BF2S Forums A Nazi death camp guard has been charged over the murders of 430,000

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's real fuckin easy to defend, being a member of a political party is not illegal and following military orders does not make you legally responsible for what you are doing.

if you were a constitutional originalist... maybe not.

if you're a modern judge in a modern world with lots of war-time conventions and treaties to respect... definitely could be found culpable.

furthermore, breaking war-time laws means you're not treated as an ordinary citizen and you have a military arrest -> military tribunal / martial. much worse punishments with not even half of the rights afforded to an ordinary wartime non-combatant. so suffice to say FM, you're pretty much categorically wrong according to legal precedent and historical example.

@krazed, regarding the 'family safety' thing, one could rely upon a legal criminal defense of duress, if the perceived threat was reasonable and foreseeable.

I mean on the one hand, I understand the point of view that the dude is 88 years old and it's time to let it go. On the other hand, I can fully understand wanting to exact revenge on a dude that may have killed my wife, mother, father, brother, sister, best friend etc. I think the real purpose is to spark terror in camp guards and nazis who may still be alive so that their lives are full of fear of Mosad coming into their home in the middle of the night one day and placing a black bag over their head.

I thought it was a bit over the top when the US extradited a 78 year old grandfather who was essentially on life support out of his Ohio home and sent him to Germany for trial though...

if one of your supervisors tells you to go and put a bullet in the head of an 8 year old girl, you could tell him to fuck off.

eleven bravo wrote:

if one of your supervisors tells you to go and put a bullet in the head of an 8 year old girl, you could tell him to fuck off.

I don't think that was taught over a century ago, I'm fairly certain it was taught after Nuremberg. But yeah, if your chain of command gives you an order that violates the Geneva Convention or the ROE you are within your rights to refuse the order and will be held legally responsible if you do not.

Uzique wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I mean on the one hand, I understand the point of view that the dude is 88 years old and it's time to let it go. On the other hand, I can fully understand wanting to exact revenge on a dude that may have killed my wife, mother, father, brother, sister, best friend etc. I think the real purpose is to spark terror in camp guards and nazis who may still be alive so that their lives are full of fear of Mosad coming into their home in the middle of the night one day and placing a black bag over their head.

you really have to ask though, at the bottom-line, what does revanchist legal policy achieve for the majority? who does it appease, and why? generally i find that legal decisions made with such an ulterior motive are poor legal decisions, but exacting social ones. strictly, according to principles of justice, the exterior-social world should never interfere with the careful consideration of the balance of justice within a court-room.

It doesn't do anything for the majority, but it helps the victims have closure. By denying justice to the family of the victim, you essentially say that the life of the criminal is worth more than that of the victim. I fully believe that the punishment should fit the crime.

eleven bravo wrote:

if one of your supervisors tells you to go and put a bullet in the head of an 8 year old girl, you could tell him to fuck off.

There's so much of a grey area though.

One end someone says to shot an 8 year old in the head, you can tell him to fuck off. But what about combatants behind a school of young children and you're under fire from them. What if you tell him to go fuck himself then?

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I mean on the one hand, I understand the point of view that the dude is 88 years old and it's time to let it go. On the other hand, I can fully understand wanting to exact revenge on a dude that may have killed my wife, mother, father, brother, sister, best friend etc. I think the real purpose is to spark terror in camp guards and nazis who may still be alive so that their lives are full of fear of Mosad coming into their home in the middle of the night one day and placing a black bag over their head.

you really have to ask though, at the bottom-line, what does revanchist legal policy achieve for the majority? who does it appease, and why? generally i find that legal decisions made with such an ulterior motive are poor legal decisions, but exacting social ones. strictly, according to principles of justice, the exterior-social world should never interfere with the careful consideration of the balance of justice within a court-room.

It doesn't do anything for the majority, but it helps the victims have closure. By denying justice to the family of the victim, you essentially say that the life of the criminal is worth more than that of the victim. I fully believe that the punishment should fit the crime.

the crime was against an individual, though, not against its family. there was no intent to hurt a family. by that measure - and if it became legal precedent - every murder case would result in an instantaneous death-penalty, regardless of the possible defenses and facts of the case, because the family would be, in their uniquely christian way, baying like hounds for the blood of the perpetrator. 'revenge, revenge!'... 'if you have been wrong'd, wrong back equally'... it's ridiculous, in my opinion. the state and judiciary can take a nobler stance and can be the 'better' party and try to do something positive with a bad-case, or it can pointlessly further senseless death and revanchist agendas.

the execution of saddam hussein comes into mind. and the excellent satirical analysis of christian morality in shakespeare's the merchant of venice. 'a pound of flesh' etc.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-07-29 09:17:23)

hay guys let's charge soldiers for murder when they shoot at enemy combatants

When a soldier is acting on their own they are responsible for their actions. When they are following orders they are acting on behalf of the state.

Uzique wrote:

furthermore, breaking war-time laws means you're not treated as an ordinary citizen and you have a military arrest -> military tribunal / martial. much worse punishments with not even half of the rights afforded to an ordinary wartime non-combatant. so suffice to say FM, you're pretty much categorically wrong according to legal precedent and historical example.

If you're breaking wartime laws then you're not following orders are you? Unless of course you were in the army of say, Nazi Germany.

eleven bravo wrote:

cant speak for other parts of the world but the US military has had a policy of giving soldiers the option of not following immoral orders during war since at least before the 20th century.

At which point you are subject to review by the military.

You are not legally responsible if you follow the order (within a little fucking reason), the person giving the order is legally responsible. You disobey and you are responsible for your own actions, and you better damn well hope your tribunal agrees with you.

eleven bravo wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

if one of your supervisors tells you to go and put a bullet in the head of an 8 year old girl, you could tell him to fuck off.

I don't think that was taught over a century ago, I'm fairly certain it was taught after Nuremberg. But yeah, if your chain of command gives you an order that violates the Geneva Convention or the ROE you are within your rights to refuse the order and will be held legally responsible if you do not.

I remember this exchange from the movie glory.  sounds too specific to chalk it up to poetic license.  I'm late for class

Col. Montgomery: [ordering the burning of Darien, Georgia] Prepare your men to light torches!
Colonel Robert G. Shaw: I will not!
Col. Montgomery: That is an order!
Colonel Robert G. Shaw: An immoral order, and by the Articles of War, I am not bound to follow it!
Col. Montgomery: Then, you can explain that at your court-martial... after your men are placed under my command!

Ha! My dad was in that movie as a confederate soldier extra.

Just a point... someone mentioned previously in this thread that the guards at these camps were all volunteers. Well, when the choice is going to the Russian front or guarding a prison, 99% of the German population would've chosen to guard the camp. No one wanted to fight on the Eastern Front.

And there is nothing wrong with a trial. The only part of my original post that referenced you more than anyone else was where you said "pretty hard to defend, though.". He should be quite confident morally in his case.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

And there is nothing wrong with a trial. The only part of my original post that referenced you more than anyone else was where you said "pretty hard to defend, though.". He should be quite confident morally in his case.

i said 'pretty hard to defend, though' because of the described social-outside interference with the ordinary due course of the law.

the fact it's even being discussed on internet forums is an indicator of the struggle for proper 'justice'.

swiss national sympathizes with nazis and nazi-crimes, not for the first time ITT