[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29863601]It was legal at the time. They weren't bound by any international agreements against this sort of thing. They were in power, and as such operating such a camp was perfectly legal. It may not have been right, but you can't retroactively try people for crimes. Ex Post Facto is a poor semblance of justice.[/quote]
my god, you're actually arguing that it was legal at the time. you're a terrible person.
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29863601]His actions aren't okay, but that doesn't mean we can throw out basic standards of justice and law to punish them.[/quote]
and what standards of justice would we be throwing out? there is no protection from retroactive legislation in many countries, and therefore there is no right to freedom from retroactive punishment.
and in this case, a crime like murder has been around for ages. there is not necessarily any ex post facto law involved.
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29863601]It's never okay to punish retroactively. The people who do this sort of thing aren't going to be stopped by precedents like that anyway. And punishing retroactively sets a bad precedent in and of itself.[/quote]
Not at at all true. infact the whole nuremburg trials were based on law that was ex post facto - were they bad? were they wrong in punishing those nazi members?
i'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say no.
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29863601]An SS identity card only states that he maybe joined the SS and had a job. However, you how to infer that
a. The card is real and contains legitimate information.
b. It suggests he may have worked at a death camp, but not that he specifically did any crime involving it.
It's circumstantial because it doesn't directly prove that he did a crime, it simply shows that the circumstances seem to point in that direction. It's not hard evidence, and if you're convicting a guy of something like this, I'd argue that you need more evidence than that. [/quote]
that is of your opinion, not the courts. in order to conceal a conviction, the judge must've been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the identity card, along with any other evidence submitted to the court, was enough to result in a conviction of the accused's crimes.
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29863601]I'm glad we're all in agreement. This is a purely revenge system. And this is done through a justice system.[/quote]
Revenge would've seen him locked up for his heinous crimes, however he has been released pending his appeal. regardless, all judicial branches of the world have the ability to be a "revenge system" in ordering criminal sanctions.
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29863601]He means that sometimes, the man who commits a crime and is guilty has to be let go, simply because the laws don't work for it, and you can't get it.[/quote]
That makes no sense, and if this occurs that is an incredibly flawed system of law.
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29863601]You let the bad guy go, because if you didn't, the justice system would make it easier for an innocent man to become convicted as well. [/quote]
If you're referring to the laws of procedure, evidence and the word of law, then yes, you obviously cannot fabricate evidence in order to obtain a conviction, but unless you're suggesting that any party to the court did, then I don't understand your point.
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29863601]It's funny. Turns out that the defense they had is valid psychologically. They were inherently revenge courts, punishing people for violating laws and rules that didn't exist. They deserved punishment, sure, but they shouldn't have gotten it that way.[/quote]
dear god.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;29864054]~~~~[/QUOTE]
It was legal at the time. There were no laws against what happened.
And the just following orders thing? It's valid.
People will do things they would never normally do, things that are against their morals entirely, even questioning it as they do it, if they are are under orders from authorities. It may not excuse them form their actions, but it's not as if they were inherently evil because of them. So in fact, they were wrong. the men deserved punishment, sure, but the law couldn't give it.(This is mostly the related trials, not he Nuremberg trials themselves).
If we're going to kill the leaders of the losing side, we shouldn't hold bullshit trials and call it justice. Just kill them if you have to, but don't say you're doing it under the pretense of justice and law.
And circumstantial evidence is still circumstantial evidence. It's valid anyway, but it's just what it's called. It's a common misconception that circumstantial evidence is worse than direct evidence.
[editline]16th May 2011[/editline]
So no, I don't dispute that they were going to die, or what they did was heinous. I simply dispute the punishment through the law. The nonsensical jokes they called trials. I suppose we were trying to be "civilized".
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29864541]It was legal at the time. There were no laws against what happened.[/quote]
Murder was not legal. That's what he was charged for.
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29864541]And the just following orders thing? It's valid.[/quote]
If you want to believe that, than be my guest - but the SS precedents say otherwise.
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29864541]People will do things they would never normally do, things that are against their morals entirely, even questioning it as they do it, if they are are under orders from authorities.[/quote]
Which is why members of general members of the Wehrmacht were not charged with such crimes. Justification through excuse of war. There was no war going on between the Nazi's and Jewish / other targeted minority groups. No justification for murder.
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29864541]It may not excuse them form their actions, but it's not as if they were inherently evil because of them.[/quote]
You were if you joined the SS. If someone was forced under duress to join the SS, then it changes the outcome and legality of the murders.
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29864541]So in fact, they were wrong. the men deserved punishment, sure, but the law couldn't give it.(This is mostly the related trials, not he Nuremberg trials themselves).[/quote]
? The law did give it.
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29864541]If we're going to kill the leaders of the losing side, we shouldn't hold bullshit trials and call it justice. Just kill them if you have to, but don't say you're doing it under the pretense of justice and law.[/quote]
Then what do you call it? "The Execution Decisions?"
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29864541]And circumstantial evidence is still circumstantial evidence. It's valid anyway, but it's just what it's called. It's a common misconception that circumstantial evidence is worse than direct evidence.[/quote]
Based on the previous precedents, being identified as an SS soldier was enough to convict.
Prosecute, prosecute!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.