If violence is ok towards poor people employed by a military but the not ones hiring them, then maybe that’s why people feel so comfortable hiring people to kill other people. I’m not big on punishing people who will never harm others again, but those that are currently or will likely cause harm should be fair game. I consider the person who gives the orders more culpable as the person who pulls the trigger, so killing a leader is better than killing their human tools.
As far as humanely goes, it’s a mutual agreement that requires reasonable expectation of reciprocation. In a world where these laws are virtually never enforced, the best we can do is do onto others what they do onto you. The individuals who knowingly work to kill innocent people need to be stopped with any means necessary.
Things like killing innocents of their tribe are never justified, but the people actively working to kill have enabled PVP. To not view it as such is to give up resistance in any meaningful form. The only reason one should not kill active war criminals is if there is no reasonable chance of success.
I think that the nuance lost here is, dropping someone from a height to kill them, implies they are in your captivity. Thus no longer active combatants, and protected and killing them in that fashion a war crime in of it self. I am how ever unsure if sentencing them to death in a criminal court, would be considered a war crime. As with Sadam.
that's fine because it's legitimatized by state power!
In all seriousness, sentencing people to death is mostly done to make a societal statement about what is acceptable behavior. It can permanently remove dangerous people from ever causing trouble again, but outside of the most charismatic and effective leaders, it’s unnecessary if you manage to capture them. Punishment only gives the feeling of control, which is why I don’t think it’s a valid form of justice in of itself.
If violence is ok towards poor people employed by a military but the not ones hiring them, then maybe that’s why people feel so comfortable hiring people to kill other people. I’m not big on punishing people who will never harm others again, but those that are currently or will likely cause harm should be fair game. I consider the person who gives the orders more culpable as the person who pulls the trigger, so killing a leader is better than killing their human tools.
As far as humanely goes, it’s a mutual agreement that requires reasonable expectation of reciprocation. In a world where these laws are virtually never enforced, the best we can do is do onto others what they do onto you. The individuals who knowingly work to kill innocent people need to be stopped with any means necessary.
Things like killing innocents of their tribe are never justified, but the people actively working to kill have enabled PVP. To not view it as such is to give up resistance in any meaningful form. The only reason one should not kill active war criminals is if there is no reasonable chance of success.
I think that the nuance lost here is, dropping someone from a height to kill them, implies they are in your captivity. Thus no longer active combatants, and protected and killing them in that fashion a war crime in of it self. I am how ever unsure if sentencing them to death in a criminal court, would be considered a war crime. As with Sadam.
that's fine because it's legitimatized by state power!
In all seriousness, sentencing people to death is mostly done to make a societal statement about what is acceptable behavior. It can permanently remove dangerous people from ever causing trouble again, but outside of the most charismatic and effective leaders, it’s unnecessary if you manage to capture them. Punishment only gives the feeling of control, which is why I don’t think it’s a valid form of justice in of itself.