1. Subscribershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    87538
    13 Jul '09 20:03
    Originally posted by Seitse
    I guess that's what the trial is for: to determine what degree of participation he had (if any) and, according to that, issue a decision.
    Probably.
    Do you reckon we should waste money on it?
    The regime was found guilty. It was weighed and seriously found lacking.

    What more could be gained from trying this man?
  2. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    13 Jul '09 20:06
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    (The corpses of) Cromwell, Mussolini, and many, many more underwent posthumous execution.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_execution
  3. Standard memberSeitse
    Doug Stanhope
    That's Why I Drink
    Joined
    01 Jan '06
    Moves
    33672
    13 Jul '09 20:091 edit
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Probably.
    Do you reckon we should waste money on it?
    The regime was found guilty. It was weighed and seriously found lacking.

    What more could be gained from trying this man?
    At least as an educational tool? Yes.

    IMO, more money is wasted in the entertainment industry and shallow endeavors which bring absolutely no culture nor conscience about life and history.

    But it's a preference thing, like in a poll asking "what do you prefer that is built here: a park or a school?".
  4. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    13 Jul '09 20:09
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Good point.
    However, killing a person 30 ago as an individual is a lot different to being part of a system which killed people 65 years ago.
    If all that can be proven is that he was "part of the system," then I agree. If specific homicides can be tied to him, he should be tried, regardless of when they're discovered.
  5. Joined
    26 Jul '08
    Moves
    906
    13 Jul '09 20:39
    This is just ridiculous. Its been almost 65 years for heavens sake. look, the Nazi's did a terrible thing, but these lower ranked guys were just following orders. That's what you do in war. For example, The US killed over 300,000 civilians in japan when it dropped the A-bombs and firebombed Tokyo. But the pilots who did that aren't being charged with warcrimes. Its ridiculous, This man probably had to do what he did under threat of death. These warcrime trials should have ended with the death of Hitler and Himmler.
  6. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    13 Jul '09 20:571 edit
    Originally posted by Blaken91
    This is just ridiculous. Its been almost 65 years for heavens sake. look, the Nazi's did a terrible thing, but these lower ranked guys were just following orders. That's what you do in war. For example, The US killed over 300,000 civilians in japan when it dropped the A-bombs and firebombed Tokyo. But the pilots who did that aren't being charged with warcr ...[text shortened]... hreat of death. These warcrime trials should have ended with the death of Hitler and Himmler.
    There were no war crimes trials before the deaths of Hitler and Himmler. They both committed suicide before any war crimes trials started.

    Are you saying that none of the German leaders should have been put on trial?

    Hermann Goering would be proud. He had the same opinion as you.
  7. Subscribershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    87538
    13 Jul '09 21:21
    Originally posted by sh76
    There were no war crimes trials before the deaths of Hitler and Himmler. They both committed suicide before any war crimes trials started.

    Are you saying that none of the German leaders should have been put on trial?

    Hermann Goering would be proud. He had the same opinion as you.
    On the other hand. Do you believe the guy who dropped the A-bomb on Japan should be tried for war crimes?
  8. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    13 Jul '09 21:29
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    On the other hand. Do you believe the guy who dropped the A-bomb on Japan should be tried for war crimes?
    I'm not saying we should try the Luftwaffe pilots who dropped bombs on London. The leaders who plotted genocide and aggressive war were and should have been tried; and the people who worked in the death camps had to know that what they were doing had nothing to do with the war. If you slam the gas chamber door on 2,000 people and pour in Zyklon B pellets, you don't have the right to use the "just following orders" defense. You clearly knew that what you were doing had nothing to do with war and that you were murdering innocent people for no military reason. If your only alternative was to die (which it probably was not- the SS guards weren't recruited at gunpoint), then I would say their responsibility was to die. It's a well established legal principal that duress does not justify murder.

    Do you believe the guy who dropped the A-bomb on Japan should be tried for war crimes?

    No, because I believe that it was either justified or borderline justified. It was a military mission with a clear military goal: destroy this enemy city to force it to capitulate. The A-Bombs arguably saved half a million lives by rendering an invasion of Japan unnecessary. Some people believe the A-bomb was not justified. Fine. Reasonable people can differ. But, it's not the same as murdering specific innocent individuals in a death camp.
  9. Joined
    29 Mar '09
    Moves
    816
    13 Jul '09 23:01
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    On the other hand. Do you believe the guy who dropped the A-bomb on Japan should be tried for war crimes?
    I don't know about that but if the war on terror is legit then there should be some folks on trial for torture.
  10. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    13 Jul '09 23:25
    Originally posted by FMF
    Whether he is guilty or innocent, either way, he should live out his natural life. Either as a free man or incarcerated.
    Why?
  11. Standard memberRedmike
    Godless Commie
    Glasgow
    Joined
    06 Jan '04
    Moves
    171019
    13 Jul '09 23:31
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Probably.
    Do you reckon we should waste money on it?
    The regime was found guilty. It was weighed and seriously found lacking.

    What more could be gained from trying this man?
    There are many things to be gained by trying him:

    educational value - it can be used to remind young people (and some not so young) of the Holocaust;

    justice - there's no time limit on such crimes. If he has a defence that he was only obeying orders, let's hear it in an open court and decide if that stands up. But give him a trial;

    fairness - surely, if the guy is innocent, he should welcome a trial to clear his name;

    finally, of course, there's the whole point that we must send a signal that, should such events recur, that the perpetrators will be hunted until their dying day.
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    13 Jul '09 23:492 edits
    Originally posted by Redmike
    There are many things to be gained by trying him:

    educational value - it can be used to remind young people (and some not so young) of the Holocaust;

    justice - there's no time limit on such crimes. If he has a defence that he was only obeying orders, let's hear it in an open court and decide if that stands up. But give him a trial;

    fairness - surely l that, should such events recur, that the perpetrators will be hunted until their dying day.
    I doubt that he will have recourse to the defence that he was 'only following orders', for it was established by the Nuremberg trials, that there are crimes against humanity,

    'The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him'.

    thus the faculty of conscience comes into play. what i find really interesting is how the faculty of conscience is somehow suppressed by, in this instance Nazi ideology (if he was indeed a Nazi) and atrocities are committed under some other guise.
  13. Standard memberRedmike
    Godless Commie
    Glasgow
    Joined
    06 Jan '04
    Moves
    171019
    13 Jul '09 23:55
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I doubt that he will have recourse to the defence that he was 'only following orders', for it was established by the Nuremberg trials, that there are crimes against humanity,

    'The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice ...[text shortened]... Nazi ideology (if he was indeed a Nazi) and atrocities are committed under some other guise.
    I understand that the 'obeying orders' defence doesn't stand up.

    I was just replying to the point that someone made saying that he could argue this - basically, I was saying that he needs to have a trial to try and argue this defence.
  14. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    14 Jul '09 00:021 edit
    Originally posted by Redmike
    I understand that the 'obeying orders' defence doesn't stand up.

    I was just replying to the point that someone made saying that he could argue this - basically, I was saying that he needs to have a trial to try and argue this defence.
    ok i see now, what a slaphead I am, a defence to establish a defence, sure thing redmike, the thing was engineered specifically anyway by the allies, as you are probably aware, in anticipation of this plea. how he may approach it, is quite interesting and me thinks not so easy. perhaps there is a precedent, i dunno!
  15. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    14 Jul '09 00:40
    Originally posted by FMF
    Whether he is guilty or innocent, either way, he should live out his natural life. Either as a free man or incarcerated.

    Originally posted by whodey
    Why?
    Because the state shouldn't put people to death.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree