Thread: Смертная казнь в России

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

So you find executing of old men, pregnant women and children acceptable at war? Even if they are hiding the partisans? Even if these mysterious partisans had tortured to death all poor sergeant's family this still wouldn't justify his actions here. Or do you think otherwise?

Ah, nice try. What you had just mentioned is considered to be a war crime, so the answer is no. And if you've ever been with a group that goes into the enemy territory for long time and you were able to avoid those things, my hat sincerely goes off to you.

Luckily I don't have such experience, but still I don't think that even a seasoned soldier would act like this. Senses go numb, of course, but I doubt that all military men are blood-thirsty maniacs. Besides, we are speaking of peace time here, at war different rules apply but even then some principles should be respected.

But my point actually was that the story is no good at justifying your point. That's all.

Maybe it was only I who understood this story this way. But in my opinion the sergeant failed to satifsy the criteria of being human in robot's mind.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Luckily I don't have such experience, but still I don't think that even a seasoned soldier would act like this. Senses go numb, of course, but I doubt that all military men are blood-thirsty maniacs.

I'm really not enjoying talking about that f**** crap, so I would only mention one obvious thing and I would prefer to discuss this no more. You see, if the peaceful villagers have contacts with partisans, once you leave the village, the partisans would very soon know you were there. And they would follow you. And attack at the moment you expect the least. That is one of the f***** rules of that f***** crap. So, from the moment you leave you should expect that to happen. Do you have the guts?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Maybe it was only I who understood this story this way. But in my opinion the sergeant failed to satifsy the criteria of being human in robot's mind.

Yes, I agree with your interpretation of the story. Provided as-is it leaves a lot of room for the reader to perceive the shleps as pure victims. But what I said was the reality is often different. The one-side interpretation is adequate when the story is open-ended (from both sides).

Crocodile I must compliment you on your English which is sounding 100% native at the moment. Perhaps it's the effect that a few Christmas drinks had?

(Just back from the pub... had a few myself... spending the xmas with some acquantances. Not my idea of a good way of spending xmas but it will have to do this year.. my own fault... )

Anyway - Your comment sounds exactly like British army officers speak who've been to war zones. Now I'm curious. Were you in some war?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

Luckily I don't have such experience, but still I don't think that even a seasoned soldier would act like this. Senses go numb, of course, but I doubt that all military men are blood-thirsty maniacs.

I'm really not enjoying talking about that f**** cr@p, so I would only mention one obvious thing and I would prefer to discuss this no more. You see, if the peaceful villagers have contacts with partisans, once you leave the village, the partisans would very soon know you were there. And they would follow you. And attack at the moment you expect the least. That is one of the rule of that f***** cr@p. So, from the moment you leave you should expect that to happen. Do you have the guts?

Let me check if I got this right: BEFORE you enter the village where there may be 'partisans' you KNOW all that you've just said. You know that once you've entered there will be no other choice than either to find these 'partisans' or exterminate all population. Let's suppose that you wouldn't find partisans (they're off somewhere... raiding your HQ for example). You kill everyone in the village, but this won't hide the fact that you've been there and you should expect a retaliation attempt anyway. It appears that the only possible 'human' and 'tactical' choice would be not to enter the village but lay an ambush nearby and wait for the real enemy. Of course if such means are necessary then why bother with formalities? Why not call an airstrike and level the village to the ground?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

Maybe it was only I who understood this story this way. But in my opinion the sergeant failed to satifsy the criteria of being human in robot's mind.

Yes, I agree with your interpretation of the story. Provided as-is it leaves a lot of room for the reader to perceive the shleps as pure victims. But what I said was the reality is often different. The one-side interpretation is adequate when the story is open-ended (from both sides).

The author leaves it as it is. Maybe he thought it would be enough or his fantasy had failed him or there was something else, who knows. But I assume that everything that needed to be said is said in the story and the rest is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Let me check if I got this right: BEFORE you enter the village where there may be 'partisans' you KNOW all that you've just said. You know that once you've entered there will be no other choice than either to find these 'partisans' or exterminate all population. Let's suppose that you wouldn't find partisans (they're off somewhere... raiding your HQ for example). You kill everyone in the village, but this won't hide the fact that you've been there and you should expect a retaliation attempt anyway. It appears that the only possible 'human' and 'tactical' choice would be not to enter the village but lay an ambush nearby and wait for the real enemy. Of course if such means are necessary then why bother with formalities? Why not call an airstrike and level the village to the ground?

When you've been sent to eliminate the insurgency (зачистка территории от бандформирований), it doesn't make sense to trot the jungle in search of the partisan bands. That will take forever. Instead, you would trace the partisans by their supply chain. So, you have to go village by village and see if the village is collaborating with the partisans.

1. If the village is not collaborating -> leave the village and go to the other one (that's usually the majority of cases)

2. If the village is currently harbouring partisans -> eliminate the resistance (call the airborne help if necessary)

3. If the village is collaborating but is not currently harbouring partisans -> interrogate the peaceful villagers (by terrorizing them or by the other means) -> locate the insurgency bases and eliminate them (again, call the airborne help if necessary)

There's no need to exterminate all village population as you said. However, the fierce insurgency resistance might have that consequence.

Laying an ambush is tactically possible, but (because it might take long time) is usually impractical as you don't know who is ambushing whom after a while. What if the partisans are currently watching your back while you have your weapon pointing the other way?

Originally Posted by Johanna

Crocodile I must compliment you on your English which is sounding 100% native at the moment.

Nah, you're kidding. I spice up my speech with a couple of the "F" words and all of a sudden I sound like a native speaker?

Originally Posted by Johanna

Anyway - Your comment sounds exactly like British army officers speak who've been to war zones. Now I'm curious. Were you in some war?

And how do you know the way the British army officers speak? Have you been dating one recently?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

And, as usual in such cases, the "simple" answers are cut out of the context. Try to expand the context, e.g. start the story from when the sergeant was a kid and "shleps" killed his parents but spared him (as they had their child-safety religion)... Then when he has seen his best friends die because the "peaceful" shlep villagers let them in friendly and silently called the partisans who "religiously" slowly cut his friends apiece and maintained their lives so they would suffer longer and satisfy their gods... And so on. As a result, you will think the robot really needed the "military" version. What should the robot do when the "non-humans" fight the "non-humans?"

This is sophistry. The point of the story is that innocent civilians are killed. They do not fight and do not start wars. Stop. The sergeant has no right to vent his grief on people who are innocent of crimes that happened in his childhood.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

3. If the village is collaborating but is not currently harbouring partisans -> interrogate the peaceful villagers (by terrorizing them or by the other means)

Could you specify what it means -- terrorizing? Mmm, torture, beatings, hangings? Maybe reprisals for collaboration? Burning whole villages alive so that the others would know better?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

There's no need to exterminate all village population as you said.

Oh. Why, thank you ever so much. So, mmm, a dozen would do?

Originally Posted by starrysky

The point of the story is that innocent civilians are killed. They do not fight and do not start wars. Stop. The sergeant has no right to vent his grief on people who are innocent of crimes that happened in his childhood.

Alright, it's time for the consensus. I agree with your statement. He has no right. My main question was did the robot have the right to kill the sergeant? After all, we're discussing the "non-humans" and what they deserve, aren't we? Is that sophistry? (By the way, if the innocent civilians collaborate with the insurgents, they basically supply (=add to) the killings the partisans do. Have you ever thought of that?) What I was trying to say was that during the war, it's very hard to measure who deserves what and who is a non-human. That was my point. So, the story (however nice) IMHO is not directly applicable in our discussion about the sub-humans whom Ramil insists we'd execute in the well-planned manner.

Originally Posted by starrysky

Would you specify what it means -- terrorizing? Mmm, torture, beatings, hangings? Maybe reprisals for collaboration? Burning whole villages alive so that the others would know better?

Civil War, Belorussia, УПА, Vietnam, Afganistan, Chechnya, Afganistan again...

Originally Posted by Crocodile

And how do you know the way the British army officers speak? Have you been dating one recently?

Yes, as a matter of fact, although he had just left the army. But I certainly don't recommend it and I will not do it again. But you are answering a question with a question..... ?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Alright, it's time for the consensus. I agree with your statement. He has no right. My main question was did the robot have the right to kill the sergeant? After all, we're discussing the "non-humans" and what they deserve, aren't we? Is that sophistry? (By the way, if the innocent civilians collaborate with the insurgents, they basically supply (=add to) the killings the partisans do. Have you ever thought of that?) What I was trying to say was that during the war, it's very hard to measure who deserves what and who is a non-human. That was my point. So, the story (however nice) IMHO is not directly applicable in our discussion about the sub-humans whom Ramil insists we'd execute in the well-planned manner.

Local civilians may have no choice but to collaborate because the partisans have frightened them into it. In which case the poor wretches are caught between a rock and a hard place. Of course, it is very difficult to decide about what's to be done in war time but I just hate that rhetoric about "necessary" and "unavoidable" civilian casulaties. It's so cynical. That was the reasoning behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki and many people still seem to endorse this view.

Regarding the consensus -- I agree that the opportunity to administer death penalty may theoretically make it possible for someone to abuse it... But this is where I'll leave it at the moment or my brain will short-circuit thinking about all the "how"s and "why"s...

Well rules on death penalty are different for war times though, aren't they?

I mean, collaborators, spies, traitors can usually be sentenced to death and executed fairly immediately.. If the treacherous actions of one countryman can jeopardise the entire country, and if you are killing the enemy in the battlefield anyway.... then there doesn't seem to be much logic in sparing somebody who has collaborated with the enemy.

However I for one hope that war-time laws will never againt be needed in Europe - hopefully it's a strictly hypothetical question.

We're not speaking of war-time. I was merely illustrating my point that not all 'bipedal speaking creatures' can be considered human.

Well, even if it is war time, human laws should still apply...

Originally Posted by Johanna

I mean, collaborators, spies, traitors can usually be sentenced to death and executed fairly immediately.. If the treacherous actions of one countryman can jeopardise the entire country, and if you are killing the enemy in the battlefield anyway.... then there doesn't seem to be much logic in sparing somebody who has collaborated with the enemy.

The thing is, when I think of partisans I usually imagine WWII. When the Germans occupied part of Russia, many people went into forests and became partisans. They were not traitors in the eyes of Russians but heroes because they continued to fight. And the Germans couldn't call them traitors either -- they didn't owe any allegiance to them. The locals were likely to help them of course, for which whole villages would be executed as a reprisal. Aweful death awaited partisans if they were captured -- they would be tortured and hanged in the main street as a warning.
You can read this artcle, for example, about the so-called "Young Guard" -- there's a famous book and a film about them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_G...et_resistance)

Photos http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/2558?page=1

Even if we are not talking about that particular war -- let's say Americans in Aghanistan (or Soviets -- we were there for ten years too) -- how can these soldiers execute Afghans who, say, collaborate with their countrymen -- even if those countrymen are terrorists/extremists? Afghan people don't owe allegiance either to Americans or Russians, they can't be called traitors.

Originally Posted by Johanna

However I for one hope that war-time laws will never againt be needed in Europe - hopefully it's a strictly hypothetical question.

You hope that. I don't have all that much faith in humanity. History shows that we learn nothing fom history. You would've thought the middle of the 20th century was not Middle Ages -- yet WWII happens to be the bloodiest war ever.

Originally Posted by Ramil

We're not speaking of war-time. I was merely illustrating my point that not all 'bipedal speaking creatures' can be considered human.

Do you remember a scene from the District 9 where humans burnt the alien eggs? That was not in a war and the action was perfectly legal. How do you classify that?

Originally Posted by starrysky

Of course, it is very difficult to decide about what's to be done in war time but I just hate that rhetoric about "necessary" and "unavoidable" civilian casulaties. It's so cynical.

I hate that too. I guess every normal person would hate that. Do you remember Lukyanenko's Principles of Regressors? (If Ramil would consider also translating those books, I would applaud him.) When you're hard-pressed to make tough choices and you want to remain sane, you just start thinking differently.

In response to Starrysky's post --- I probably wasn't clear. I meant people who collaborate with the enemy during wartime.

For example: If NATO attacked Russia (God forbid!!) and some Russian person collaborated with the NATO troops... Imagine that he told them the locations of secret weapon caches, secret codes and where the weak points in the Russian defense was...

If you found out about this, and you knew that innocent people had died as a result of his actions, would you want to convict him as a traitor and:

a) shoot him, OR
b) just put him in prison?

I agree with your definition of partisans and I know about the Soviet partisans (although not much!). Perhaps in Russia the word is only used for the partisans from WW2? As far as I know, it's also used for left-wing freedom fighters around the world. Not only WW2 and Eastern Europe, also Spain, Italy, Central America etc. And they wrote some very catchy songs..

The "Young Guard" sounds interesting. Somebody mentioned the film in the film thread. I'd quite like to see it, but I will wait until I am able to understand Russian better.

Gasp!

Originally Posted by wiki

Most members of the Young Guard, about 80 people, were tortured and then executed

This is a good example of the point. Would you shoot the person who betrayed them, or put him in prison?

Originally Posted by Johanna

If you found out about this, and you knew that innocent people had died as a result of his actions, would you want to convict him as a traitor and:

a) shoot him, OR
b) just put him in prison?

What would you do?
Now I don't understand you. You were very clear and straightforward that criminals should not be put to death -- even if they killed a lot of people, and there is incontrovertible evidence that they are guilty -- they plead guilty, they show the place(s) where they buried their victim(s), etc. You said that it was a matter of principle, like Crocodile says, we have no right to kill humans. So why would there be any excuse to judge and kill people in war time? Where's the difference? They're still human beings, supposedly. And war could start any minute -- I mean wars are being waged all the time, just not in Europe at the moment.

I would say that war is actually an excuse, a mitigating circumstance -- in peace time you can be "good" easily -- in war time your country asks you to sacrifice your life, to be a hero on a daily basis -- not everyone can do it. During WWII the Soviet soldiers captured by the Germans were considered traitors, so that even if they survived the inhuman conditions of concentration camps they might come home to be labelled a "traitor" and go staright to another camp. There was another directive/order of Stalin that said any soldier who failed to go into attack -- even if it meant going against tanks with your bare hands and imminent death -- could be shot on the spot. And the families of the "traitors" could be prosecuted too.

So, anyway, I don't understand your logic. Here I am, trying to come round to your understanding that we should be oh so human and spare the lives of those who failed to follow human laws and who don't care a fig about other people's lives. And you say in war it doesn't apply. Do we stop being humans just because crackpot leaders of our countries decided to go to war? How moral is it to kill the enemy? Those soldiers are humans too. And much less culpable because they may be sent to war against their will -- in Russia conscription is still mandatory for all young men. Why should the enemy be killed?

I have to say I'm totally puzzled. If your main gripe with death penalty is the possibility of mistake or even wilful abuse then I can understand it -- though nothing is more certain in war, on the contrary, there is more commotion and less time.

Oh I think we've all argued this issue so far that we are almost beginning to confuses ourselves.... Including me!

Actually Starrysky, in principle, everything you say seems logical.
I have never before given any thought at all to death penalty in war times, so I do not have any strong or well-developed idea about it.

I might have just confused myself and everyone else by starting to talk about it. I don't think I have the knowledge or passion about the issue of death penalty in war times to debate about it.

The thing that made me think about it is that wars are so terrible that normal moral almost cease to exist. Plus, they trigger the situation of "would you kill one person now, to prevent the death of a thousand in the future"

I've heard this question and similar ones used a lot for ethical/philosophical debates. The reason is that it trips up people who say that they are categorically against death penalty - like me.

I think that what you are saying about a human life being a human life no matter what the situation is TRUE.
Yet, if you are facing an aggressive enemy who has no regard for life.... Luckily there is no immediate risk of that happening.

Frankly, this is the stuff of philosophy, and it is quesions that religion deals with. I will definitely not claim that I know any easy answers to this.

People within several traditions in Christianity refuse to participate in any wars, under any circumstances, for example. If everyone believed like they do... then wars could not happen because there'd be nobody to fight them. I have a lot of respect for such people.

But I have to admit, that if I faced a person who i KNEW was about to consciously do something that would kill 100 innocent people and I could stop it by killing him... Then I think I'd do it.
But it's such a simplified situation.

The only realistic situation I can imagine where something like that would happen would be a war situation. That, and the talk about the partisans was what made me start thinking of war times laws.

I know that most countries have special laws that apply only in war time; changes to the constitution, the status of the government and the punishments for certain crimes.

I want to avoid the issues of war altogether, and I think it is possible. War between the states in Europe is unthinkable right now. People in Europe are going to their old enemy-countries on holiday and business, and chatting with people from there online. The insane cold war is over too and I want as close relations with Russia as we can possibly have.

I am STRONGLY against wars and ANY kind of aggressive military policies. That's one of the reasons I don't like US foreign policy. Over and over the US has started wars in areas where it has no business and it also increases tension by meddling in the internal business of other countries. I don't think that a modern civilised and supposedly democratic country has any excuse to behave in this way. Its actions have lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands this decade alone.

For the future of Europe, I want the same as some of the pan-European supporters in Brussels. Basically; US bases out of Europe. Then I want the EU to have a peaceful joint DEFENSE force for future threats that we cannot predict right now.

Originally Posted by Johanna

Oh I think we've all argued this issue so far that we are almost beginning to confuses ourselves.... Including me!

This is very true. To be quite honest, I don't really enjoy it when people start splitting hairs in forum discussions and just being very boring, which I see a lot on my local forum but not on MasterRussian. But I hope we are not being so very boring.

The morality of war should definitely be discussed in a totally different thread. I just thought that if you rejected death penalty on religious grounds -- like the preciousness of human life -- then you would have the same firm position on any issue regarding killing and murder and so on.

Well, never mind.