Nazi goes on trial for being an accessory to the murder of at least 300,000 Jews.
147 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;47569507]Nothing more than a witch hunt at this rate.
I think a lot of you are forgetting that a shitload of nazis were kind of in a "do this or get shot in the head" situation. Not all of them were bloodthirsty, jew hating murderers.
but that's just my silly little opinion.[/QUOTE]
But he was a nazi. We've been taught all our lives that nazi = bad, therefor he was bad.
Those saying too bad he's old he still deserves it, show some fucking compassion.
[editline]21st April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=itisjuly;47569519]But he was a nazi. We've been taught all our lives that nazi = bad, therefor he was bad.[/QUOTE]
unfortunately that's all some people can put together, and nothing more, like how each one was a human just like me or you... well unless you're a lizard man or something, then I guess you can't really relate.
[QUOTE=kaze4159;47569406]He's been let off twice, they're only going at it a third time because they're sure they can have him convicted without any evidence[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;47569510]Convicting someone without evidence? seriously that is allowed?[/QUOTE]
The case will be thrown out most likely, the only evidence they have is either in Groening's own hands, like remains from his conscription or just verbal quotes from the man himself, so they basically have nothing to go off other than "he was a nazi!!!!"
This case has nothing to stand on and honestly, its not legit or fair.
All of these trials are just so dumb.
I mean I can understand the first few trials after the war, but just going on and on.
And those survivors showing up just to get their share of schadenfreude, I doubt even one of them, personally, remembers or knows of anything this man did during the holocaust.
It's preposterous.
There really should be a statue of limitations for these cases.
[QUOTE=fenrirsulfu;47569640]All of these trials are just so dumb.
I mean I can understand the first few trials after the war, but just going on and on.
And those survivors showing up just to get their share of schadenfreude, I doubt even one of them, personally, remembers or knows of anything this man did during the holocaust.
It's preposterous.[/QUOTE]
"Nazi = bad, therefore Nazi fighter = good" seems to be the way they think.
what a waste of time and money.
What if he lives another 20 years?
Would it be immoral to prosecute a 60 year old man because he's old by your standard? How about a 50 year old?
[QUOTE=Explosions;47569675]What if he lives another 20 years?
Would it be immoral to prosecute a 60 year old man because he's old by your standard? How about a 50 year old?[/QUOTE]
Yeah man, throw the book at him! Fucker counted money from new arrivals, might as well have built the gas chambers with his own hands.
[QUOTE=zach1193;47569536]Those saying too bad he's old he still deserves it, show some fucking compassion.[/QUOTE]
The guy was a bookkeeper whose entire job was to count money. He did not directly kill anybody, nor did he order the death or anyone.
He's not on trial for war crimes or for having committed atrocities, he wasn't some higher up who willingly ordered the death of innocents or killed these people himself. He's on trial because they found a former nazi and decided to enact petty revenge on him.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;47569801][B]The guy was a bookkeeper whose entire job was to count money. He did not directly kill anybody, nor did he order the death or anyone.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
you seem to leaving out that it's by HIS account that he did only that as a Nazi; not that it means it's automatically untrue. Just that you're using it as an argument when it might not be true.
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;47569732]Yeah man, throw the book at him! Fucker counted money from new arrivals, might as well have built the gas chambers with his own hands.[/QUOTE]
You're completely missing Explosions' point and he's absolutely right. If you're saying he shouldn't be tried because he's old, what if he were ten years younger? Or twenty? When's the magical arbitrary cutoff where the legal system lets him go? If only we had some way to mutually and objectively decide whether extenuating circumstances absolve someone of punishment- oh wait, we do. It's called court.
You're saying he shouldn't be tried because you feel he's innocent. Do you not see how ass-backwards that is? Guilt or innocence is determined by an actual court, not the court of public opinion. There's an accusation that he contributed to genocide, so it's going to court to determine whether punishment is warranted and then set a precedent for future cases. It's not complicated.
Even if he was just a bookkeeper, bookkeepers for criminal enterprises go on trial all the time as accomplices, and the court weighs their complicity and decides whether to punish or not. Some of you seriously don't seem to recognize a difference between 'prosecution' and 'conviction, with death penalty'.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47569898]You're completely missing Explosions' point and he's absolutely right. If you're saying he shouldn't be tried because he's old, what if he were ten years younger? Or twenty? When's the magical arbitrary cutoff where the legal system lets him go? If only we had some way to mutually and objectively decide whether extenuating circumstances absolve someone of punishment- oh wait, we do. It's called court.
You're saying he shouldn't be tried because you feel he's innocent. Do you not see how ass-backwards that is? Guilt or innocence is determined by an actual court, not the court of public opinion. There's an accusation that he contributed to genocide, so it's going to court to determine whether punishment is warranted and then set a precedent for future cases. It's not complicated.
Even if he was just a bookkeeper, bookkeepers for criminal enterprises go on trial all the time as accomplices, and the court weighs their complicity and decides whether to punish or not. Some of you seriously don't seem to recognize a difference between 'prosecution' and 'conviction, with death penalty'.[/QUOTE]
But what laws is he even being tried under? Who's jurisdiction is this? What laws did he violate?
How is this NOT a straight up, good old fashioned fucking witch hunt?
I get it, he did wrong, he deserves to be punished but moral requirements like that are not always reflected in the legal system.
You're saying he should be tried because he's guilty until proven innocent but the issue really is that you can't try him for crimes that didn't happen in a jurisdiction that didn't exist at the time of those crimes.
It's a sham but you can go ahead and support it. Everyone should be tried for their crimes under the letter of the law. We shouldn't be using our morals to stick things into the justice system when they're not compatible.
Why don't we try Japanese bookkeepers too?
Or janitors? Why only German?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47569939]But what laws is he even being tried under? Who's jurisdiction is this? What laws did he violate?
How is this NOT a straight up, good old fashioned fucking witch hunt?
I get it, he did wrong, he deserves to be punished but moral requirements like that are not always reflected in the legal system.
You're saying he should be tried because he's guilty until proven innocent but the issue really is that you can't try him for crimes that didn't happen in a jurisdiction that didn't exist at the time of those crimes.
It's a sham but you can go ahead and support it. Everyone should be tried for their crimes under the letter of the law. We shouldn't be using our morals to stick things into the justice system when they're not compatible.[/QUOTE]
I agree that the veracity of the trial is dubious even if you're willing to stretch the evidence quite thin due to the wartime conditions. However, it's still bullcrap to say "he shouldn't be tried because he's past some arbitrary age I made up."
[QUOTE=Explosions;47569965]I agree that the veracity of the trial is dubious even if you're willing to stretch the evidence quite thin due to the wartime conditions. However, it's still bullcrap to say "he shouldn't be tried because he's past some arbitrary age I made up."[/QUOTE]
Sure, that's an absolutely terrible reason to not give him a trial, his age is pretty irrelevant realistically. The real issues for me becomes 1) the legality of the trial 2) the nature of the trial itself is by definition, a witch hunt 3) the fairness of the trial.
1) I doubt the legality of these trials, they're shoestring laws at best.
2) The nature of the trial is that a nazi is at trial. There can't be a fair shake for him, he's a nazi, facts will be skewed to make the nazi's more culpable than they may have actually have been
3)This is directly related to 2). If we're talking about a jury making judgements on a nazi, why even go to trial? We KNOW how that's going to go due to the easy focus from the Prosecution which would simplify their entire case down to "Do you really want to let a nazi go free?".
[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;47569273]This guy knew exactly what he was doing and still comitted a crime. It'd be unfair to just let him get away with it just because of his age. He's lived a full life unlike all of those 300000 people he helped to kill. So many Nazi sympathisers, my god.[/QUOTE]
No, no ones sympathizing with the Nazi Party or their actions. We are sympathizing with how life was for these people. Imagine your country, which was Post WW1 Germany, aka, the shitstain of the world at the time. Money was so useless that thousands of dollars were worth more using for some heat than actually buying anything. Now here comes this guy Hitler and this Nazi party(Pre-genocide at this point), oh wow look at that, they are really fixing this country. Fast forward just a few years and Germany has gone from a post-war wasteland to one of the biggest super powers in the world. IN YEARS.
At this point, Nazis own Germany, they ARE Germany. Its all you probably saw or heard about. All these great things, being able to be a part of that great force that did all this good(still pre-genocide, but shits starting to get fucky, Nazis coming to your door more often, getting questioned, etc...) Now here it comes, all that propaganda of the Nazis being the best for the world, everyones against you but we ARE the people. And people fucking believed it, A LOT of people. The majority of people in fact. Who didnt want to feel like they were part of some group like this? And you know the craziest thing? The Nazis really were an actual powerful and serious superpower, so it wasnt just all talk.
Cant you see for just a moment how easily something like this could get people to join it? Im not saying everyone who joined did so unknowingly, and this guy seems like he did knowingly. But it was such a completely different time and life.
It says he joined in 1942, which is quite late into the whole Nazi thing, so he did join when the genocide was happening already. But it also means for most of his younger/teenage life from 30s-40s was spent in the entire upbringing of the Nazis, and all the propaganda that followed from start to finish.
What he did is inexcusable, and the Nazis are fucking horrible as a whole, but I dont want to see a 93 year old man thrown in jail in some delayed 40 year revenge. No one will get anything out of it. In all honesty if he went to jail probably everyone would forget who he is. Its not gonna end up making anyone really feel better.
[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;47569239]Let me guess. "He's old so it doesn't matter". He still comitted the crime and age shouldn't be a barrier between the morals and the law.
[editline]21st April 2015[/editline]
Literally ninja'd but my point exactly[/QUOTE]
I lost family members in the holocaust and I don't even give a fuck.
Let it go.
I don't think he can recall things 10 years back, let alone 70, it must feel like another lifetime ago. He's had plenty of time to reflect and live with the things he's done.
Look at him, he can barely walk, dragging him into court is ludicrous.
-shitpost snip lets not-
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;47569837]you seem to leaving out that it's by HIS account that he did only that as a Nazi; not that it means it's automatically untrue. Just that you're using it as an argument when it might not be true.[/QUOTE]
And his account of being a bookkeeper is the only thing we know. If we wanted to argue otherwise, that would require evidence implicating him differently, evidence that doesn't exist. As some of the previous posts showed, they had attempted to prosecute him twice in the past, but it fell short until more recent convictions set a precedent that one can be convicted without any evidence, as long as they were known to have been nazis at one point. So until they manage to conjure up evidence out of nowhere, I'm going to assume that bookkeeper part.
Edited:
Also
[QUOTE=martijnp3000;47569468]It was never perfectly legal, i'm pretty sure the Polish (or whatever country's) government didn't sign the go ahead with the gassing and/or torture of her citizens?
He worked in a goddamn human meat grinder, anyone who had anything to do with those camps should not just be pardoned.[/QUOTE]
Obviously no country consented to being invaded and overrun by Nazi Germany, but the fact that their actions would be illegal in the country they had invaded would be irrelevant--any country on the receiving end of an invasion over history would declare any and all actions undertaken by an invading force illegal. Should every veteran from each country involved with the Iraq and Afghanistan invasion and wars be prosecuted due to the fact that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan's government agreed to let themselves be invaded? Somewhere around half a million civilians died in these combined wars, so should we prosecute everyone who took part of the illegal invasion for their deaths?
[QUOTE=Dostoyevsky;47569949]Why don't we try Japanese bookkeepers too?
Or janitors? Why only German?[/QUOTE]
How much stolen Jewish money did the Japanese bookkeepers log?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47569939]But what laws is he even being tried under? Who's jurisdiction is this? What laws did he violate?
How is this NOT a straight up, good old fashioned fucking witch hunt?
I get it, he did wrong, he deserves to be punished but moral requirements like that are not always reflected in the legal system.
You're saying he should be tried because he's guilty until proven innocent but the issue really is that you can't try him for crimes that didn't happen in a jurisdiction that didn't exist at the time of those crimes.
It's a sham but you can go ahead and support it. Everyone should be tried for their crimes under the letter of the law. We shouldn't be using our morals to stick things into the justice system when they're not compatible.[/QUOTE]
You're conflating two totally separate issues. The first issue is the necessity of a trial. Yes, he has to go on trial- the irony here is that if he'd just been charged back in the 80s, he wouldn't be on trial now. It will, one way or another, resolve the question of his complicity, and set a precedent for future cases in Germany. This shouldn't be swept under the rug.
But whether or not he should be punished is a separate issue and that's where morals come into play. You're right, it's a stretch to try him on an issue where he didn't really commit any heinous crime, [I]and that's why we have a court[/I]. That's why we have a judge who decides punishment, not just a book that mandates sentencing. It is entirely within his power, and the power of the jury, to say 'by the letter of our law you were complicit in a war crime, but because of the circumstances we feel punishment is not warranted'. That's the point of the legal system, to weigh each case individually and decide the morally just outcome- but it [I]has[/I] to go through the legal system and be resolved, not get dismissed out of hand and buried because you assume prosecution = conviction = death sentence.
This is nothing more than a pathetic Witch Hunt.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47569675]What if he lives another 20 years?
Would it be immoral to prosecute a 60 year old man because he's old by your standard? How about a 50 year old?[/QUOTE]
Nothing is that cut and dry, you should know damn well that each case is individualized and must be looked at as it's own case.
[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;47569273]This guy knew exactly what he was doing and still comitted a crime. It'd be unfair to just let him get away with it just because of his age. He's lived a full life unlike all of those 300000 people he helped to kill. So many Nazi sympathisers, my god.[/QUOTE]
Spotted the jew.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;47569801]The guy was a bookkeeper whose entire job was to count money. He did not directly kill anybody, nor did he order the death or anyone.
He's not on trial for war crimes or for having committed atrocities, he wasn't some higher up who willingly ordered the death of innocents or killed these people himself. He's on trial because they found a former nazi and decided to enact petty revenge on him.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, an old man that was once part of the nazi party yet, performed no real atrocities shouldn't be bothered, let alone accused of war crimes.
Damn merge...
Anyone who helped eradicate these cockroaches called jews is a hero in my book.
[IMG]https://i.warosu.org/data/biz/img/0002/45/1396070921162.png[/IMG]
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Gimmick" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
Is he a danger to society? No.
Should we ruin last years of his life? No.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47570249]You're conflating two totally separate issues. [/QUOTE]
I disagree
[QUOTE]The first issue is the necessity of a trial. Yes, he has to go on trial- the irony here is that if he'd just been charged back in the 80s, he wouldn't be on trial now.[/QUOTE]
Well, if he'd been tried in the 80's, he'd have been tried by the Weisenthal foundation or have been convicted of his crimes during one of the highest points of the nazi trials. You're right to say he wouldn't be on trial now, he'd have been on trial then, isn't that a tautology?
[QUOTE]It will, one way or another, resolve the question of his complicity, and set a precedent for future cases in Germany. This shouldn't be swept under the rug.[/QUOTE]
Well, we're running into another issue. Sure, I agree, in principle this can't be swept under the rug. The issue is how many more of these cases can possibly pop up in the future from here?
That precedent was set some time ago. Whether that precedent means it's obligatory for this trial to continue is not quite so clear cut in my view though.
[QUOTE]But whether or not he should be punished is a separate issue and that's where morals come into play. You're right, it's a stretch to try him on an issue where he didn't really commit any heinous crime, [I]and that's why we have a court[/I].[/QUOTE]
Sure. Courts, and the system that prop the courts up though, are very capable of making mistakes though and you know that.
[QUOTE]That's why we have a judge who decides punishment, not just a book that mandates sentencing. It is entirely within his power, and the power of the jury, to say 'by the letter of our law you were complicit in a war crime, but because of the circumstances we feel punishment is not warranted'. That's the point of the legal system, to weigh each case individually and decide the morally just outcome- but it [I]has[/I] to go through the legal system and be resolved, not get dismissed out of hand and buried because you assume prosecution = conviction = death sentence.[/QUOTE]
Okay, so we're viewing this through different lenses entirely.
I see the trial of a nazi as an incredibly emotional issue, easily manipulated by even the most junior of prosecutors. I see a problem with the defense having to, by definition, defend a nazi, tarnishing their own credibility is an inevitability. Regardless of how the trial goes, I see fairly harsh punishments being doled out over this.
You see that a likely trial conclusion is that there is no need to even substantiate punishment. I don't think that's going to happen.
Yes, and I agree with you about the point of the legal system is to make morally just outcomes(though that's a subjective view itself), I believe there's going to be inherit flaws with "Fair" trials when trying a nazi.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.