|
On May 12 2009 12:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
HIS choice. Morality can never be taken away, ever. I'm not arguing the legal aspect of his actions. But the fact that he HAD an SS tattoo which he removed put into his morals during the process.
What are you talking about? Unless I missed something, no-one said anything about morals being taken away. The entire thread is about what is happening in regards to the law and how we feel about it, so while you may not be arguing about the legality of what he did or didn't do, I (and possibly others) feel that the lack of morally sound choices should exempt him from being prosecuted because he was fucked whichever way he went and had no control over that. Also, the last part of your post doesn't make sense to me, can you re-word it?
|
On May 12 2009 09:45 Last Romantic wrote:
edit2: I still think if he was just some generic guard then I would disagree with the ruling, but looking at his history I'm fairly sure he's guilty of some notoriety [if Jewish prisoners can recognize him as some infamous terror guard.. yeah.]
If any are alive :/
|
If he was just another guard I would say let him be.
But after reading the back story on this guy I'm going to have to say that he needs to pay for what he has done.
|
Osaka27174 Posts
So with that line of thought Inc, how about the case of American soldiers who were given orders to torture Iraqi prisoners, despite the fact that it was illegal. Should they be held accountable as well? They were following orders given to them from someone higher up, but those orders were against international law.
I think you underestimate the duress that was put on people during the war. I don't believe the common grunt should have any legal culpability in cases like these. Decision makers, yes. Grunt forced to electrocute somebody's nuts, no.
And finally, the world has seen plenty other examples of what the Nazis did. The Nazis just made the best movie bad guys for our generation.
|
On May 12 2009 12:21 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2009 12:17 Brett wrote:On May 12 2009 12:08 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
???
You aren't following my logic. I agree he had no choice if in fact he made the decision to preserve himself and his family. He was forced into an impossible situation. But how the hell do you get away from the fact he was still a conscious human being, guarding and doing other actions at a camp where they peeled the flesh from jews and made lamps? I cannot fathom how someone can say "oh well he was forced to do it." No.. many other people were given the same predicament and decided on the higher ground. Justice must be dished out to everyone involved. I don't care if a person was a fucking janitor mopping up the pulled teeth and bloody stalls.. they were a part of humanities worst atrocities.
Hell I'd fucking injure myself to get out of the duty. I'd flee the country. I'd divorce my wife and send her away with the kids (if they exist) and do _something_ to stop this. Self-preservation only gets you so far.. the world has literally never seen anything like what the nazis did to human beings.. methodically, experimentally and ever-so-slowly. In relation to the bolded part of your post, you've already answered the question yourself with the previous sentence. "He was forced into an impossible situation". That is how people fathom the commission of such atrocities on a grand scale: They had to choose to be responsible for the harm/death of someone they had never met, or be responsible for the harm/death of their family. There is reason in that argument. The argument obviously starts to break down when you consider how methodical some of this was, the scale of the atrocities, and the lack of direct application of duress though (Which seems to be where you're coming from, and I do understand that). But it isn't just "someone" it is 29k someones. And it wasn't the "death" it was the dehumanization and the grotesque slaughter of a people.. genocide. I'm sorry but I would risk my family for that cause. I couldn't live with the blood of an entire race of people on my hands because I have family in the country. I'd do everything I could to get my family away and safe (like many other people did) and that'd be that.
Absolutely. You may be misreading my arguments as support for the man, but I'm just having a theoretical discussion about why some people would have done what they did, why the law sometimes protects them, and why some people would argue against such trials.
I don't know enough about the case to warrant making any judgment, positive or negative, about this man and his actions 
|
On May 12 2009 12:26 Manifesto7 wrote:
So with that line of thought Inc, how about the case of American soldiers who were given orders to torture Iraqi prisoners, despite the fact that it was illegal. Should they be held accountable as well? They were following orders given to them from someone higher up, but those orders were against international law.
I think you underestimate the duress that was put on people during the war. I don't believe the common grunt should have any legal culpability in cases like these. Decision makers, yes. Grunt forced to electrocute somebody's nuts, no.
And finally, the world has seen plenty other examples of what the Nazis did. The Nazis just made the best movie bad guys for our generation.
You're better with words than me. 
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On May 12 2009 12:26 Manifesto7 wrote:
So with that line of thought Inc, how about the case of American soldiers who were given orders to torture Iraqi prisoners, despite the fact that it was illegal. Should they be held accountable as well? They were following orders given to them from someone higher up, but those orders were against international law.
I think you underestimate the duress that was put on people during the war. I don't believe the common grunt should have any legal culpability in cases like these. Decision makers, yes. Grunt forced to electrocute somebody's nuts, no.
And finally, the world has seen plenty other examples of what the Nazis did. The Nazis just made the best movie bad guys for our generation.
They were held accountable iirc? They were fired etc.. but if you are asking ME the answer is YES. Torturing prisoners the way they did is bad especially without the argument of a "ticking timebomb."
But that is a bad analogy. America wouldn't kill their families if they didn't do this. They'd lose pay and maybe serve a small sentence for refusing to do an order.
|
There is no limitation to when a person can be charged with murder. Hang his ass for all he has done.
|
Osaka27174 Posts
On May 12 2009 12:40 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2009 12:26 Manifesto7 wrote:
So with that line of thought Inc, how about the case of American soldiers who were given orders to torture Iraqi prisoners, despite the fact that it was illegal. Should they be held accountable as well? They were following orders given to them from someone higher up, but those orders were against international law.
I think you underestimate the duress that was put on people during the war. I don't believe the common grunt should have any legal culpability in cases like these. Decision makers, yes. Grunt forced to electrocute somebody's nuts, no.
And finally, the world has seen plenty other examples of what the Nazis did. The Nazis just made the best movie bad guys for our generation. They were held accountable iirc? They were fired etc.. but if you are asking ME the answer is YES. Torturing prisoners the way they did is bad especially without the argument of a "ticking timebomb." But that is a bad analogy. America wouldn't kill their families if they didn't do this. They'd lose pay and maybe serve a small sentence for refusing to do an order.
As far as Obama is concerned, those who made the decisions to torture are not being prosecuted. I am talking about the sanctioned torture, not the prison controversy from Abu Garhib (sp?).
I don't think the analogy is flawed at all. In fact, I think it is an interesting observation that faced with far less consequences, the American soldiers made the same decision that the German soldiers had to make.
Maybe, if anything, this speaks to the culture of the army as the reason it is so difficult to examine this issue. You spend years saying "yes sir!", years training to kill people, years eating sand (or French grapes) and shooting people, and then at one point you have to say "whoa whoa whoa, this crosses the line"? You might think it looks good on paper, but I think those are pretty tough expectations.
Anyway, I have always found this dilemma interesting to think about, because there is surely no right or wrong answer. It is just an illustration of the horrors of war, in all its manifestations.
|
On May 12 2009 12:40 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2009 12:26 Manifesto7 wrote:
So with that line of thought Inc, how about the case of American soldiers who were given orders to torture Iraqi prisoners, despite the fact that it was illegal. Should they be held accountable as well? They were following orders given to them from someone higher up, but those orders were against international law.
I think you underestimate the duress that was put on people during the war. I don't believe the common grunt should have any legal culpability in cases like these. Decision makers, yes. Grunt forced to electrocute somebody's nuts, no.
And finally, the world has seen plenty other examples of what the Nazis did. The Nazis just made the best movie bad guys for our generation. They were held accountable iirc? They were fired etc.. but if you are asking ME the answer is YES. Torturing prisoners the way they did is bad especially without the argument of a "ticking timebomb."
They were fired??? OH NOES.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On May 12 2009 12:53 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2009 12:40 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On May 12 2009 12:26 Manifesto7 wrote:
So with that line of thought Inc, how about the case of American soldiers who were given orders to torture Iraqi prisoners, despite the fact that it was illegal. Should they be held accountable as well? They were following orders given to them from someone higher up, but those orders were against international law.
I think you underestimate the duress that was put on people during the war. I don't believe the common grunt should have any legal culpability in cases like these. Decision makers, yes. Grunt forced to electrocute somebody's nuts, no.
And finally, the world has seen plenty other examples of what the Nazis did. The Nazis just made the best movie bad guys for our generation. They were held accountable iirc? They were fired etc.. but if you are asking ME the answer is YES. Torturing prisoners the way they did is bad especially without the argument of a "ticking timebomb." But that is a bad analogy. America wouldn't kill their families if they didn't do this. They'd lose pay and maybe serve a small sentence for refusing to do an order. As far as Obama is concerned, those who made the decisions to torture are not being prosecuted. I am talking about the sanctioned torture, not the prison controversy from Abu Garhib (sp?). I don't think the analogy is flawed at all. In fact, I think it is an interesting observation that faced with far less consequences, the American soldiers made the same decision that the German soldiers had to make. Maybe, if anything, this speaks to the culture of the army as the reason it is so difficult to examine this issue. You spend years saying "yes sir!", years training to kill people, years eating sand (or French grapes) and shooting people, and then at one point you have to say "whoa whoa whoa, this crosses the line"? You might think it looks good on paper, but I think those are pretty tough expectations. Anyway, I have always found this dilemma interesting to think about, because there is surely no right or wrong answer. It is just an illustration of the horrors of war, in all its manifestations.
It is a bad analogy (imo) because A. the severity of the soldiers situation is FAR less. B. The severity of the order is FAR less. C. The war time scenario is completely different. etc etc
But YES I think they should be prosecuted.. so I don't know if you were thinking I'd think they shouldn't because they are American? This isn't a nationalistic thing for me..
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On May 12 2009 12:55 rushz0rz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2009 12:40 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On May 12 2009 12:26 Manifesto7 wrote:
So with that line of thought Inc, how about the case of American soldiers who were given orders to torture Iraqi prisoners, despite the fact that it was illegal. Should they be held accountable as well? They were following orders given to them from someone higher up, but those orders were against international law.
I think you underestimate the duress that was put on people during the war. I don't believe the common grunt should have any legal culpability in cases like these. Decision makers, yes. Grunt forced to electrocute somebody's nuts, no.
And finally, the world has seen plenty other examples of what the Nazis did. The Nazis just made the best movie bad guys for our generation. They were held accountable iirc? They were fired etc.. but if you are asking ME the answer is YES. Torturing prisoners the way they did is bad especially without the argument of a "ticking timebomb." They were fired??? OH NOES.
See my post below. Do you think they should get the death penalty? You think they did the same thing as Nazi guards? I'd venture a guess you don't.. well neither do I.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i don't know much about germany's handling of the nazi legacy, but it seems that the attitude here is an overcompensation of the "we reject the past so completely that we must physically separate the past generation for the crimes" sort. rather than assessing the benefit of punishment against the cost, the decision seems like an exercise of a psychological compulsion. try to escape guilt by setting up The Guilty and cutting them off. the man's actions and moral situation are not being judged, rather the situation is a referendum on what he is thought to represent, even though much of what he has done is common human nature.
the situation is also one of moral luck. the man being in the position of a camp hand is not a planned or anticipated choice. whether he was just a random worker in a german town, being only guilty of political inaction, or an active part of the nazi machine is not something under his control, but rather an accident. it is rather inconsiderate for the accidentally innocent society (assuming being a camp hand is guilty) to condemn this person so absolutely.
|
Sounds like someone in the criminal justice department is more interested in political posturing than in justice.
|
As far as I know, Germany doesn't mess around with things, when it comes to the Holocaust. Isn't Holocaust Denial an illegal act in Germany? Doesn't surprise me if they would go this far after someone involved. If he was just a generic prison guard, then its kinda ridiculous. I mean, did they prosecute every soldier in the German Military after WW2?
|
like I already said look up the milgram experiment. It pretty much proves that no matter what people's morality or sympathy was, the majority of us would kill someone just because a person we deemed to be in control told us.
Once people think they have lost their moral culpability, they will also allow themselves to be completely inhuman and 'evil'. Over a prolonged period of time, and with the barrier of knowledge that one's superiors approve and one is doing good for one's country's cause, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a large number of socially repressed, malignant, malevolent people in TL who would be exactly the same as the worst death camp prison guards.
The fact of the matter was that he was let off the leash. It's the system that let him do that that is entirely culpable. If he were told not to do it, he would have not done it with equal fervour.
|
Pretty much, I am of the opinion that "he was following orders" isn't a great argument.
Someone tell you to do something you're against, you either tell them to shove it, or you pansy out and follow orders. Either way, it's a choice you have to make. Certainly, it's humaine to follow orders if you're under lots of duress. In fact, I'm completely sympathetic with soldiers who do things only following orders. The thing is, just because they made a humaine decision, doesn't make it right, does it.
If I am a bus-driver and I am heading towards danger, and I instinctively save my own ass at the expensive of 20 other passengers, it would have been human nature, sure, and lots of people would have done the same thing in the same situation, but it still doesn't make it right.
Obviously, it becomes even more complicated if the life of your entire family is at stake. It is, again, another choice you have to make, and the humaine thing to do is to protect your family - no arguments there. So in the end "I did it because I was following orders" does justify one's actions, but to use it to absolve one's crime is a different matter.
My point is, just because we did something out of instinct, including following orders from a superior, that alone shouldn't protect us from the legal system.
|
On May 12 2009 09:45 Sanity. wrote:
hes not gonna do anything else. leave him alone imo.
agreed... vengeance isn't wat we should be seeking
esp since he's already so far in.... just leave him be, i bet if he was a guard he feels bad about it himself
|
On May 12 2009 13:07 R3condite wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2009 09:45 Sanity. wrote:
hes not gonna do anything else. leave him alone imo. agreed... vengeance isn't wat we should be seeking esp since he's already so far in.... just leave him be, i bet if he was a guard he feels bad about it himself
Well you don't know, he might be looking for closure (I haven't actually read the article so if it says otherwise, then ignore this)
|
Like someone above noted, this really is nothing more than a political glamor show by those in the justice department. There's really nothing to gain from spending a bunch of money in prosecuting and incarcerating this dude other than some cheap political points. He's just an 89 year old worthless fart who's probably just counting the days until he dies. There are sooooooo many criminals out there that actually do have the capacity to do more harm and many more who have gone scotch free, but of course nabbing this 89 year old makes sense. Anyone who thinks this is some moral case is IMHO missing the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
