• Nazi goes on trial for being an accessory to the murder of at least 300,000 Jews.
    147 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Explosions;47572998]So what laws did Hitler break?[/QUOTE] Probably not that many realistically. He was supreme leader and sanctioned his own actions. Laws are not immutable moral properties. Laws are systems of authority implemented by a government. Laws are not based on anything but that authority and the will to respect it. Asking a dumb shit question like "what laws did hitler break?" does nothing to change the fact that laws are based on jurisdiction and authority, and not morality.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47573014]Probably not that many realistically. He was supreme leader and sanctioned his own actions. Laws are not immutable moral properties. Laws are systems of authority implemented by a government. Laws are not based on anything but that authority and the will to respect it. Asking a dumb shit question like "what laws did hitler break?" does nothing to change the fact that laws are based on jurisdiction and authority, and not morality.[/QUOTE] So if Hitler had escaped and was now being prosecuted for everything he did in WW2, would you argue against that because he was the leader and therefore made the laws?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47573014]Probably not that many realistically. He was supreme leader and sanctioned his own actions. Laws are not immutable moral properties. Laws are systems of authority implemented by a government. Laws are not based on anything but that authority and the will to respect it. Asking a dumb shit question like "what laws did hitler break?" does nothing to change the fact that laws are based on jurisdiction and authority, and not morality.[/QUOTE] Let me rephrase then: should Hitler have faced consequences for his actions if he survived the end of the war?
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47573025]So if Hitler had escaped and was now being prosecuted for everything he did in WW2, would you argue against that because he was the leader and therefore made the laws?[/QUOTE] I would argue you have to prove that he's under your jurisdiction for a trial. If he was deposed and then the new government stood up, they have the jurisdiction to try him and prosecute him. [editline]21st April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;47573026]Let me rephrase then: should Hitler have faced consequences for his actions if he survived the end of the war?[/QUOTE] Yes. But that's not even a related question.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47573028]Yes. But that's not even a related question.[/QUOTE] How and under what authority? You said that a new German government could prosecute him in your reply to Starlight, but according to you a new government wouldn't have any power to prosecute Hitler's previous war crimes because they occurred under the old government's jurisdiction. It's a new government so it doesn't have the authority, according to you.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47573028]Yes. But that's not even a related question.[/QUOTE] Considering that you're saying this guy shouldn't be facing trial because he didn't break any of Nazi Germany's laws, I think it's extremely relevant. You're saying Hitler would have faced consequences, even though he didn't violate any Nazi German laws. So clearly, justice goes beyond the laws of the nation itself. Which is not new nor surprising when war crimes are involved.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47573042]How and under what authority? You said that a new German government could prosecute him in your reply to Starlight, but according to you a new government wouldn't have any power to prosecute Hitler's previous war crimes because they occurred under the old government's jurisdiction. It's a new government so it doesn't have the authority, according to you.[/QUOTE] No. That's actually not what I said. I said they'd have to prove they have jurisdiction for that. If you commit a crime in germany, do you get tried in Russia? No. You get tried in Germany, under the jurisdiction of the area where you committed crimes. So, a new governments first post war action has to be to criminalize the actions of the last government under their jurisdiction. Did we criminalize book keeping now? [editline]21st April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;47573046]Considering that you're saying this guy shouldn't be facing trial because he didn't break any of Nazi Germany's laws, I think it's extremely relevant. You're saying Hitler would have faced consequences, even though he didn't violate any Nazi German laws. So clearly, justice goes beyond the laws of the nation itself. Which is not new nor surprising when war crimes are involved.[/QUOTE] Yes, and I don't see it as black and white as some people here do. I don't see what's wrong with my view of it though. War crimes aren't black and white and aren't very easy to understand from a legal stand point IMO. They certainly aren't so clear cut.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47573055]No. That's actually not what I said. I said they'd have to prove they have jurisdiction for that. If you commit a crime in germany, do you get tried in Russia? No. You get tried in Germany, under the jurisdiction of the area where you committed crimes. So, a new governments first post war action has to be to criminalize the actions of the last government under their jurisdiction. Did we criminalize book keeping now?[/QUOTE] The "new German government" (the postwar occupation run by the Allies) did criminalize many actions of the previous regime. I don't know if this guy's actions were criminal or not, that's what the trial is supposed to show us.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47573055]So, a new governments first post war action has to be to criminalize the actions of the last government under their jurisdiction. Did we criminalize book keeping now?[/QUOTE] Germany sure as fuck criminalized the mass genocide of the Jews. Which he is charged as an accomplice to. So yes, he's getting charged with assisting in an act that was criminalized by the new government, and the trial will determine whether his participation should be considered culpable in the crime or whether he was just a bystander.
I know they criminalized those things.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47573092]I know they criminalized those things.[/QUOTE] So then this trial really is about demonstrating rule of law (the law of the postwar German government) and it can be said that atrocities committed by the Nazis are illegal.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47572990]That argument has been made multiple times, "this is about demonstrating the rule of law", okay... But the rule of law is usually based on this common thing known as "jurisdiction". Do we demonstrate the rule of law on people who commit crimes out of our jurisdiction? No. we don't. Under who's jurisdiction is this man being tried? How legal would his incarceration be? What laws did he actually fundamentally break in the country where he was when those laws where broken? I get it, I'm a big staunch supporter of rule of law. But I don't like people jumping over those questions as easily as so many here have.[/QUOTE] Holy shit lol this is pretty much repeating the same criticisms made by the people on trial during the Nuremberg Trials. They questioned the courts authority to trial them for things which they perceived to not be crimes. Regardless, unless you want to question the legitimacy the entire German government it is a moot point. The crime occurred as part of a program sanctioned by a former German government. The current German government, which views it as a crime, has decided to put him on trial. Just because it wasn't a crime then doesn't mean it isn't a prosecutable crime now.
I think the biggest issue with prosecuting most Germans from WW2 is the fact that many of the laws were applied retroactively, making both Nuremberg and to an even greater extent these more recent trials a huge sham. Laws were being enforced on crimes being committed before they were on the books(which is before touching the issue on applying law across sovereignties, you really can't expect to enforce laws on another nation especially considering Germany was not part of an international assembly such as the League of Nations. Of course one could argue that once Germany was occupied they fell under another nation's sovereignty, but refer to the previous point). For example, the Allies wanted to charge Admiral Donitz for unrestricted submarine warfare, when the allies did the same with no repercussion in the Pacific. Additionally, the Soviets never faced consequences for any similar actions. All these post-war trials are simply an attempt at revenge, not an actual attempt at enforcing any legitimate rule of law.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47573055]No. That's actually not what I said. I said they'd have to prove they have jurisdiction for that. If you commit a crime in germany, do you get tried in Russia? No. You get tried in Germany, under the jurisdiction of the area where you committed crimes. So, a new governments first post war action has to be to criminalize the actions of the last government under their jurisdiction. [/QUOTE] Are you suggesting all crimes should be prosecuted in their very literal geographical location? Because that would be an unworkable mess considering a) who administered an occupied country and b) where they drew their authority from. [editline]22nd April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=General_Lee;47573122]All these post-war trials are simply an attempt at revenge, not an actual attempt at enforcing any legitimate rule of law.[/QUOTE] Pray tell, what is 'legitimate rule of law' in a defeated and occupied country?
Opinion alert: To fully understand the court case in its entirety I think I would need more context and more information on his life post world war 2. In reality this case boils down not to whether or not he is a bad person or not, but views on justice vs law and order. It's a real challenge to my personal values because of the two sides converging onto this case. The law is the law. We want to ensure that the system keeps working and applies forever. No one should escape from a crime because it's too late and they're too old. But what is the purpose of our legal system, is it to take vengeance on those we find wicked or is it to help those who have been wronged recover and compensate? What has this man done with his life after the war? Has he continued involvement in the killing of Jews? Has he held his Nazi beliefs? Did he put his past behind him? Did he really admit to and attempt to compensate for his wrongdoings? I believe that what we should be doing is trying to right the wrongs of his past and what he has done to others. In the past he was a nazi war criminal, there is no denying facts. But if he has truly become a fully functional and contributing member to our society and has tried to undo his past then there is nothing that this can do, the purpose of a punishment will have been met. this case will be nothing but a pitiful seeking for vengeance of war crimes long past. I think that is what many of you don't see what others are posting. It's not an issue of nazi apologies, but rather a question of what our courts are for and why.
I'm all for justice but justice should be within a time frame. The german government had a long time to put this man on trial. I just doesn't seem right to me especially regarding his role during the war.
What a menace to society. We can't have people like this walking the streets! He's gonna die soon anyway. What's this going to achieve?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47572990]That argument has been made multiple times, "this is about demonstrating the rule of law", okay... But the rule of law is usually based on this common thing known as "jurisdiction". Do we demonstrate the rule of law on people who commit crimes out of our jurisdiction? No. we don't. [/QUOTE] Yes, actually, we do. For instance, a Canadian can be charged [i]in Canada[/i] for travelling abroad for the purpose of engaging in child sex tourism even if they aren't charged in that country.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47573582]Yes, actually, we do. For instance, a Canadian can be charged [i]in Canada[/i] for travelling abroad for the purpose of engaging in child sex tourism even if they aren't charged in that country.[/QUOTE] Yes, well, the day we invent time travel I won't have anything against prosecuting people who commit crimes before the laws against them exist. Until that day this is just another witch-hunt fueled by some survivors to gain pity, support and get revenge.
[QUOTE=fenrirsulfu;47573662]Yes, well, the day we invent time travel I won't have anything against prosecuting people who commit crimes before the laws against them exist. Until that day this is just another witch-hunt fueled by some survivors to gain pity, support and get revenge.[/QUOTE] Yeah uppity holocaust survivors, basically have the best lives in the world...
[QUOTE=Explosions;47572998]So what laws did Hitler break?[/QUOTE] That whole conspiracy to take over the government by having someone burn the reichstag was kind of law breaking. Oh and his [I]other[/I] failed attempt at taking over a few years back which got him sent to jail the first place. Pretty sure he was also a pimp at some point. After he became the leader of his nation his actions stopped breaking the law because he made the law. These new laws were as morally reprehensible as a law can get however, that much is known and agreed by everyone. As far as everyone's concerned Hitler legally didn't actually commit any crimes past his election. Instead his actions took a nosedive into the joyful realm of crimes against humanity. And to go back to that one guy who's on trial, he didn't commit any crime under the current jurisdiction or the one that was in place back then, and his actions are as far as we're aware can't even remotely qualify as crimes against humanity or war crime (confiscating money from prisoners and counting said money isn't a war crime, or a crime against humanity). If he did anything more than this, then we're going to need proof but nobody's been able to produce such proof so the whole "innocent until proven guilty" idea comes into play. The issue with the trial is that since they can't prosecute the guy for an actual crime (legal crime, war crime or crime against humanity), they instead decided to prosecute him on the basis that he was a nazi and nothing else, which holds no ground and is completely fucking retarded.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47573673]Yeah uppity holocaust survivors, basically have the best lives in the world...[/QUOTE] Obvious gimmick, look at the avatar/join date/post count. [QUOTE=Ganerumo;47573714]That whole conspiracy to take over the government by having someone burn the reichstag was kind of law breaking. Oh and his [I]other[/I] failed attempt at taking over a few years back which got him sent to jail the first place. Pretty sure he was also a pimp at some point. After he became the leader of his nation his actions stopped breaking the law because he made the law. These new laws were as morally reprehensible as a law can get however, that much is known and agreed by everyone. As far as everyone's concerned Hitler legally didn't actually commit any crimes past his election. Instead his actions took a nosedive into the joyful realm of crimes against humanity. And to go back to that one guy who's on trial, he didn't commit any crime under the current jurisdiction or the one that was in place back then, and his actions are as far as we're aware can't even remotely qualify as crimes against humanity or war crime (confiscating money from prisoners and counting said money isn't a war crime, or a crime against humanity). If he did anything more than this, then we're going to need proof but nobody's been able to produce such proof so the whole "innocent until proven guilty" idea comes into play. The issue with the trial is that since they can't prosecute the guy for an actual crime (legal crime, war crime or crime against humanity), they instead decided to prosecute him on the basis that he was a nazi and nothing else, which holds no ground and is completely fucking retarded.[/QUOTE] How is accessory to murder not "an actual crime"?
[QUOTE=Explosions;47573839]How is accessory to murder not "an actual crime"?[/QUOTE] Point being, you have to actually prove he was an accessory to murder (innocent until proven guilty), and according to the article, it seems like they gave up on actually finding proof and just went with "he was a nazi so he probably helped kill a bunch of dudes". The only account of his activity at the camp is the account he gave himself (ie he was counting money confiscated from prisoners by other guards) and that's doesn't count as accessory to murder. If they can somehow find proof (other than "but he was a nazi though") that he did more than count money and actively contributed to the death of others then it'll be a different story, but as it stands now they're just bothering an old man without any actual proof that he committed a legal or war crime.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47573673]Yeah uppity holocaust survivors, basically have the best lives in the world...[/QUOTE] That's not what I said Zeke. And you know what, other than horrible nightmares, I am pretty sure they do lead comparatively good lives now. [QUOTE=Explosions;47573839]Obvious gimmick, look at the avatar/join date/post count.[/QUOTE] Because my opinions aren't the same as yours, and I signed up recently, I am obviously a gimmick account. This is extremely off-topic so I won't address it further.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;47573868]Point being, you have to actually prove he was an accessory to murder (innocent until proven guilty), and according to the article, it seems like they gave up on actually finding proof and just went with "he was a nazi so he probably helped kill a bunch of dudes". The only account of his activity at the camp is the account he gave himself (ie he was counting money confiscated from prisoners by other guards) and that's doesn't count as accessory to murder. If they can somehow find proof (other than "but he was a nazi though") that he did more than count money and actively contributed to the death of others then it'll be a different story, but as it stands now they're just bothering an old man without any actual proof that he committed a legal or war crime.[/QUOTE] That's what the trial's for.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47573877]That's what the trial's for.[/QUOTE] You go to trial when you have the proof, not beforehand.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;47573868]Point being, you have to actually prove he was an accessory to murder (innocent until proven guilty), and according to the article, it seems like they gave up on actually finding proof and just went with "he was a nazi so he probably helped kill a bunch of dudes". The only account of his activity at the camp is the account he gave himself (ie he was counting money confiscated from prisoners by other guards) and that's doesn't count as accessory to murder. If they can somehow find proof (other than "but he was a nazi though") that he did more than count money and actively contributed to the death of others then it'll be a different story, but as it stands now they're just bothering an old man without any actual proof that he committed a legal or war crime.[/QUOTE] Can you guys stop saying this, that's what the trial is meant find out.
A trial is for when you have evidence and testimony and you want a verdict on said evidence and testimony. A trial isn't for finding out evidence. Definition of a criminal trail. [quote]The criminal trial is when two parties, a prosecutor representing the government and a defense attorney representing the accused, meet in court before a judge or jury in order to present evidence to support their case. [/quote] You go to trial when you have the freaking evidence.
[QUOTE=bdd458;47573951]A trial is for when you have evidence and testimony and you want a verdict on said evidence and testimony. A trial isn't for finding out evidence.[/QUOTE] I never said it was. The trial is to find if he is guilty of committing these crimes.
[QUOTE=Hobo4President;47573954]I never said it was. The trial is to find if he is guilty of committing these crimes.[/QUOTE] Yes but the point made a couple of posts ago was that trials are only held if there is proof, not to find proof. They're only holding the trial because they think they can convict him for being present at the camp and working there, which isn't proof that he was a direct accessory to murder. It looks like what they want to get out of this is that anyone who worked with Nazis are an accessory to the crimes they committed, which is a bit unreasonable to me. To say this guy was an accessory to the murder of at least 300,000 jews a bit of a stretch considering his role, but the fact that he was working at the camp is apparently enough to say he was an accessory to murder. From what I'm getting, this trial isn't trying to find out if is he guilty of committing the crime of being an accessory to murder, but rather to figure out what makes someone an accessory to murder. Which [I]is[/I] what you're saying, but it's different from the point you were refuting
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.