Are soldiers murderers?

You have displaced the real world with the legalisitic world, my
captain. You live in a world where, once a bunch of professional
obfuscators (lawyers) have caused a judge or jury to find a murderer
not guity, the legallistically hypnotised sleepwalk through their
fantasy world, dreaming that no murder has been commited. That is a
brave new world indeed, my captain.

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

">

Murder is a legal term, if you wish to make a judgement use blood thirsty
killer, or cold blooded killer or some such term.

The labling of a person as a murderer requires a guilty verdict, it's a
legal term for an act being found guilty of breaking a law.

A person found not guilty of murder may still be a kiler.

Capt. A. L.

 

I'm not talking about the doer. I'm talking about the deed.

Your idea that there was no murder until someone has been convicted
for it, is a purely legalistic construct which ignores the reality of
a situation in which a murder has happened.

If a murder happened, it happened. If the facts surrounding the
killing of someone are such that the killing was unlawful, then a
murder has happened. The law only comes into it in so far as a
conviction is sought.


=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Yes on an earlier post, pasted below, I conceded that a murder could be
found to have been committed without a conviction..


" In reflection I concede that a court may determine that a person has been

The start of this thread posed the question "Are solders murderers?"
Not have solders committed murder?
In any case a court needs to determine if the circumstances surrounding the
killing constitute murder in the said jurisdiction. Different countries and
cultures may have slightly different religious, moral and intimately legal
views surrounding a definition of murder.
If you detirmine that under the circumstances amurder has been committed it
remains an opinion until tested in court.

Capt. A. L

 

Good. I just wanted to confirm that we had established this basic
before we progressed deeper into this very cloudy subject.

So in regard to our soldiers killin on foreign soil, our laws clearly
do not apply. Do the law of the land in which the killing happened
apply, my captain?

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

"> So in regard to our soldiers killin on foreign soil, our laws clearly

On that point I have no clear position, you'd have to ask a Judge. But it
isn't clear to me that our laws don't apply to our soilders whilst
campaining abroard.

I'd reckon though, that no matter where our soilders killed, if we won the
war I'd be our laws that prevail.

Which gets back to my point that murder is defined by law not morals.

Murder is so grey a concept, it relays on many tests of actual
circumstances. The killers rational, his mental state, provication if any
by the victim, any premeditation and lots more that don't immeaditely come
to mind. Speeding on the other hand is simply black and white. Either you
were or you weren't, regardless of a conviction. Murder is alltogether grey
in comparison, requiring a guilty verdict to apply.

Capt. A. L.

 

Oh I get it, that's some sort of sick tongue in cheek humour, right?

We can kill millions, and as long as we win, only our laws apply and
we're not murderers, right?

The killers get to write the laws so long as they win?

That's doesn't start to stink of corruption on a mega scale to you,
does it?

As long as the invader wins, no murder has been committed? It's
about might is right, and not about justice?

Justice is defiend by the winner?

And the winner gets to write the law, eh?

So if I kill someone i.e. I wage a personal war against someone and I
win my personal war, why cannot I then write the law which acquits me?

If it works at the international level, justifying the killing of
millions, why can't I have the same laws?

You don't think that war is a monstrous corruption of the most basic
principles of justice, do you?

Nah.... That's just obfuscation. You're a murderer if you killed
unlawfully according to the laws of the land in which you committed
the kill. All else has got to be bullshit, if the law of the land
defines what is murder.

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

No it's how it has been since we climbed down from the trees and decided on
a system of law

They always have done and will continue to do so I suspect.

I'm not talking about Justice I'm talking about what defines a murderer

Yes as thay always have done

Depends on the war I guess, anyway when did justice enter the debate.
Murder is defined by a guilty verdict which may be just or may be a
misscarridge of justice. It's irrevelent

Then it has to be detirmined by the court of that land that the killing was
indeed unlawful according to that lands laws.


Capt. A. L.

 

So, help me out here, my captain... When we invade another country,
up until such time as we have torn down their laws and replaced them
with our own, our soldiers are murderers in the eyes of the law
existing in that place at that time? That would be right, wouldn't
it, according to your preferred definition of murder?


=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

As long as there was a trial and a guilty verdict delivered..

Capt. A. L.

 

But I very much doubt that if we were invading another country, we would
accept their laws in the first instance. It's a ridicules point

 

And that makes it OK? War is ok because we have never evolved
beyond the barbaric, corrupt excuse-making which "justifies" it?

Well we _must_ bring justice into it. All laws are the foundation of
a system of justice. You have said that the law is everything, ergo,
you are saying justice is everything. Don't you go trying to weasel
out now by pretending that justice is a separate, unrelated concept.

Oh? Really? I thought that our attempts at trying to establish a
system of international law (international justice system) included
input by the losers as well as the winners of many wars, and that in
fact it is an attempt to evolve, as the human species, beyond such
barbaric concepts as "might is right".

But shit... no... I was wrong apparently, war is ok so long as you
win... Whale oil beef hooked !

You're clearly an apologist for "might is right" and you can't see
anything wrong with that, apparently, because "it's always been that
way".

Clearly you speak from the lack of experience obtained by not having
experienced the unfettered joy of having your country invaded and
trashed by a self-righteous, murdering horde hell-bent on imposing
their alien culture upon yours, otherwise you would not harbour such
glib, sterile, "legal" opinions. I can assure you that when you're
on the receiving end, it looks a little bit less legal...

In fact, it might be a good idea for you to sit down with a few
"terrorists" and listen to what they have to say. Try to understand
what it looks like from where they sit... and then you might even
"get" why trashing whole countries and cultures will never win a "war
on terror", but merely create one.

See above.


=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Hang about... earlier you conceded that if a killing is unlawful (in
the land in which it is committed), then it is murder.

You're done...

Next...

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

The murderer not accepting the laws which define him as a murderer is
merely a murderer in denial.

You're done.

Next...

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

I'm not saying what shoul or should not be I'm just saying what is

Capt. A. L.

 

No, you were expressing the opinion that soldiers aren't murderers.

I believe I have shown that it could easily be argued, by your very
own legal parameters, that there is indeed a valid legal perspecitve
from which invading soldiers are indeed deemed to be murderers.

You just don't have the grace to admit defeat in this debate.

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

">

I never conceded that at all. Please paste my response where I conceded
that " If killing is unlawful in the country where it is committed then it
is murder"
All I conceded was that a court may determine upon examining all evidence
available that a murder had been comitted by "persons unknown" If the
persons become known and are tried they may be found to be not guilty. then
it will be apparent that a murder had not in fact been comitted


You seem to be as big an idiot as Nev. I have even given a scenario where a
killing, though unlawful was not murder as a court had determined that it
was justifiable homicide and the perpetrator was found guilty of a lesser
offence.

 

He's not a murderer until a court finds him so. Until then he is a killer
and perhaps an alleged murderer

Is he of sound mind? Many nutters think they are sane. Was he provoked.
Most people who kill are. If so was the provocation enough to find him not
guilty of murder? we're going round and round here

You believe that a moral judgement makes one a murderer I believe that is a
legal definition of a person found guilty of murder by a court.

You may be right but I don't believe so

Capt. A. L

 

Solders are only deemed to be murderers if, as I have continually stated,
they are tried and convicted by a court. A court, obviously, that is
recognised by the ruling authority. Many killers have never been tried thus
they are not murderers until a conviction is recorded

If you have been following this thread, what say you regarding the "abused
housewife scenario" I illustrated eariler, murderer or not?

Capt. A. L.

 

Ok, you didn't say it, but will continue to argue that murder (the
deed) is defined as unlawful killing. It follows that unlawful
killing means killing not sanctiond by the laws of the land in which
the killing takes place.

You'd have to be a blathering idiot to assume that an invading army
would not be considered to be committing mass murder by the country
(and its courts, if they were allowed to sit in judgement) being
invaded. The rest is just meretricious legal mumbo jumbo.


=================

Onya bike

Gerry