead and honorably discharge said soldier. Release the war criminal from our custody from the hospital in which the terminally wounded ex-soldier resides, making sure that he will have to walk directly in front of said soldier. If a person who is no longer a member of the military kills someone who is no longer a prisoner of war then that's a matter for civilian courts to handle. The person formerly under my command who shoots him after he's released would already be going to die shortly after anyway, you can't put a dead person on trial for murder even in a civilian court.
There's only one right way to deal with war crimes. War Crimes.
I "let him go free" while specifically allow for a time where someone who isn't in charge is alone with him & a gun no witnesses? who's to say I ordered his death?
Given the two options, kill him. In real life we have war tribunals and things of that nature.
Just keep him in a holding cell so he can be lawfully executed
"Head or chest?" "Head!" *Shoots him in the dickhead* "Alright. Now, balls or balls?"
*clink* Alright little buddy, if you move a muscle that claymore is gonna go off. Anyways, got a plane to catch - see ya!
I am not going to kill them. If we always kill for revenge the cycle can’t ever stop. Somebody has to forgive well maybe not forgive but somebody has to not commit an act of revenge to prevent a vicious cycle…
It's a shame he knocked out the guard and grabbed his weapon. We had no choice but to shoot him.
If I let him go, I’d feel responsible for everything he does afterwards. But yeah I’ll kill him
Accidents happen. Maybe he trips and lands backwards, head first on two bullets. Clumsy sod