Were we right to sack Prospero?

[CainTheHunter]

Why do we always forget our morality when it's most convenient, as a people?

 

Because people, in their true nature, are not moral. I am not using term "immoral", because it's the opposite to "morality".

[Karack Blackstone]

I was hoping it wasn't that...

 

However, I can live with not moral as opposed to immoral.

 

I just don't have to like it. Thanks for the quick reply.

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

I apologize, I don't see how this was truly relevant to orders or the actions of WW2 Japanese soldiers. However, before I go on, I would like to thank you for for your service to international peace as a whole.

 

My service was to protect the UK, if that helped the rest of the world then all well and good, but I wasn't in the Peace Corps.

 

War has unjustifiable results, but to say that orders aren't law is sort of pushing it.

 

Sorry to cut out all of your points but leaving them in would make this a very long post - I'll try not to miss anything essential.

 

Orders are not intrinsically lawful or unlawful, but must confirm to that societies codified laws. In UK we have the Army Act, but a soldiers actions must still be in line with wider UK laws, codes and institutional practices - in time of peace, soldiers have no greater powers or protection under the law than a citizen beyond their authorisation to carry specific weaponry normally banned for public use. Actions such as you describe fall under English Common Law's right to self defence and defence of others who are victims of criminal activity. Once war has been declared then we can fall back on the Geneva Convention and Protocols to provide a legal framework for military (and political) action.

 

Soldiers are somewhat above the law, I would think. In the United States, for example, soldiers cannot be quartered in homes, putting them under the law. However, if a civilian kills anyone, he is a murdered, if a soldier kills someone, or if they kill lots of people or important people, they are heroes. Simo Hayha, the Finnish sniper, has the greatest number of kills in any conflict when he was fighting the Soviets. (Source: Wikipedia) When the war was over, he went hunting with the Finnish President.

 

So hopefully you can now see from my earlier statement how Simo Häyhä acted within the law (my partner is Finnish so I am well versed on the Winter War!) and how soldiers are not above the law in liberal democracies.

 

I know it's an old example, but in the Second World War, Nazi and Japanese scientists and soldiers committed all sorts of crimes on civilians and prisoners of war. They used them for experiments, the Nazi's tried to exterminate all kinds of people (homosexuals, gypsies, jews, etc.), Japanese soldiers beat and killed women during the Nanking Massacre and used captured Chinese for bayonet practice.

 

I'm sure that one of our German colleagues will be able to correct me if I am wrong, but murder was probably still illegal in Germany in 1944 - maybe in Japan too...

 

War is unpleasant enough without letting all our values and standards fall by the wayside - hence you cannot target hospitals and should give the wounded of all sides the same treatment. Sometimes, and especially when the other side are breaking the rules, it is very hard to keep to this. The fact that a government chooses to ignore its own laws does not give soldiers the right to also break the law.

 

It's almost wrong of me to ask, but if a commanding officer ordered you to run up a hill, clear a road or torture a spy/ insurgent would you hesitate, or would you listen? If you were ordered to clear a village of insurgents and you were attacked by a seemingly innocent civilian, would you fire? If you knew that women and children were armed with concealed bombs (like shoeshine box bombs in Vietnam) and you were ordered to fire only when fired upon or attacked, would you give into paranoia and shoot every shoeshine boy (the very action that labeled soldiers in Vietnam as baby killers) or would you follow orders and wait for something to happen?

 

run up a hill - yes

clear a road - yes

torture a spy - no

attacked by a civilian - depends on what you mean by attack. If it's an angry and upset little 'ol lady - no, insurgent with AK47 - yes. UK infantry undergo significant training to be able to determine a threat from a disturbance - much like in the US I expect - and perception training is vital.

I was in the position of not being able to fire upon unless most of my service life and didn't find it difficult to deal with. You do become very good at spotting when things aren't quite right and act accordingly.

 

I'm inclined to believe that the media should keep its nose out of wars. Any group which wishes to paint its own defenders in a negative light isn't worth of their protection (or so I feel).

 

We need the media there - you all sent soldiers there (or the governments elected as a result of elections you voted in did) and need to see what soldiers suffer and do in your name. Society is responsible for the recruitment, training and conduct of their armed forces and soldiers are responsible for their own actions. I was only following orders doesn't wash with this callsign - it's called a lack of moral courage and is a betrayal of one's friends, family and country.

 

Funny how this went from Space Wolves to war atrocities, no?

 

I'm with you there, little brother :)

 

Now back to playing with little plastic space men

[Donkey Kong]

Philosophers like Hobbes and John Locke have a lot on human nature.

Human's really aren't moral. In a "state of nature", basically a lawless environment, people aren't going to be moral. People will kill for their own benefit, whether they want something you have or they feel threatened. This isn't immoral, it's simply lacking morals. It can be said someone who doesn't donate to charities lacks morals (I don't donate, doesn't bother me either way, just saying), however, saying it's immoral would be wrong.

 

It's kind of the biggest problems with communism, no, not Leninism, straight up, Karl Marx's communism. People don't cooperate. It's this reason alone why communism is a terrible idea, doesn't work and won't ever work. Even the Soviet Union, probably the most well known "Communist" nation, had some forms of capitalism with working incentives.

 

There's always a nice middle ground.

 

EDIT: To respond to Durfast Spiritwolf

 

My service was to protect the UK, if that helped the rest of the world then all well and good, but I wasn't in the Peace Corps.

 

I meant more concerning the war on terror and other such enemies to democracy, but I see what you mean. Regardless, as far as I'm aware in the international climate, UK and US are best buds :D . This is all just assuming you've have a tour in the Middle East, I apologize if I'm wrong :) . Initially, when I first saw your statement on your military service record, I had to look up your location (geography isn't my thing), and then think of what to say and how to say "thank you" in a way that doesn't make me look like a typical ignorant American ;) .

 

I'm sure that one of our German colleagues will be able to correct me if I am wrong, but murder was probably still illegal in Germany in 1944 - maybe in Japan too...

 

I'll be honest, I'm sure it was too, as far as civilians are concerned. In the United States, it's not like all laws were halted because of rationing and soldiers being sent to Europe and the Pacific.

 

It doesn't change that the Japanese didn't care about everyone that died at Pearl Harbor, all the sons from a family dying, etc. All they cared about was "the bombs drop as soon as we declare war" to avoid a "surprise attack" (although to be honest, if the bomb is dropping as the country is reading "Japan declares war on the United States", how is it any different? It's not like troops can be mobilized any faster than seeing that first explosion.

 

So hopefully you can now see from my earlier statement how Simo Häyhä acted within the law

 

Plain as day, good sir. No disrespect, but it still falls in line with: soldiers take lives in the name of their government, and while I have the utmost respect for the armed services, this can be put down as murder (in the event of killing injured or civilians) or even just killing from the eyes of someone with a greater concept of human life and lesser concept of nationalism.

 

Sometimes, and especially when the other side are breaking the rules, it is very hard to keep to this. The fact that a government chooses to ignore its own laws does not give soldiers the right to also break the law.

 

I know it's almost shrugging off what you said, but rules change. If insurgents are hiding in a hospital or in a school, is it worth sending in so many soldiers to die or is it easier to attack the target with possible civilian casualties? International law doesn't really hold up in a world like this. I remember reading that before the Second World War it was against international law to kill a medic (although I may be wrong), when the Japanese went and wiped out a beach filled with Allied (I think Australian) nurses, it was one of the biggest "we don't fight by those rules" signs anyone could have thrown up.

 

I know my military knowledge is limited to movies, video games, television and wikipedia (and for that I apologize if I get anything wrong, I'm a little better versed politically what with all of the Model Congress and Model UN meetings my school takes part in).

 

We need the media there - you all sent soldiers there (or the governments elected as a result of elections you voted in did) and need to see what soldiers suffer and do in your name. Society is responsible for the recruitment, training and conduct of their armed forces and soldiers are responsible for their own actions. I was only following orders doesn't wash with this callsign - it's called a lack of moral courage and is a betrayal of one's friends, family and country.

 

You bring up a very interesting point here. I agree that the media should make people realize what's going on in the war and what our armed services do. However, there is some information that does go a little underhanded. Vietnam is probably my best (read: only) example of the whole thing, women and children were armed with bombs, or IEDs, soldiers paranoid about Vietcong guerrillas open fired on shoeshine boys, there were a couple massacres, so on and so forth. I've never really been in a situation where I've been afraid of losing my life and everyone around me could very easily have been an enemy armed with an AK or any kind of explosive (I've fallen into a river in the winter, probably the closest I've ever come to "life or death situation").

 

However, these actions led to a lot of name calling with the soldiers, "baby-killers" and all that. Now, anyone should be above that, but when it's being done on a national scale with all of the various Hippie or Peace Movements, it gets out of hand. I don't know if you know about the Ohio State massacre? Maybe you've heard the song "Four Dead in Ohio"? Anyway, it was a similar peace movement at Ohio State University. Four students were killed, others were injured. Not all of the students were even against the conflict, one boy killed was a member of the national guard (I think).

 

Regardless of their status, national guard fired on a group of students protesting the war. This was unacceptable, I honestly feel for the losses, although some of the "protests" were more like riots (destroying a recruitment office, etc.) and the use of the national guard was fully justified, the casualties were not, especially when you look at what the rioters did and how little they could have done (I think one of the boys threw something like a spray paint can from some crazy distance like 300 yards, he would have to be Olympic quality to do 2/3 that).

 

The public eye gets skewered by political propaganda. A side against the war will focus on locals hurt by the war. A side for the war will focus on the threat the enemy poses to the rest of the country/ world. It hurts to have a country split on an issue as major as war, and being a citizen of the United States where we have places like Texas where everyone and their dog owns a gun and places like Massachusetts where they're bordering on socialism, it's very plain to see opposing viewpoints.

[eyeslikethunder]

What i find interesting is what is going through the heads of the leaders of the Custodes and Sisters of Silence. Now these have had recent contact with the emperor unlike Russ and may have even helped clear the palace of the daemons unleashed by Magnus.

 

But they are sent to make sure the emperors will is done. Yet they as written(collected visions) take full part in the Razing of Prospero. This to me suggests that horus's deception is quite believable and they accept the change of orders is from the emperor.

 

Also remember its very difficult for them to check the change of orders the warp storms are raging blocking transmissions and the emperor is stuck on the throne unable to leave to check his messages. It takes Malcador and Dorn months to get audience with the emperor and they are on earth. If they cant check with the emperor to see want he want done how is Russ going to.

 

Were we right? well magnus showed his true colours by becoming a servant of Chaos.

Did we help create another traitor legion? yes but one well on the way already

Did magnus get played like big chump by tzeentch just like the emperor warned? yes

[Grand Master Tyrak]

No disrespect, but it still falls in line with: soldiers take lives in the name of their government, and while I have the utmost respect for the armed services, this can be put down as murder (in the event of killing injured or civilians) or even just killing from the eyes of someone with a greater concept of human life and lesser concept of nationalism.

 

It's still legal though. States have had the monopoly on legitimate lethal violence for some time now so that they can keep the peace. That's pretty much what's going on here - the Emperor has (apparently) decided to use that right to legitimate lethal violence to eliminate Magnus and hopefully keep the Imperium together.

[SamaNagol]

'We were just carrying out orders' is actually a legitimate defence. If you embellished or went above and beyond, that's a crime. Killing for your country to protect it's safety as perceived by the chain of command is what your job is.

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

'We were just carrying out orders' is actually a legitimate defence.

 

Not in a liberal democracy - for example after WW2 both the United States and the United Kingdom enshrined in Service Law the "Nuremburg Principle" which states that although military personnel have an obligation to obey lawful orders from their superiors, they have both a right and a duty to disobey illegal orders.

 

In UK whilst servicemen are directed to "observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty," (see Oath of Allegiance) as well as those of their senior officers, this is clarified in Queen's Regulations in that personnel are specifically forbidden to commit any war crimes under any circumstances. The Queen's Commission specifically requires officers to "Observe and follow such Orders and Instructions as from time to time you shall receive from Us, or any superior Officer, according to the Rules and Discipline of War..." Thus Officers are not to follow nor to give, orders that contravene the Geneva Convention and Protocols.

 

The US system is similar in that only 'lawful commands' must be obeyed - See United States Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20) and 891.ART.91 (2). In other words, US military personnel are not required to follow orders that contravene the Laws and Constitution of the United States.

[Tsuro]

I'm not familiar with the fluff stating that Horus changed the orders, it was my understanding that The Emperor gave Leman his instructions personally. Have I not been reading my codex closely enough, or is this a Black Library addition?

 

In any event, here is my take on it:

 

We've had some posts arguing that Magnus was loyal to the Emperor, but I can't agree with them. Does that mean I think he was deliberately acting to destabilise or overthrow the Imperium?

I do not.

However, he was specifically told not to pursue sorcery, and he disobeyed. In that instance he decided his judgement was superior and correct. How long then until he says to himself:

 

"Magnus, you're a fine sorcerer with astonishing insight. The Imperium would surely be a better and fairer place under your measured and learned leadership"

 

 

Then there is the destruction of the Thousand Sons.

The Emperor is engaged in a bloody campaign to unite humanity, and he didn't want sorcerers. He didn't want them.

He may very well have loved Magnus and merely wanted him captured, but I just can't equate that with allowing there to be a legion of sorcerous marines.

 

The Space Wolves may or may not have been sent to kill Magnus, but they were definitely directed to end his legion.

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

Yeah - it's come from visions of heresy and the horus heresy series as fair as I am aware

[SamaNagol]

 

A Thousand Sons makes it clear Magnus had in one way or another been bargaining with warp entities for centuries. He was always doomed.

 

And the Emperor wanted him to power the Golden Throne so humanity could make use of the Eldar Webway.

 

[Lord Ragnarok]

Sam, I'd caution getting too specific without using the spoiler tags.

 

Added spoiler tags to your last post.

 

 

All, if you have an advanced copy of the book or any book please make sure you use the spoiler tags so you don't spoil the book for those who have yet to read.

[Jarl Kjaran Coldheart]

A Thousand Sons makes it clear Magnus had in one way or another been bargaining with warp entities for centuries. He was always doomed.

 

And the Emperor wanted him to power the Golden Throne so humanity could make use of the Eldar Webway.

 

AWESOME!

 

My hate of the vile traitor is now justified in clean, unmistakable fluff!

 

WLK

[Marshal Wilhelm]

AWESOME!

My hate of the vile traitor is now justified in clean, unmistakable fluff!

WLK

 

BOO! ;)

 

I'm going to my room! *starts crying* You're all jerks! *storms off and slams the door as hard as post-humanly possible*

[hendrik]

i guess we can hereby clearly end this debate by saying we were right to sack prosperro

[SamaNagol]

And you all thought Dan Abnett would be the hero of the hour, in fact it was Graham McNeill revealing the truth about Magnus!

[Marshal Wilhelm]

i guess we can hereby clearly end this debate by saying we were right to sack prosperro

And you all thought Dan Abnett would be the hero of the hour, in fact it was Graham McNeill revealing the truth about Magnus!

 

*starts wailing and throwing ashes over his sackcloth wearing self*

 

Betrayed, betrayed *sobbing* betrayed by the McNeil, the bald hobbits he stoles it! *gollum* he steals the truths, he stole it from us*gollum* Wicked, tricksy, false little hobbits *gollum* I knew the Abnett would cheat us, he always wants to cheat us, but not the bald one, the bald one loves us, says he's our friend *gollum* yess, the bald one, he's false, he cheats us, he doesn't love you, he doesn't love YOU! *gollum* yes, yes he does, he wouldn't lie about us, he knows we're good, he's seen it, he's seen it *gollum* Precious! He stole you! Precious!

 

*stumbles off in delirium*

[Jarl Kjaran Coldheart]

i have rarely laughed out loud from a post (other than c-rex), but that took the cake. i think i woke some people up...

 

WLK

[Hellios]

I blame the Emperor for what happened... I think he got himself wooped by Horus on purpose... It was the only way Humanity could survive...

 

Or The Emperor is to blame because he was just arrogant.

 

Was Russ wrong to follow orders? No.

 

Was Russ wrong to be a tool/pawn? Yes. However in his defence it can be hard not to be a pawn when you don't even realise your involved in a game... and I feel Russ is one of the easiest Primarchs to manipulate, although it seems most if not all of them were manipulated in one way or another during the heresy.

[SamaNagol]

It seems the Emperor had some grand plans for humanity. And Magnus fouled them up!

[Walter Payton]

I always imagine Russ as being a bit like Agammemnon in the Illiad-standing in the central street of the White City on Prospero and screaming, 'Let it burn !Burn it down! Burn Prospero! Burn it all!'

[Cerelius]

'We were just carrying out orders' is actually a legitimate defence. If you embellished or went above and beyond, that's a crime. Killing for your country to protect it's safety as perceived by the chain of command is what your job is.

So Brother, but as an ex soldier the "we were just carrying out orders"doesn't wash. We are trained to follow orders to an extent, if however we feel that a given order is lawfully and morally wrong then we do NOT have to follow said orders. It is the Officer whom is at fault and if he hasn't got the balls to tell those hight up the chain of command to shove it then he isn't worth following.

 

Back on topic: The Wolves where in my reading over the last twenty plus years created to crush and utterly destroy those that didn't do the Emps bidding, even the =I= stay away from them. Leman was duped into following the change in orders, he was supposed to bring Old One Eye back to the Palace alive, in chains if necessary. An Since BL no doubt have changed the way history (in 40K sense) as we know it went the Emp didn't want Magnus going rogue and at the time didn't even know that Horus had stabbed in the back. Horus didn't even want Magnus on his side as the thought that he was as loyal to the Emp as say Dorn or Papa Smurf.

 

My 2 cents

[Kjarl Grimblood]

BURN PROSPERO!!!!

 

Just kidding... well sort of...

 

I'd say the Wolves definitely went beyond orders. However, they felt they were dealing with heresy and witchcraft. Furthermore, it's not like the Thousand Sons weren't guilty of sorcery and treason, having disobeyed the Emperor's orders. However, the most important issue is this: would Magnus have willingly come back in chains with Russ? If not, it becomes rather difficult to enforce a "take them alive" policy when the bullets start flying. This is an even more difficult order when it comes to the capture of a Primarch.

[Lord Ragnarok]

We attacked Prospero because the almighty Warmaster told us of Magnus treachery (which we suspected) and receiving orders from the Warmaster was akin to receiving orders from the Emperor himself.

 

Now had Horus not intervened and changed the orders I think Magnus would have begrudgingly given himself to Russ in order to get close to the Emp. and explain his reasoning.

[Lord Tharand]

There is a difference between just following orders and then gasing/murdering defenseless civilians and following orders that results in military action against a fully armed and capable foe.

 

Russ received his orders and acted upon them. The Emperor knew what he was doing when he sent the wolves and they weren't going for a tea party. Thusly, the Wolves were justified in their actions.