GREEN LANTERN #198:

[starwolf_oakley]

In a post about AVENGERS ASSEMBLE #20, http://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/4544954.html , Wonder Man and the Wasp argued about disabling the ships Thanos' forces were using. The question was would "disabling" the ship kill the aliens inside.
This reminded me of something I heard about happening in GREEN LANTERN during CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS.



For some reason Hal has *a* Green Lantern ring but not his costume.









It is near-impossible to justify this, but Guy had just woken up from his coma, so his brain damage that drastically altered his personality was at its worst. Which is why I'm glad the nu52 Guy was never brain-damaged.

And here's some information on when something similar happened during PANIC IN THE SKY.

HAL JORDAN: Yeah. A little later my home planet was invaded and I was part of a strike force trying to free Earth. I and two other superheroes were tackling some enemy ships, but Superman and I disabled them in such a way to allow the enemy time to reach the escape pods.

GUY GARDNER: But it was a war to protect your planet. No one in the world would blame you for killing enemy aliens in a war. Surely other heroes were disposing of the enemy.

HAL JORDAN: Again, that was you.

Comments

[icon_uk]

New Frontier also gave us Hal Jordan as a fighter pilot who wouldn't kill his opponents, but was happy to lead them into crossfire which would blow them apart.

[arbre_rieur]

I can understand refusing to kill and I can also understand thinking it's necessary in wartime, but what New Frontier Hal does is cowardice under the guise of morality. He's literally leading those people to their deaths. The fact that he doesn't pull the trigger himself doesn't change the fact that he's knowingly responsible for their deaths. To force his fellow soldiers to have to pull the trigger so *he* can sleep better at night is kind of scummy.

[dcbanacek]

Curious why he didn't fly medevac choppers if he wanted to fly but not kill people, hell doing that he'd be SAVING lives.

[obsidianwolf]

Because then he couldn't put hot shot fighter jock on his resume? Otherwise I got nothing.

[md84]

That...might be the dumbest thing Hal has ever done in any continuity. If you're not prepared to kill anyone, why would you join the military?

[timgueugen]

Lots of people join the military in search of a job or skills training, hoping they'll never have to fight. Some even naively do that when there's an actual conflict going on, like people who joined the US military after the Iraq invasion.

[md84]

I guess that works for desk jobs and the like (even the military needs office jockeys), but not for fighter pilots.

[silicondream]

Considering that Thanos' minions (in this particular story) are all actively suicidal, and are just planning to delay their deaths until they can take everyone else with them, there's even less reason to worry about collateral damage. I mean, it's not like they're going to live long and happy lives if they survive their defeat. Unless the Avengers can foot the bill for several hundred space monster therapists, anyway.

[seisachtheia]

Is it bad that I kind of want to see that? Possibly as just leading up to a big battle, skipping it, and then someone going ballistic over an expense report for 1000 space therapists?

[silverzeo]

Hal, that two face Bastard... he stole the Pound Puppies' motto!!

Wow... so... I can see why people REALLY hated Guy back then... he was almost as bad as Drago Wolf from the Archie Sonic series... cept this Guy wouldn't treat Tora as bad...

[richardak]

Actually, Guy's behavior is easy to justify: mutiny in the face of the enemy is punishable by summary execution, especially when said mutiny involves deserting with an extremely powerful weapon vital to victory. That's been a law of almost every society in history. Not to have such a law would, in effect, be to commit suicide.

What makes this especially galling is that, only an issue or two before this, Hal was begging for his ring back. He wanted to be there. He just didn't want to obey orders.

[icon_uk]

Back then, the Guardians of the Universe were supposed to be a little more enlightened than any human society, and they would not sanction summary execution. GL's have limits imposed upon what they can and can't do, and summary execution is definitely not within a single GL's authority.

Also not obeying an officer (and a vaguely defined one at that) because you think he's a raving lunatic, seems perfectly valid to me.

The ring without Hal isn't much good, as it doesn't look like there's a lot of other GL candidates about.

[richardak]

Those same Guardians also put Guy in charge of the mission, ordered Hal to obey Guy's orders, and empowered Guy to use deadly force in the war against the Anti-Monitor. You can't have it both ways: if our moral calculus must yield before theirs, then it must yield in every instance.

By the same token, whether Hal thinks Guy is a lunatic is irrelevant. The Guardians put Guy in charge, and conditioned Hal's receipt of a power ring on his obedience to Guy's orders. Also, nothing about Guy's orders are lunatic: he's ordering Hal to kill the enemy in a war for the survival of trillions of innocent people. Leaving living enemy forces behind as you advance when you lack the manpower to take and hold prisoners is simply foolish. How can it be lunacy to be practical?

Lastly, it had long been established by that time that any reasonably strong-willed person could make at least somewhat effective use of a power ring in a pinch.

[icon_uk]

Did the Guardian specifically authorise the use of deadly force (and they mention Guardian singular, that was very odd for the time, since the operated by consensus)? If he did, then fair point, but if it's dependent on Guy's interpretation of the Guardians vague nstructions, that's still not justification.

And if the receipt of a ring is dependent on obeying Guy's orders, then Hal is still in the right, since he's deciding to NOT obey and lose the ring, in exact line with the Guardian's rule. Guy trying to kill him after that is unprovoked assault on a civilian and is a vile, cowardly act.

Yes, others can use a ring, but there is still the "without fear" rule, and my point was more that they are in the middle of a warzone and there's a dearth of candidates to fill that role at that precise moment.

[beyondthefringe]

The Guardians were actually split at the time. Guy was given his ring by a minority faction of about six Guardians. They gave him a ring, had him recruit all the worst criminals and scum they could find, and sent them to attack the Anti-Monitor's base on Quard. Hal and John opposed this.

The renegade Guardians were wiped out, or mostly wiped out, which is why A) Guy's in charge, B) Guy's on a lethal mission, and C) they refer to just the one Guardian.

It's been a little while since I last read Crisis on Infinite Earths and that run of GL.

[richardak]

Except Hal refuses to give up the ring, so Guy takes it from him. And again, you need to be without fear to be inducted into the GL corps. You don't need to be without fear to use a ring. We've seen people not qualified to be GLs use rings before.

[misanthr0pe]

The ring is the only thing keeping him alive. So unless they want to detail someone else to continuously shield him, he kind of needs it.

[cainofdreaming]

But that's not Guy's justification. He says it right there - he wanted to kill Hal. This is just an excuse, if it hadn't appeared then he would have found another. It's murder, pure and simple, not a disciplinary action.

[richardak]

That gets into a philosophical problem about whether an action is only justified if taken for the proper motives. If you say yes, which is implicit in your position that Guy's action is wrong because of his motive, then the question becomes whether any act ever has a motive so pure that it could pass that test.

On the other hand, even if that is Guy's motive, I would argue that it doesn't make his act improper. He only turns on Hal after Hal mutinies. If Guy had behaved purely according to the maxim of envy that he proclaims as his motivation, he would presumably have turned on Hal right away. He does not do so; instead, he waits for Hal to give him justification.

In short, if, as I maintain, someone else in Guy's position but with purer motives would have been justified in acting in the same way, then Guy is justified in acting that way.

[cainofdreaming]

Guy not acting right away just means that it moves from second degree to first, since it shows premeditation (and it's also the other factor, edge, which the situation gives him. And he doesn't usually do that well in a fight between him and Hal).

Motivation is the deciding factor here, if you are killing someone because you want to kill them then you are not killing them for another reason. The other reason is an excuse, justification only in the eyes of others. Guy even acknowledged that Hal was the moral party here.

[richardak]

I'm not really sure what you mean by moving from second degree to first, because that implies that this is a crime at all, which of course is begging the question. What Guy is doing is not a crime, precisely because Hal is committing mutiny.

Also, motivation is precisely not the factor here. If you commit justifiable homicide, the fact that you hated the person and wanted him dead is irrelevant.

Lastly, I think Guy may be using the term "moral" ironically here, but even if he is not, that is irrelevant. The question is whether what Guy is doing is wrong, not whether Guy believes it to be wrong.

[icon_uk]

If Hal was given the option of resigning at any time, and the bargain allowed for that, which it did, then it is not justifiable homicide.

Hal is not acting out of cowardice, he has a definite moral conflict with the course of action of his commanding officer, and that is the right of any soldier too, to refuse to obey an order which he finds morally reprehensible. Mutiny is not always unjustified, nor does it always end in summary execution, especially by the completely partial person who is the one being accused of the morally reprehensible action in the first place.

Also Hal did not want the ring for his own self aggrandisement or to continue as GL, he wanted it so that he doesn't actively die as a result of invoking his previously mentioned right to resign, that is not an unreasonable expectation. Guy is twisting that to justify his own murderous intention.

[rdfox]

In war, the objective of the individual soldier is to complete whatever objective he is assigned, and to neutralize (not kill, not disable, but neutralize--i.e., incapacitate) any resistance he encounters, within the stated rules of engagement. Killing is merely the most efficient way to do so--it's easier than disabling, it's faster than disabling, it's more sure than disabling, and it can be done on a larger scale and at greater range than disabling. Therefore, unless under orders to take prisoners, the preferred response to enemy resistance is to kill the enemy. However, once an enemy is neutralized, if you haven't killed them, then it's considered illegal under the laws of war to proceed to execute them (unless they were caught in the act of committing war crimes such as torture or rape--under those circumstances, an officer can form a one-man summary tribunal and sentence them to summary execution). Instead, enemy survivors are to be disarmed (immediately), secured, and, if necessary, treated for their wounds and evacuated to a medical facility, then treated as prisoners of war.

So really, BOTH men are in the wrong here. Guy for ordering the execution of already-neutralized enemies, and Hal for refusing a direct order to use lethal force to neutralize further enemies and attempting to desert with his weapon.

If Guy had told Hal, "You're taking too much time knocking them out, just KILL them!" instead of ordering executions, then he'd be in the right. If Hal had simply declared that he was not going to execute incapacitated enemies who could instead be taken prisoner and pumped for intel, then he'd be in the right. As it stands now?

Lantern Gardner, you are guilty of ordering the murder of unconscious prisoners. This is a capital offense. Your sentence is thirty years hard labor followed by a dishonorable discharge--and this is only because the murder was not carried out; had it been, you would be facing summary execution.

Lantern Jordan, you are innocent of insubordination, as Lantern Gardner's orders were illegal and immoral and thus were not to be obeyed. However, you ARE guilty of desertion in the face of the enemy, cowardice, and attempted theft of a weapon of mass destruction. The first and third are capital offenses. Your sentence is thirty years hard labor followed by a dishonorable discharge--and you, too, should consider yourself lucky that this tribunal took mitigating factors into account in sentencing.

*gavel* This proceeding is adjourned.

[skemono]

Is the Green Lantern Corps an army? I thought it was more like an intergalactic police force. Albeit one that answers to no-one but themselves, isn't enforcing any recognized code of laws, and apparently adopted the position and assumed authority over everyone else on its own rather than being apportioned appropriate authority and powers by recognized governments... so it's more like the militia movements.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this anymore.

[starwolf_oakley]

I"ve wondered that myself in the past. Are the GLC members supposed to be space-cops, space-firefighters, space-soldiers, space-diplomats? In many cases, I"m sure it depends on the situation.

It would be easy to stop a war when you have a Green Lantern ring to depower all the weapons on both sides, but less easy to negotiate the peace even if the ring can give you all the important information. In fact, Sinestro didn't fully understand why Earth had "separate nations" and "borders" when he first arrived to train Hal.

[icon_uk]

It's definitely situational. They are deputised of the Guardians, patrolling the galaxy, though the Guaridans are pretty much self-appointed by dint of the sheer power they possess, and their generally accepted, though far from perfect, wisdom.

I'd say their primary mission was "keeping the peace and protecting the innocent", in a "Frontier Ranger"-y sort of way, but not all members share the same philosphical approach, so some may seek to make peace, some may seek to defeat both parties etc etc

[q99]

Often, yes. "Cops most of the time, army when needed," seems to be their pattern.

[glprime]

All rise!

*court stands as Judge rdfox exits*

[cainofdreaming]

Killing is merely the most efficient way to do so--it's easier than disabling, it's faster than disabling, it's more sure than disabling, and it can be done on a larger scale and at greater range than disabling.

Is that really true for Green Lanterns? Their sole weapon is powered by willpower. Going against one's moral code would shake that will, so it would actually hamper their effectiveness in fighting.

[q99]

During Kyle's run iirc they even said, "He can do stuff like shoot someone with a gun or a giant laser and they'll just be KOed, because he doesn't want to kill them and the ring thus adjusts. Power and safety in one package"


This was retconned later in the SC war, where it was suddenly, 'going full power is killing, which is totally wrong, which gets your ring deactivated for trying.'


So it seems to go back and forth.

[lieut_kettch]

Killing is merely the most efficient way to do so--it's easier than disabling, it's faster than disabling, it's more sure than disabling, and it can be done on a larger scale and at greater range than disabling.

My memory is a bit hazy, but I vaguely remember one of the Axis armies (can't remember if it was Germany or Japan) in WW2 having a doctrine of "shoot to wound," because killing a soldier takes one man out of the battle, while wounding one takes out him, and the two other guys needed to carry him. At least with regards to the Western Allies. I can imagine the Soviet armies would leave wounded behind to complete an objective.

[rdfox]

While this theory has been advanced several times (indeed, it's one of those advanced in support of the use of intermediate "assault rifle" chamberings instead of full-power "battle rifle" chamberings), no army I know of has ever actually adopted a "shoot to wound" doctrine for one simple reason:

It's a hell of a lot harder to shoot someone in a place that's not immediately fatal, just wounding, and have it stop them so they can't just ignore it until the current firefight is over than it is to just shoot them in a place that'll kill them.

Pinpoint accuracy ("shooting them in the knee" or "shooting the gun out of their hands" or other such tricks) is difficult even for trained snipers who are dealing with unalerted targets, at least at any realistic range. For a regular infantryman? Well, let's look at the science.

A typical infantryman's rifle has an accuracy of 1-2 Minutes of Angle (MOA), usually on the high side. Let's say 1.75 MOA for our generic example. While I could go through the detailed math to give you a precise number, it's easier to use a simple rule of thumb--the accuracy of your rifle, in terms of putting a bullet on the point of aim, is equal, in inches, to the accuracy in MOA times the range to target in hundreds of yards. So our hypothetical rifle would put multiple rounds fired at the same aimpoint within a 1.75-inch circle at 100 yards, a 3.5-inch circle at 200 yards, and so on. Typical battle ranges are in the 100-400 yard range for close-quarters (jungle, urban, dense forest) conditions, and out to about 800 yards in more open situations (desert, farmland, etc). That means that, at the extreme limits of typical combat ranges in open areas, you'd be looking at rounds fired at the same point of aim landing as much as 14 inches apart, even under perfect conditions; even at the closest range (if they're within 100 yards, they're TOO close!), you'd be having the rounds vary by as much as 1.75 inches from each other.

Now, let's throw in the complicating factors of real combat. You're filthy, cold (or hot), sweaty, hungry, thirsty, sleep-deprived, tired from exertion, and generally worn out and miserable, so your concentration sucks. The light probably sucks, and the enemy will be wearing camouflage, so you'll have trouble picking a precise aimpoint. It's quite likely there'll be plenty of smoke, both from weapons and as an "obscuring agent" (smoke screen), further hampering your vision. The other guys know you're there, and they're shooting at you, so you can't really take your time to really "polish the cannonball" and get your aim down precisely, or else you'll be exposed long enough to catch a bullet (most likely not the one with your name on it, but one of the ten million addressed to "Occupant"). It's noisy as hell from the constant bursts of gunfire and shouting and such, made only worse if there's air support, armor, or artillery involved, putting your brain into sensory overload, and your heart is racing with adrenaline, which not only makes your hands shake, but the tiny little twitches of the rifle from the expansion and contraction of your blood vessels with each heartbeat makes it jump at least a full MOA with your pulse. And the enemy is moving quickly and erratically to try and make it hard to hit them.

Under those conditions, you're not going to be able to pick out any precision target to wound an enemy; you'll be lucky to hit the broad side of a tank, much less an infantryman. This is why the training doctrine of just about every nation in the world is not to shoot to wound, and not even to try for headshots, but instead, to aim for center mass; i.e., the center of the torso, right below the bottom of the sternum. This puts the largest possible target area within the circle that the bullet will travel through, minimizing the chances of a miss; hydrostatic shock effects of the supersonic bullet passing through the body (as described by the rather gruesome science of "terminal ballistics") will do enough damage to the internal organs to at least debilitate, and most likely kill quickly.

This is also why military body armor concentrates almost entirely on protecting the torso; the helmet is mainly for protection from shrapnel, and the limbs are left unprotected to reduce weight, increase mobility/flexibility, and because it's felt that hits in the limbs will be random chance and not likely to be immediately fatal or completely debilitating in the short-term...

[wizardru]

Yes, yes...complex moral questions and all that.

But no one is asking the REAL question...HOW THE HELL IS SONAR'S GUN WORKING IN A VACCUUM?

PRIORITIES, PEOPLE!

[superfangirl1]

Hal Jordan must of learn to breathe in space while unconscious by Batman. ;)

[lamashtar]

I know there are people who hate retcons of any kind, even when the writers always intended to change the events they wrote--which is the case with both Guy and Hal--but I am so happy that both evil jerk Guy and evil crazy Hal were retconned into their insanities not being their fault. Both of them were once equally moral and courageous men, suited to become heroes, with Hal getting the nod only because he was closer. Both had terrible things happen to them and they became terrible people because of that. To me, it is just as great a redemption story to climb back into grace from those places, even with the retcons.