89-year-old on trial for allegedly being guard at Nazi death camp - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DrMortician;18664397]It was a war... It's been over for 60 years. He wasn't a terrorist, he was a soldier. This is entirely ridiculous, in my opinion. The man is 89 years old and isn't a threat to anyone.[/QUOTE] Sorry? Because he's a soldier it's suddenly fine to be aid in the murder of 28,000 people based on belief? If he's innocent, then it's tragic. If he is guilty, then he will be punished to the full extent.

[QUOTE=lettuce_head;18664533]Oh for fucks sake. My grandad died of old age at 88. This guy is old enough, leave him alone.[/QUOTE] It's OK to do bad things as long as you get old afterward

[QUOTE=Stickmoose;18664541]Because the Allied forces won the war.[/QUOTE]Same principle

He's gonna die within a few years anyway Why waste tax money keeping him locked up, and money to put him through court, and his own money for a lawyer.

Despite what anyone says, the government will continue. They must show that they will not tolerate national socialism, and hunt down any last vestiges of it. This has been shown time and time again with many prominent nazis being tracked down or snatched from south america.

[QUOTE=j-richardson;18664565]He's gonna die within a few years anyway Why waste tax money keeping him locked up, and money to put him through court, and his own money for a lawyer.[/QUOTE] Because it would create a precedent if we didn't.

[QUOTE=The mouse;18664559]Same principle[/QUOTE] Exactly, if the Axis won, our war heroes would be charged with war crimes

I don't get it why are the germans prosecuting him? it was their country that was responsable.

War crimes are dumb. It's either shoot enemies or get shot by your own country.

This guy is totally faking being ill, there is footage of him walking and driving his car a fiew days before he shows up in cort in a wheel chair looking like he took to much ketamin

Just because it was 60 years ago doesn't mean he's been magically forgiven for what he did. There is as much justification for a trial now as there was after the war.

Fucking hell the nazis in the 1940's brainwashed alot of the german population to think "jews are bad" some tried to rebel and fight the nazi's take schindler(forgot 1st name) for example he protexted alot of jews and he was well respected by some nazis the guard here was probably forced to stand guard and i feel sorry for him as he probably didn't like killing them or standing watch out in the cold as any of you or i do, also this guy is fucking 89 whats he gunna do kill some jews with his fucking cane?

How about we arrest all the people who used to be Nazis.

[QUOTE=Sams Brume;18664295]Good luck finding witnesses.[/QUOTE] Oh ho ho God that was dark. Well played Sire.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;18664551]Sorry? Because he's a soldier it's suddenly fine to be aid in the murder of 28,000 people based on belief? If he's innocent, then it's tragic. If he is guilty, then he will be punished to the full extent.[/QUOTE] mate, that's the point of being a soldier, killing what your boss says you should, all the civillian protection rules weren't around back then. and why would a country aiming at world domination even follow any rules of warfare, actually rules of war is another idiotic product of "gentlemanly conduct" which is utter useless in a state of war, why? war= enemies, enemies hurt eachother and just wants to see eachother suffer. a bar brawl doesn't have gentlemanly conduct, and if someone starts "ok, no blows to the face, k?" i'd be "fuck no, you wanted this, you'll take it, now stand still fucker" why people should not apply gentlemanly conduct to war: [img]http://i551.photobucket.com/albums/ii449/bluesage42/vampires/Indianaowns.gif[/img] because it's fucking easier to blast you if you do, did he get anything positive out of that? just because you think it's gentlemanly doesn't mean it's actually anything but a stupid concept.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;18665760] a bar brawl doesn't have gentlemanly conduct, and if someone starts "ok, no blows to the face, k?" i'd be "fuck no, you wanted this, you'll take it, now stand still fucker"[/QUOTE] It does, in what redneck taverns do you go smuggling the ol' jar of moonshine.

[QUOTE=evilking1;18665793]It does, in what redneck taverns do you go smuggling the ol' jar of moonshine.[/QUOTE] just trying to get across that gentlemanly conduct in connection with any kind of dispute is pathetic since it's like doing a pillowfight for your dear mothers life when she's at gunpoint, utter stupidity. ofcourse there are exceptions, but the "he's a soldier, he's not allowed to kill" argument i was trying to debunk is just too stupid.

Poor guy... Just let him be old and miserable in a retirement home. It's close enough

[QUOTE=Bomimo;18665876]just trying to get across that gentlemanly conduct in connection with any kind of dispute is pathetic since it's like doing a pillowfight for your dear mothers life when she's at gunpoint, utter stupidity. ofcourse there are exceptions, but the "he's a soldier, he's not allowed to kill" argument i was trying to debunk is just too stupid.[/QUOTE] Yeah all US marines do is pillage and rape in Iraq.

Why are resources being wasted on hunting down 89 year old men rather than finding those that are actually dangerous people? Also, watch all 3 parts. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcvSNg0HZwk&feature=related[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzTuz0mNlwU&feature=related[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmFCoo-cU3Y&feature=related[/media]

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;18665099]Just because it was 60 years ago doesn't mean he's been magically forgiven for what he did. There is as much justification for a trial now as there was after the war.[/QUOTE] You realize this would be like 60 years from now arresting US soldiers for following orders to invade Iraq.

[b]HEY U.S. YOU'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT![/b] /caps

[QUOTE=Lazor;18665977]Why are resources being wasted on hunting down 89 year old men rather than finding those that are actually dangerous people? Also, watch all 3 parts. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcvSNg0HZwk&feature=related[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzTuz0mNlwU&feature=related[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmFCoo-cU3Y&feature=related[/media][/QUOTE] I actually just learned about Milgram's study in psychology. It's crazy stuff, man.

[QUOTE=DrMortician;18665989]You realize this would be like 60 years from now arresting US soldiers for following orders to invade Iraq.[/QUOTE] Nice strawman. Invasion is not genocide and not a war crime.

[QUOTE=Jakobi;18664316]Its not like he was like I hate jews so I want to guard the camp. Most Germans were brainwashed.[/QUOTE] This [QUOTE=Sams Brume;18664295]Good luck finding witnesses.[/QUOTE] And this.

Zomg, nazis! :byodood:

[QUOTE=Bomimo;18665760]mate, that's the point of being a soldier, killing what your boss says you should, all the civillian protection rules weren't around back then. and why would a country aiming at world domination even follow any rules of warfare, actually rules of war is another idiotic product of "gentlemanly conduct" which is utter useless in a state of war, why? war= enemies, enemies hurt eachother and just wants to see eachother suffer. a bar brawl doesn't have gentlemanly conduct, and if someone starts "ok, no blows to the face, k?" i'd be "fuck no, you wanted this, you'll take it, now stand still fucker" why people should not apply gentlemanly conduct to war: [img]http://i551.photobucket.com/albums/ii449/bluesage42/vampires/Indianaowns.gif[/img] because it's fucking easier to blast you if you do, did he get anything positive out of that? just because you think it's gentlemanly doesn't mean it's actually anything but a stupid concept.[/QUOTE] Since when was it simply "ungentlemanly" to think it is right to kill civilians. yes, war = enemies, enemies hurt each other. but enemies are not civilians, and the holocaust was in no way a sane attempt at war. It was a sick reason to kill millions who were outcast. Your job as a soldier does not give you the right to kill civilians.

Psh, he's going to end up dieing in a year at the most.

We should take into account (as judges and juries do) the threat the accused poses to society, which is none. So we'd basically be punishing him just for "revenge :smug:"

[QUOTE=smurfy;18667759]We should take into account (as judges and juries do) the threat the accused poses to society, which is none. So we'd basically be punishing him just for "revenge :smug:"[/QUOTE] You did it wrong. Also it should be taken into account whether or not denying his duty posed a danger to his life.