Quote 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...