Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war?

[The Grand Nudger]

As an addendum, I don't want to get too close to those arguers who invariably argue when referring to the social construct that there is only one possible sane or rational formulation of it. That all people would agree to that formulation outside of any complicating incompetence (moral or intellectual). Leaving aside that we could all be doing this for silly or no or mistaken reasons - a higher level of scrutiny around in-group killings is fairly ubiquitous to human communities. When we think about the kinds of societies we want to live in, ones that can kill us are low in that estimation, and there's no need for an explanation beyond a shared self interest. We don't have to care about an executed person to have concerns over an executing state, thus our (hypothetically) not giving a shit about an executed person and having no personal stake in their continued existence can be irrelevant to whether or not we decide to assume the responsibility of killing upon ourselves. I think, in this, your intolerance for anything other than purely subjective reasons for any given thing is causing you to insist that people take some course or rationalization a - when we have courses b-z a million times over which don't fit in your preferred set. You may thinks it's foolish or wrong or lacking in a justification if we don't have some personal vested interest in the continued existence of a serial killer (and, apparently, some deontological foundation for action)....but that's.....just..like..your opinion, man.