93-Year-Old Auschwitz Guard Charged With 300,000 Counts of Accessory to Murder - Polidicks

Well that's fucking stupid.

This is pointless.. Yeah he committed crimes worth being put away for a very long time, but he's 93 and WW2 was well over half a decade ago. You can't go chasing down crimes 60 years later and calling it justice to cover up your ignorance of failing to at the time.

is everyone in this thread ignorant of what courts are for

[QUOTE=Explosions;45986853]I don't see what's wrong with charging him. If he's guilty, he's guilty, and the evidence will tell us so. Whether or not he should be punished/imprisoned/whatever is a different matter. He probably isn't a threat to anyone.[/QUOTE] Yeah. Just because you're old doesn't mean you should be absolved of your crimes. It doesn't mean he'll go to prison, though. They probably won't deem him a threat and just restrict him to stay in the country. [editline]16th September 2014[/editline] That is, if they can prove he committed the alleged crime in the first place.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;45992829]except his crime was literally "count the money, gold, and other valuables ransacked from the dead prisoners" which is pretty tame compared to someone who say, poured the gas into the gas chambers or a doctor that experimented on people[/QUOTE] he also had guard duty, like when he talked about the ramp duty incident if he isn't guilty of anything bad, then the court will not find him guilty, it's simple as that why is this so hard to comprehend, a war crime committed, and he's being properly investigated and this is germany justice system, i dont think it's severely broken as the american one

The article even says he was there for less than a month. Between May and June of 1944.

[QUOTE=Impact1986;45990292]And the russian army raped anything with two legs, but it is okay to oversee this because they are not Nazis[/QUOTE] The US army also had its fair share of abuses. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_liberation_of_France[/url] [quote]By the late summer of 1944, soon after the Invasion of Normandy, women in Normandy began to complain about rapes by American soldiers.[4] Hundreds of cases were reported.[5][/quote] [quote]In 1945, after the end of the war in Europe, Le Havre was filled with American servicemen awaiting return to the States. A Le Havre citizen wrote to the mayor that the people of Le Havre were "attacked, robbed, run over both on the street and in our houses" and "This is a regime of terror, imposed by bandits in uniform."[4] A coffeehouse owner from Le Havre testified "We expected friends who would not make us ashamed of our defeat. Instead, there came only incomprehension, arrogance, incredibly bad manners and the swagger of conquerors."[6] Such behavior also was common in Cherbourg. One resident stated that "With the Germans, the men had to camouflage themselves -- but with the Americans, we had to hide the women."[5][/quote]

I don't really have a problem with him being tried. I do have a problem with how it is done though. This seems more like a publicity stunt and if he is found innocent I highly doubt anyone will run headlines declaring his innocence. He will be branded as a war criminal and monster before the trial starts. But even then my biggest issue would be how this affects his family. I mean he has grandkids and probably great grandkids and now their name is associated with this atrocity as well. I believe the investigation and the trial should be kept a secret until a verdict is reached.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;45986753]On one hand, he's certainly a criminal but on the other hand he's 93. He isn't a danger to anyone and he will die soon. I feel it's a waste of resources to charge him.[/QUOTE] It isn't about punishing him, it's about a deeper sense of justice for the survivors that are still alive.

It would be understandable if he got charged right after the war ended, but 70 years later? This is beyond retarded.

Lets charge him .. along with anyone who ever was in WWII and shoot someone. The list is over 1200 people from both fronts who are alive today and all basic over 84(68+15) years old. Sounds stupid. Also he couldn't have killed 300.000+ people by himself .. that's 5000+ people pr day he served. [b]He was a guard for crying out loud .. a guard who hated his job for 60 days or so.[/b]

Plot twist: everyone is retarded. [sp]But just those in charge of the world's law.[/sp]

[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;45990377]Except no one is talking about the Red Army, nor did I imply that I'm ignoring their atrocities as well. We're talking about the Wehrmacht, and the myth that they fought a "clean" war.[/QUOTE] Obviously there were atrocities on both sides regarding their respective "regular militaries", all involved parties even. It's war after all. Though the Red Army was quite a lot worse. Worst of the bunch regarding the European war theatre by far.

[QUOTE=Cabbage;45986916]Reading 101. "To say every single person involved in the nazi regime as evil and morally twisted as the person who instigated is to be very misinformed" The person who instigated it was Hitler. Thus I was saying he is evil and morally twisted. again, not to say this absolves everyone under his command, but the footsoldiers and guards have a lower chance of sharing his twisted views and instead are more likely scared of the punishment that comes with assisting jews or not following the totalitarian regime.[/QUOTE] While I think it is a waste of time to charge the guy, I should point out that the guards at Auschwitz were, with very few exceptions, all members of the SS. To be SS you needed to be a member of the party. They were not petty members of the Wehrmacht. [editline]16th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=lolwutdude;45992079]is everyone in this thread ignorant of what courts are for[/QUOTE] What he did was permissible in his country at the time. You cannot retroactively change that. You charge officers with war crimes and ignore everyone else. Really putting people on trial for war crimes domestically is silly anyhow. A court can't have retroactive jurisdiction. That is the opposite of how courts function.

[QUOTE=GunFox;45995153][B]While I think it is a waste of time to charge the guy, I should point out that the guards at Auschwitz were, with very few exceptions, all members of the SS. To be SS you needed to be a member of the party. They were not petty members of the Wehrmacht.[/B] [editline]16th September 2014[/editline] What he did was permissible in his country at the time. You cannot retroactively change that. You charge officers with war crimes and ignore everyone else. Really putting people on trial for war crimes domestically is silly anyhow. A court can't have retroactive jurisdiction. That is the opposite of how courts function.[/QUOTE] This is not true. You didn't have to be a party member to join the Waffen-SS. It had draftees and plenty of foreign volunteers and conscripts.

[QUOTE=Mr. Agree;45991151]This is pointless.. Yeah he committed crimes worth being put away for a very long time, but he's 93 and WW2 was well over [B]half a decade[/B] ago. You can't go chasing down crimes 60 years later and calling it justice to cover up your ignorance of failing to at the time.[/QUOTE] I think you made a mistake here

[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;45986781]Did he really have a choice in the matter?[/QUOTE] You always have a choice. Would you participate in the systematic murder of hundreds of thousands of people?

[QUOTE=Sungrazer;45996486]You always have a choice. Would you participate in the systematic murder of hundreds of thousands of people?[/QUOTE] Would you say "no" to a dictatorship that was already systematically murdering hundreds of thousands of people? [sp]No, you wouldn't[/sp]

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;45996595]Would you say "no" to a dictatorship that was already systematically murdering hundreds of thousands of people? [sp]No, you wouldn't[/sp][/QUOTE] Thousands of people have said "no" to every single one of the various genocidal dictatorships.

It doesn't matter if these people are old or even fucking dead. Names of the people proven to be part of the genocide and other war atrocities should be made public. There's no reason to jail these people, they already got away with it. But the fact that they are old or even dead is not an excuse to expunge what they did.

Just let him life the rest of his life in peace, why are they pressing charges now?

[QUOTE=Pnukup;45996668]Just let him life the rest of his life in peace, why are they pressing charges now?[/QUOTE] Because millions of innocents didn't get the chance to live out their lives in peace and are now ashes, that's why.

It's kinda weird how this kind of charges, when they should have come like 70 years ago, happen now that nazism isn't much of a taboo on germany (except when showing off swastikas or something) and one of the real nazis, the one who did what Hitler couldn't do, but with economy, is Merkel. Plus I agree, this person must have been already regretted what he did in WWII. There's no logic in putting him in prison when he's 90 y/o and on the real brink of death.

[QUOTE=AeroSinthetic;45986792]I don't know if I'd even really call him a criminal for something he was ordered to do seventy years ago. He didn't even actually kill anyone.[/QUOTE] "Just following orders" doesn't make killing people any less fucked, as unneeded as the charge is

[QUOTE=Explosions;45996637]Thousands of people have said "no" to every single one of the various genocidal dictatorships.[/QUOTE] Out of the [I]millions[/I] who were part of those dictatorships. It's absurd to expect someone to put their own life at risk; it's not just absurd, it's unfair. That's why killing in self-defence isn't considered murder.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;45997103]Out of the [I]millions[/I] who were part of those dictatorships. It's absurd to expect someone to put their own life at risk; it's not just absurd, it's unfair. That's why killing in self-defence isn't considered murder.[/QUOTE] What does self defense have to do with it? Killing a number of people because some OTHER person is holding a gun to your head is not self-defense. Self defense is something completely different. You are defending your own life against a person who's attacking you, when it's reasonable to assume your life is in danger and you are out of non-lethal options to defend yourself. Only then killing another person is justified. Don't even try to equate the two.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;45998080]What does self defense have to do with it? Killing a number of people because some OTHER person is holding a gun to your head is not self-defense. Self defense is something completely different. You are defending your own life against a person who's attacking you, when it's reasonable to assume your life is in danger and you are out of non-lethal options to defend yourself. Only then killing another person is justified. Don't even try to equate the two.[/QUOTE] I'm not equating the two, I'm comparing them. In both cases, you have to do something which you not ordinarily do, in order to keep yourself alive. They both work on the same principle of self-preservation, that people's actions can be at least somewhat excused when they've confronted with their own mortality. If you kill someone because you've got a gun to your head and you're being told to do it, then you shouldn't be charged with murder. You had no alternative, other than to let yourself be killed, and while [I]some[/I] people might be willing to die instead of kill, that is not a standard which is fair to hold [I]everyone[/I] to.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;45998186]I'm not equating the two, I'm comparing them. In both cases, you have to do something which you not ordinarily do, in order to keep yourself alive. They both work on the same principle of self-preservation, that people's actions can be at least somewhat excused when they've confronted with their own mortality. If you kill someone because you've got a gun to your head and you're being told to do it, then you shouldn't be charged with murder. You had no alternative, other than to let yourself be killed, and while [I]some[/I] people might be willing to die instead of kill, that is not a standard which is fair to hold [I]everyone[/I] to.[/QUOTE] Not how it works. In both cases, a murder happens. A person dies in both scenarios. However, in the "Nuremberg defense" scenario, two wrongs are committed (a person is coerced and a person is murdered). It's a worse situation and unless you see coercion as worse than murder, it doesn't absolve the murderer of his crimes. It can, however, lessen his responsibility and result in a reduced sentence. However, in almost every case of the Nuremberg defense, it wasn't a case of "either you kill this guy or you die yourself," but it was "either you kill these dozen, hundred, or thousand people or you die yourself."

[QUOTE=Explosions;45987395]Well if he's convicted then it's not as if he got away.[/QUOTE] Yeah, then it's just that he got away for about 70 years.

[QUOTE=Explosions;45999368]Not how it works. In both cases, a murder happens. A person dies in both scenarios. However, in the "Nuremberg defense" scenario, two wrongs are committed (a person is coerced and a person is murdered). It's a worse situation and unless you see coercion as worse than murder, [B]it doesn't absolve the murderer of his crimes. [/B] It can, however, lessen his responsibility and result in a reduced sentence. However, in almost every case of the Nuremberg defense, it wasn't a case of "either you kill this guy or you die yourself," but it was "either you kill these dozen, hundred, or thousand people or you die yourself."[/QUOTE] Why does it not? You obviously realise that it's a mitigating circumstance, because you say it lessens his responsibility. If you make someone do something, [I]you're [/I]to blame.