Kill Vrs. Murder

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='28 October 2009 - 09:22 AM' timestamp='1256736167' post='1992673']
Never the less, the pilots are under orders and are therefore it is by definition, not murder on their part.

Murder is the illegal taking of innocent life.

Jim
[/quote]

The "illegal" taking of innocent life? Stalin's slaughter of innocents were "legal," if by "legal" we mean "statutorily approved."

Himmler's S.S. were "just following orders," and were rightly executed at Nuremberg. They tried that excuse.

Murder is the deliberate taking of an innocent life. Period.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 29, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Winchester]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='28 October 2009 - 08:38 PM' timestamp='1256776724' post='1992986']
If it came down to carrying out an unjust and murderous order, and being shot, I believe that a Christian must in good conscience refuse the order and be shot.

In the example you quoted, in my opinion those soldiers, as well as the officers, are guilty of murder. Of course I cannot judge their interior thought process, but in my personal opinion a person in nearly every case in his life, will have the moral wherewithal to realize that shooting an unarmed man in the back of the head is wrong under all circumstances.
I will add a caveat though, that culpability would be diminished if the American soldiers had been broken in boot camp so thoroughly that they did not have the psychological strength to resist an order from their superiors, and in other situations of that rather extreme ilk.

The fact that it was a time of war makes no difference. The fact that the order was given by superiors makes no difference. The American soldiers had a moral duty to resist a murderous order and face the consequences.
[/quote]
One is not required unde rpain of sin to surrender one's life. The soldiers were possibly not acting freely.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Winchester' date='28 October 2009 - 09:40 PM' timestamp='1256784025' post='1993076']
One is not required unde rpain of sin to surrender one's life. The soldiers were possibly not acting freely.
[/quote]
If the only choices were murder or death?

I guess you're right; you could try to incapacitate your officer first. There's always another choice.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='rkwright' date='28 October 2009 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1256762962' post='1992906']
It was murder. The men had surrendered to them, therefore they are no longer an enemy but a prisoner.

The act itself was intrinsically evil, shooting unarmed, non-agressive soldiers.
[/quote]


Well, hold on for a sec, lets take a look at the predicament the US troops had.

First off, as stated in the story, the US forces did not have the means to get back to their lines
while guarding the prisoners, without compromising their own lives, and also the secrecy of their mission.

If they just let the German soldiers go, they would've informed their German officers, which would've given away vital information on the location and strategy of the US military operation. This would cost more American lives.

So, in their judgment, they had no choice but to kill the soldiers.

Now, we have the hindsight of 50+ years to look at the situation differently. But for them, at the time in a combat situation, they had to make a quick decision, with their mission and the lives of their fellow soldiers in mind.

So, was the actions of the US Soldiers murder? No, it was not, it was a combat operation in a "just war."

Was the act immoral? I don't believe it was, but I think there could've been other options other than killing the prisoners. I wasn't there though, so its hard for me to make the judgment.


Jim

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='29 October 2009 - 08:16 AM' timestamp='1256822161' post='1993275']
Well, hold on for a sec, lets take a look at the predicament the US troops had.

First off, as stated in the story, the US forces did not have the means to get back to their lines
while guarding the prisoners, without compromising their own lives, and also the secrecy of their mission.

If they just let the German soldiers go, they would've informed their German officers, which would've given away vital information on the location and strategy of the US military operation. This would cost more American lives.

So, in their judgment, they had no choice but to kill the soldiers.

Now, we have the hindsight of 50+ years to look at the situation differently. But for them, at the time in a combat situation, they had to make a quick decision, with their mission and the lives of their fellow soldiers in mind.

So, was the actions of the US Soldiers murder? No, it was not, it was a combat operation in a "just war."

Was the act immoral? I don't believe it was, but I think there could've been other options other than killing the prisoners. I wasn't there though, so its hard for me to make the judgment.


Jim
[/quote]
The ends never justify the means. The act was murder, and all that is left is for God to judge the individual culpability of each soldier. There's no question that it was murder according to any Church teaching you care to look up.

[JimR-OCDS]

I don't know if you guys saw the movie, "Saving Private Ryan," or not, but there is a scene in the movie,
where a similar situation takes place, where the American squad, overtakes a German position and captures a German soldier. The Americans lost two of their own soldiers in the fight, and the majority, including the platoon commander,(played by Tom Hanks), want to shoot the prisoner. In fact, they have him digging his own grave. The American soldier who was the interpreter, argues against shooting the prisoner, stating that it would be immoral to shoot and unarmed man. The platoon commander finally gives in, and they come up with a solution. They blindfold the German soldier, and have him walk towards
the on-coming US military forces, telling him, that he is to surrender, when he reaches them. The German soldier is grateful and walks as instructed, toward US oncoming forces.

Later in the movie, when the same platoon is defending a small village, after an vicious fight where all except two of the Americans from the original patrol are still alive, the American Interpreter, ends up coming face to face with a group of German soldiers who are surrendering. It turns out, one of the soldiers, was the one he argued to save, days before. The German soldier didn't surrender to US forces as he was told, but did what soldiers are suppose to do. He went back to his own side and took up the fight again. At that point, the American interpreter knew he had erred in arguing for the German soldier's life, and he blows the man away.

Lets face it, war is evil.

Its why we have to do everything we can, to avoid going into war. However, there are times when a Hitler comes along, and we have no choice.

Jim

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='29 October 2009 - 10:17 AM' timestamp='1256822259' post='1993277']
The ends never justify the means. The act was murder, and all that is left is for God to judge the individual culpability of each soldier. There's no question that it was murder according to any Church teaching you care to look up.
[/quote]


A person is not required to sacrifice the lives of others, or his own, for another who has the intention of doing him harm.

In the case of the German soldiers, they belonged to the German Army, who's intention was to kill US soldiers. The US Soldiers would therefore not be culpable for an immoral act, because their intention was to save the lives of others, and their own.

Its why in war, the term, "murder" can not be applied to soldiers involved in combat.

Jim

[rkwright]

In war you cannot kill prisoners. It doesn't matter that it was a just war, once those men surrendered we're in a whole new game. If you shoot prisoners its murder.

This isn't that hard. We prosecute war criminals all the time for shooting unarmed prisoners.

What about when the German SS soldiers killed a hundred or so unarmed american prisoners in a field outside of bastogne? But then again they were nazi's so they must be evil... they lost the war so they're murderers.

We prosecuted those German SS soldiers for war crimes. They were just following orders... their mission was in jeopardy if they hung around and guarded those guys... if they let them go they might return to their lines... same stuff.

The point is murder is murder.

[rkwright]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='29 October 2009 - 08:36 AM' timestamp='1256823407' post='1993285']
A person is not required to sacrifice the lives of others, or his own, for another who has the intention of doing him harm.

In the case of the German soldiers, they belonged to the German Army, who's intention was to kill US soldiers. The US Soldiers would therefore not be culpable for an immoral act, because their intention was to save the lives of others, and their own.

Its why in war, the term, "murder" can not be applied to soldiers involved in combat.

Jim
[/quote]

You're wrong on two points.

First off, murder is an intrinsically immoral act. Meaning the intention has nothing to do with it. Meaning that even if you murder someone with good intentions its still wrong.

Secondly, murder does not involve soldiers in combat. You are correct. Only in this case the germans were no longer soldiers, they were prisoners, and they weren't involved in combat.

[JimR-OCDS]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church;

[quote][b]2265[/b] Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.[/quote]


Now, in the case of the soldiers in combat, as the story's that were presented showed, it could be argued that allowing the prisoners to return to their own units, would be irresponsible, because by doing so, would jeopardize the lives of others, i.e. the American forces. It would also jeopardize the liberation of France, which was unjustly invaded by the Nazis. Therefore, not defeating the German army would be jepardizing the lives of French civilians, who were under the brutal occupation by the Germans. Allowing the prisoners to go free, would harm the legitamate defense of French civilains and other Allied Forces, so shooting the prisoners as the US soldiers did, would not be murder, but a legitimate act of defense, which was the purpose of the war against Germany.



Jim

[Nihil Obstat]

Your position is indefensible. The ends, i.e. winning the war, DO NOT justify the means, i.e. the unjust (and by the way, illegal, since you were on that earlier) killing of unarmed prisoners of war.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='29 October 2009 - 12:01 PM' timestamp='1256828506' post='1993324']
Your position is indefensible. The ends, i.e. winning the war, DO NOT justify the means, i.e. the unjust (and by the way, illegal, since you were on that earlier) killing of unarmed prisoners of war.
[/quote]


Then using this argument, all the soldiers who fought in WWII are murders..

The war was fought to stop Hitler's killing and the only way to stop him was to win.

Also, the soldiers actions were not only to win the war, but to prevent themselves and others from being killed by the German army.


Jim

[rkwright]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='29 October 2009 - 09:30 AM' timestamp='1256826656' post='1993309']
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church;




Now, in the case of the soldiers in combat, as the story's that were presented showed, it could be argued that allowing the prisoners to return to their own units, would be irresponsible, because by doing so, would jeopardize the lives of others, i.e. the American forces. It would also jeopardize the liberation of France, which was unjustly invaded by the Nazis. Therefore, not defeating the German army would be jepardizing the lives of French civilians, who were under the brutal occupation by the Germans. Allowing the prisoners to go free, would harm the legitamate defense of French civilains and other Allied Forces, so shooting the prisoners as the US soldiers did, would not be murder, but a legitimate act of defense, which was the purpose of the war against Germany.



Jim
[/quote]

You're misusing the CCC. It states when there is an unjust aggressor. Once they have surrendered I don't see how they can be considered an unjust aggressor.

[rkwright]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='29 October 2009 - 11:44 AM' timestamp='1256834691' post='1993356']
Then using this argument, all the soldiers who fought in WWII are murders..

The war was fought to stop Hitler's killing and the only way to stop him was to win.

Also, the soldiers actions were not only to win the war, but to prevent themselves and others from being killed by the German army.


Jim
[/quote]

No...

this really isn't that hard.

When both sides are fighting (and its considered a just war) then the soldiers aren't considered murderers.

When people on one side give up, but the war isn't over, you can't justify killing them. Thats murder.

Edited October 29, 2009 by rkwright

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='29 October 2009 - 11:44 AM' timestamp='1256834691' post='1993356']
Then using this argument, all the soldiers who fought in WWII are murders..

The war was fought to stop Hitler's killing and the only way to stop him was to win.

Also, the soldiers actions were not only to win the war, but to prevent themselves and others from being killed by the German army.


Jim
[/quote]
Incorrect. You just took a very limited situation and applied it invalidly to a far broader one.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='rkwright' date='29 October 2009 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1256834948' post='1993359']
No...

this really isn't that hard.

When both sides are fighting (and its considered a just war) then the soldiers aren't considered murderers.

When people on one side give up, but the war isn't over, you can't justify killing them. Thats murder.
[/quote]


So if the soldiers just released the prisoners, because they could not take them back to their own lines with them, and those soldiers returned to the German units and were able to call in artillery on the US forces, what would it be called then?

I know the ideal would be, take the prisoners back to your lines and turn them over to the authorities.
However, this wasn't an option, being that they had to move under cover, and there were more prisoners than the number of US troops that could guard them.

Also, there's the possibility, that the surrendering prisoners were being watched by their own, to see where the Americans would take them.

But its all 2nd guessing from our safe comfy positions.

Jim

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='29 October 2009 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1256838045' post='1993383']
So if the soldiers just released the prisoners, because they could not take them back to their own lines with them, and those soldiers returned to the German units and were able to call in artillery on the US forces, what would it be called then?

I know the ideal would be, take the prisoners back to your lines and turn them over to the authorities.
However, this wasn't an option, being that they had to move under cover, and there were more prisoners than the number of US troops that could guard them.

Also, there's the possibility, that the surrendering prisoners were being watched by their own, to see where the Americans would take them.

But its all 2nd guessing from our safe comfy positions.

Jim
[/quote]
How carefully have you read all those inconvenient little sections that say the ends DO NOT justify the means? That's all your argument is. You're not even dressing it up.

[rkwright]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='29 October 2009 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1256838045' post='1993383']
So if the soldiers just released the prisoners, because they could not take them back to their own lines with them, and those soldiers returned to the German units and were able to call in artillery on the US forces, what would it be called then?

I know the ideal would be, take the prisoners back to your lines and turn them over to the authorities.
However, this wasn't an option, being that they had to move under cover, and there were more prisoners than the number of US troops that could guard them.

Also, there's the possibility, that the surrendering prisoners were being watched by their own, to see where the Americans would take them.

But its all 2nd guessing from our safe comfy positions.

Jim
[/quote]

I typically don't like to play around in the hypos themselves, but in this case I will.

In your hypo the Americans are behind enemy lines. They come across the Germans who surrender. If they let these germans go, how would this encounter give these germans knowledge to call in artillery on US forces?

Why not just tie these Germans up to a tree or something, tie 'em up and put them in a basement somewhere. If they go back to their own lines and decide to fight on, thats there choice.

[rkwright]

Back to the original topic, I think its interesting that when Jesus was asked about this commandment, He quoted the commandment as "Thou shall not kill". See Matt. 5, Mark 10.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='rkwright' date='29 October 2009 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1256840500' post='1993399']
I typically don't like to play around in the hypos themselves, but in this case I will.

In your hypo the Americans are behind enemy lines. They come across the Germans who surrender. If they let these germans go, how would this encounter give these germans knowledge to call in artillery on US forces?

Why not just tie these Germans up to a tree or something, tie 'em up and put them in a basement somewhere. If they go back to their own lines and decide to fight on, thats there choice.
[/quote]


Well, the story was true, not hypothetical.

Allowing the Germans to go back to their units would give the officers of those units, the knowledge that American forces were close. It would also give information on where these troops probably came from and thereby the Germans would send out their own reconnaissance and get exact locations in order to call in artillery.

I guess you haven't served in an infantry unit as I have. Allowing the soldiers to return to their units would've been dereliction of duty by the Americans.

I thought maybe they could've just wounded the young lads, instead of killing them. But then, they'd probably be picked up by their own German units, and would be willing and able to give vital information.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that what the American soldiers did, was absolutely right, but I haven't come up with a way they could've done anything other than what they did, without risking their own lives and the lives of their fellow soldiers.

Jim

Edited October 29, 2009 by JimR-OCDS