Maniacs "Execution

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
This kind of thing is (was?) permitted in lots of situations. It's pretty much a necessity. The classic example (to which, via Das Boot, the movie was of course referring in this situation) would be on board a submarine. What do you do with a mutineer when you have nowhere to lock him up? And even when you do have a brig, in some situations, not killing the mutineer may make things worse - costing further lives. Discipline, in wartime, is a matter of life and death.

It may happen, but it isn't *permitted* - the Geneva Convention (which also applies to the Confederation, per the Wing Commander IV novelization) says that a trial is one of the basic rights afforded anyone involved in a conflict.

In this particular case, you can't look at this situation and claim that Angel would have been punished for it. Common sense indicates, based on what we see in the scene, that Angel's within her rights. Regardless of whether a US Navy officer is allowed to summarily execute a mutineer in wartime, a Confederation officer very clearly is allowed to do so. Would there have been other consequences? We don't know - we can imagine that there would have been an investigation in order to confirm whether Maniac's death sentence was justified. However, I would also imagine the investigation would probably confirm that it was - after all, his mutiny resulted in the death of another pilot.

Moreover, I think you're ignoring the spirit and the purpose of the scene in order to make some sort of academic argument. It's pretty clear that the audience reaction to Angel threatening Maniac isn't supposed to be 'yup, the harsh realities of space warfare require this type of justice' (more to the point, Blair specifically replies: "this is wrong, Angel, and you know it").

Also... was that JW black label I saw Maniac pull out on hunter? That is the best scotch there is, I have a case of the stuff and I dont drink anything else. But I'm surprised that didnt leave anyone hammered. Thats ten year old scotch, strong stuff.

Yes, it is - the movie's credits give an 'Additional Thanks' to the Johnnie Walker company. I don't have a copy on me at work, but I *think* the novel actually specifies the brand ("My close personal friend... Mr. Johnnie Walker").
 

frostytheplebe

Seventh Part of the Seal
As far as summary execution goes, that's only permitted (in modern militaries) when there's no other alternative. The Das Boot situation is a good example, or if some soldiers are on a covert mission and one of them starts shouting "hey, we're over here!" This is exacerbated in times of war.

In the movie, though, summary execution didn't seem to be warranted. They're all standing on board the ship, Maniac didn't commit treason or mutiny (in the naval sense), and there would have been no problem with just throwing him in the brig. Militaries also tend to avoid having officers, you know, shoot each other in the face right on the flight deck.

Of course, Confed's military is different than a modern one, but if disobeying orders warranted summary execution for them, Maniac would be dead a hundred times over.

"That's a negatory, ace!"
*BANG*

"No damn way!"
*BOOM*

"Wanna see my flight stick?"
*KRAKOW*

It's just something the movie did because it's more dramatic.

Wait... WHEN DOES MANIAC SAY "Wanna see my flight stick!?"
 

MaHeSw

Rear Admiral
It may happen, but it isn't *permitted* - the Geneva Convention (which also applies to the Confederation, per the Wing Commander IV novelization) says that a trial is one of the basic rights afforded anyone involved in a conflict.


Which suddenly reminds me that a certain Mandarin traitor with the callsign "Jazz" was put before a court martial for his crimes, which included high treason and murder among others.

So that means that Rachel had no right at all to shoot Maniac.
 

Dundradal

Frog Blast the Vent Core!
While I was entering in USG text to WCPedia earlier I came across this and thought it would be nice to add in here.

Lt. Col. LaFong said:
Back at the Claw, I stormed into Halcyon's office and reported Maniac's lack of discipline. I screamed for court martial proceedings for disobeying a direct order. I wanted him hung from the highest yardarm, if we could just find a yardarm in space. "I'd like to honor both of your requests," the colonel said, "but we need every pilot-even the independent ones."
 

Tigerhawk

Captain
Since I somehow screwed up the quote box AND I'm HTML-stupid...

"It may happen, but it isn't *permitted* - the Geneva Convention (which also applies to the Confederation, per the Wing Commander IV novelization) says that a trial is one of the basic rights afforded anyone involved in a conflict."

And..."Moreover, I think you're ignoring the spirit and the purpose of the scene in order to make some sort of academic argument. It's pretty clear that the audience reaction to Angel threatening Maniac isn't supposed to be 'yup, the harsh realities of space warfare require this type of justice' (more to the point, Blair specifically replies: "this is wrong, Angel, and you know it")."


*Nods head*

Plus, I quite understand that Confed is not the U.S. military, as evidenced by the high mix of nationalities and backgrounds present in the original WCs flight roster, much less later ones. However, even today, I don't know of a single standing, organized military force with a clear rank structure and regulations guiding it that allows the kind of thing where any officer can say, "You know what, you didn't follow my orders and you've pissed me off." *BANG!*

That is, unless, we're talking about hard-line dictatorships, which do, indeed, allow this to happen. However, Confed is decidedly NOT a dictatorship. As explained before, Jazz got a trial...which is quite an irony when compared to LOAF's example of Blair stopping Angel from killing Maniac, who only disobeyed orders. On the flipside, Angel stopped Blair from killing Jazz for doing far, far worse.

It's been quite a long time for me, but someone who's played through WC2 more recently can clear up the quote...but doesn't Angel tell Blair while snatching Jazz away from under the guns of his Sabre, "We have rules that we have to live by", or words to that effect?

Even at least roughly halfway through the Kilrathi conflict (in WC2 time), Angel's telling Blair how wrong it is. In the movie, Blair's telling Angel how wrong it is. Seems to me that summary execution isn't the Confed way, no matter what past examples might have been valid.
 

Wedge009

Rogue Leader
Strangely enough, the losing paths often have more detailed dialogue than the winning path ones. I believe the quote you're looking for is from the third mission in the Gwyneed system (ending series, scroll down to the tractor image).

And don't worry about the quote thing, although it's just BB code, not HTML.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Mutiny? As long as I remember Maniac showed huge recklessness and disregard for his squadron mates lives which caused Rosies death. But he never mutinied.
the definition of mutiny is: Open rebellion against constituted authority, especially rebellion of sailors against superior officers (www.thefreedictionary.com). Something Maniac never did.
He specifically disobeyed an order (and encouraged another person to do the same). You're right, that's not mutiny - mutiny would be if he refused to recognise Angel's authority in general. It is, however, still punishable by death, as Angel explains.

(...of course, what she doesn't explain is that death does not apply to every instance)

It may happen, but it isn't *permitted* - the Geneva Convention (which also applies to the Confederation, per the Wing Commander IV novelization) says that a trial is one of the basic rights afforded anyone involved in a conflict.
The Geneva Conventions deal primarily with the treatment of enemy troops and civilians. The articles that deal with the right to trial apply only to enemy combatants and any kind of civilian. Maniac is neither an enemy combatant nor a civilian. That's not to say, obviously, that it would be right to kill him - but I do not believe the Geneva Conventions would apply to his situation. Certainly, even though almost every country in the world would have its own internal regulations forbidding summary execution without trial within its own armed forces, it's very unlikely that any country would sign a treaty that would actually make this an international obligation, as that would restrict its sovereignty.

Moreover, I think you're ignoring the spirit and the purpose of the scene in order to make some sort of academic argument. It's pretty clear that the audience reaction to Angel threatening Maniac isn't supposed to be 'yup, the harsh realities of space warfare require this type of justice' (more to the point, Blair specifically replies: "this is wrong, Angel, and you know it").
I am ignoring the spirit and purpose of the scene because it's irrelevant to this question, which, as a matter of fact, is an academic argument - nobody ever asked if it was right for Angel to threaten Maniac, but only whether it was permitted. Your points apply just the same to the scene in Das Boot - I'm quite sure that everyone was cringing in their seats at the idea of the captain killing one of his own men in cold blood, and I'm quite sure that was the intention - not just to show the reality of warfare, but also to criticise it. It does not change the fact that he was permitted to do so.
 

MaHeSw

Rear Admiral
He specifically disobeyed an order (and encouraged another person to do the same). You're right, that's not mutiny - mutiny would be if he refused to recognise Angel's authority in general. It is, however, still punishable by death, as Angel explains.

(...of course, what she doesn't explain is that death does not apply to every instance)

Let us not forget that Angels long time friend, Rosie, just died because of Maniacs disobedience and idiotic behaviour. I wouldn't say that Angel is emotional balanced at that particular moment. She is understandably really mad at Maniac and most probably wants to shoot him on the spot. Which is her intention when she grabs Hunters gun.

So is Maniacs actions really punishable by death as Angel says or does she just wants to see Maniac dead just then and there.

And as I said before, Jazz got a trial where he was sentendced for his deeds which were far worse than Maniacs.
 

frostytheplebe

Seventh Part of the Seal
Let us not forget that Angels long time friend, Rosie, just died because of Maniacs disobedience and idiotic behaviour. I wouldn't say that Angel is emotional balanced at that particular moment. She is understandably really mad at Maniac and most probably wants to shoot him on the spot. Which is her intention when she grabs Hunters gun.

So is Maniacs actions really punishable by death as Angel says or does she just wants to see Maniac dead just then and there.

And as I said before, Jazz got a trial where he was sentendced for his deeds which were far worse than Maniacs.

Emotionally balanced? She's like a vulcan if you ask me. Suppressing her emotions to the point where when something traumatic finally happens, she explodes. At least WCM-WCSM2.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Let us not forget that Angels long time friend, Rosie, just died because of Maniacs disobedience and idiotic behaviour. I wouldn't say that Angel is emotional balanced at that particular moment. She is understandably really mad at Maniac and most probably wants to shoot him on the spot. Which is her intention when she grabs Hunters gun.

So is Maniacs actions really punishable by death as Angel says or does she just wants to see Maniac dead just then and there.

And as I said before, Jazz got a trial where he was sentendced for his deeds which were far worse than Maniacs.
Yes, you're right - but at the same time, you're wrong. On the one hand, she is indeed very much emotionally unbalanced. She is clearly making the wrong decision - there is no doubt about that. Maniac deserves to be shot for a great many things - but shot in the butt, not in the head. However, the question here was whether she could shoot him legally, not whether she should.

I'm saying that the whole situation is a clear indication that she could. Our knowledge of the 20th century might tell us that she wouldn't be able to do so now, but our knowledge of this particular scene tells us that in the 27th century, she does have that right. Angel, even emotionally distraught, is still Angel - she knows her regs. And Hunter (though he's a much less reliable witness in that regard) does give her his gun of his own free will.

It's possible that in fact, Angel had no right to do so, and that a subsequent investigation would get her into trouble. But we have no reason to assume that, and we have reasons (described above) to assume that she may in fact be within her rights - even if she wouldn't do it if she was thinking straight.
 

frostytheplebe

Seventh Part of the Seal
I'm saying that the whole situation is a clear indication that she could. Our knowledge of the 20th century might tell us that she wouldn't be able to do so now, but our knowledge of this particular scene tells us that in the 27th century, she does have that right. Angel, even emotionally distraught, is still Angel - she knows her regs. And Hunter (though he's a much less reliable witness in that regard) does give her his gun of his own free will.

Thats the thing that gets me though, Hunter in the movie strikes me as being a bit more cowardly and less of the Maverick we knew and loved in the game... that being said, I think Maniac must've hit his head on patrol one day because he was definitely a dumb ass in the first WC. But until it came to his own personal safety, I don't think he was going to defy Angel... possibly out of that fear. When she asked for his gun, he had an uneasy look on his face, like, she's emotionally unstable, but I don't want to be the next person she points that at.
 
Top