13 Jul 09
Originally posted by SeitseProbably.
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.
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?
13 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirAt least as an educational tool? Yes.
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?
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?".
13 Jul 09
Originally posted by shavixmirIf 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.
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.
13 Jul 09
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.
13 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Blaken91There were no war crimes trials before the deaths of Hitler and Himmler. They both committed suicide before any war crimes trials started.
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.
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.
13 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76On the other hand. Do you believe the guy who dropped the A-bomb on Japan should be tried for war crimes?
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.
13 Jul 09
Originally posted by shavixmirI'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.
On the other hand. Do you believe the guy who dropped the A-bomb on Japan should be tried for war crimes?
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.
13 Jul 09
Originally posted by shavixmirThere are many things to be gained by trying him:
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?
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.
13 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by RedmikeI 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,
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.
'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 Jul 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI understand that the 'obeying orders' defence doesn't stand up.
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 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 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Redmikeok 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!
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.