Is War Justified Murder? Options

[Kontroll]

I feel that the killing or for specific terms, murder of one soldier by another soldier is justified. The soldier is protecting our society, he is protecting our individual rights as a citizen of a certain country. If I've forgotten more then tell me. But I'm sure you all have the point. I feel that it's justified, but some people don't.

If a citizen or ordinary person killed or murdered another person to save another person from losing his life is he right?

I really want to see how people view this topic. If I have not made myself clear, then just ask me to clarify. Thanks.

[*WHIMSICAL 0NE*]

I have never been to war, obviously. I don't really think it's anyone's place to call people who are over there busting their asses day and night so people in America can still sleep in their own beds murders. I guess it's more a a kill or be killed. Even if it's premeditated I don't think it will matter to say "Oh, at least we didn't murder anyone" when some terrorist decides to make an attack on America 100 times worse than 9/11. But that's just my opinion. I can understand why you would say even if it's for a split second you knew you were going to kill them, I don't think many of the soldiers WANT to kill them though. The motive for murder during war is much different than some woman murdering a woman that her husband cheated on her with... she wants her dead.

[think!IMAGINARIL...]

I have never been to war, obviously. I don't really think it's anyone's place to call people who are over there busting their asses day and night so people in America can still sleep in their own beds murders.

I agree with you on that. They're not murderers in Americans' eyes.. But to the other country, soldiers may be viewed as murderers.

Even if it's premeditated I don't think it will matter to say "Oh, at least we didn't murder anyone" when some terrorist decides to make an attack on America 100 times worse than 9/11. But that's just my opinion.

Umm, I didn't exactly understand that. Can you clarify it?

I can understand why you would say even if it's for a split second you knew you were going to kill them, I don't think many of the soldiers WANT to kill them though. The motive for murder during war is much different than some woman murdering a woman that her husband cheated on her with... she wants her dead.

The motive doesn't matter. Murder is still murder.

In English law, murder is considered the most serious form of homicide where one person kills another either intending to cause death or intending to cause serious injury in a situation where death is virtually certain (originally termed malice aforethought even though it requires neither malice nor premeditation). Following the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, the mandatory sentence is life imprisonment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_English_law

In war, soldiers intend to kill people. According to the passage above, it's murder.

[Simba]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_English_law

In war, soldiers intend to kill people. According to the passage above, it's murder.

A soldier "murdering" a soldier of the opposition, according to law, which is what you were referring to, so that's what I'll go by, is indeed justified. I mean, it has to be, otherwise there would be quite a few soldiers and veterans in trouble...

First of all, according to law, soldiers in war technically do not commit murder. Murder is a form of homicide, and homicide is the killing of a human being. Murder is just the most serious and inexcusable form. It even says so in that passage you referred to. So, supposedly, soldiers in war are committing homicide.

Though, it's justifiable homicide. In criminal law, justifiable homicide excuses what would have been considered intentional killing.

Where a state is engaged in a war with a legitimate casus belli, a soldier from one of the combatant states may lawfully kill a soldier in the army of the opposing state so long as that soldier has not surrendered. This principle is embedded in public international law and has been respected by most states around the world. Thus, if there is no formal declaration of war or the casus belli is not legitimate, all those who engage in the fighting and kill combatants could theoretically be prosecuted. Otherwise, protecting the national interest against external aggressors will be considered an excuse on utilitarian grounds, i.e. the greatest public good will be derived from the defeat of the enemy.

Passage from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_h...t_jurisdictions

And that would be the condition that soldiers in war meet, thus making their homicide justified, except in the case that the soldier who was the victim of the homicide surrendered beforehand.