|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is there ever a time limit on war crimes?
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
This story from Deutsche Welle (literally "German Wave", akin to the CBC, BBC or Aussie ABC) is about the search for the remaining Nazi war criminals. There appears to be no time limit or limitation on war crimes. Should there be a limit?
What does this mean, say for former USA president George Bush, and others like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney? Or perhaps nothing seeing as their country remains in protection of them.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Even criminal justice systems that have a statute of limitations usually don't time-limit liability for the most serious offenses, like murder. Since war crimes are offenses of similar severity (and often involve what would be considered murder in a civilian context) it's fairly consistent that they likewise be not time-limited for the purposes of prosecution.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
What does this mean, say for former USA president George Bush, and others like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney? Or perhaps nothing seeing as their country remains in protection of them.
It means they have to plot their future travels very carefully and avoid going to (or changing planes in) countries that have universal jurisdiction statutes for war crimes.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It means they have to plot their future travels very carefully and avoid going to (or changing planes in) countries that have universal jurisdiction statutes for war crimes.
Which means we're stuck with them. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
What does this mean, say for former USA president George Bush, and others like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney? Or perhaps nothing seeing as their country remains in protection of them.
Do you really mean to equate Bush, Cheney, et. al. with Hitler? Seriously? I'm no fan of W and his cronies (by any means), but it seems to me you're over-egging this one, unless you have some evidence of millions sent to slave labor camps and murdered under the Bush presidency.
Given the propensity of folks in some other countries to call for prosecuting American soldiers and politicians whenever the US does anything they don't agree with politically, (to say nothing of the court's procedures which directly contradict the rights of U.S. citizens under our Constitution), I'm rather glad we're not a party to the International Criminal Court.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Do you really mean to equate Bush, Cheney, et. al. with Hitler? Seriously? I'm no fan of W and his cronies (by any means), but it seems to me you're over-egging this one, unless you have some evidence of millions sent to slave labor camps and murdered under the Bush presidency.
I think you're using an incredibly narrow of "war crimes", one which doesn't seem to follow any international law I'm familiar with. "You're not a war criminal unless your crimes were on the same scale as Adolf Hitler's" is a ridiculously high standard. One benefit though is that it means virtually no one is a war criminal. Say you only disappeared and murdered a few thousand dissidents?* Or wiped out a few dozen small villages of some despised ethnic minority?* Well, those aren't war crimes according to jbohn.
--------------------
*I'm not specifically accusing the Bush administration of either of these, just citing them as examples of things that are typically regarded as war crimes today.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Even criminal justice systems that have a statute of limitations usually don't time-limit liability for the most serious offenses, like murder. Since war crimes are offenses of similar severity (and often involve what would be considered murder in a civilian context) it's fairly consistent that they likewise be not time-limited for the purposes of prosecution.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
What does this mean, say for former USA president George Bush, and others like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney? Or perhaps nothing seeing as their country remains in protection of them.
It means they have to plot their future travels very carefully and avoid going to (or changing planes in) countries that have universal jurisdiction statutes for war crimes.
Does anyone seriously suppose that any nation would actually arrest and try one or more of these individuals for war crimes? That sounds very far-fetched to me.
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I think a better question is whether anyone should be tried for any crime after the passage of many years. There is a saying that "justice delayed is justice denied"; it does work both ways, unjust to both accuser and accused.
The Nazi war crimes were committed 68 or more years ago. Anyone accused of them is necessarily in his or her middle 80s or later, and the witnesses are likewise aged and testifying to the events of their youth. The fact that such events were emotionally charged does not guarantee that they were accurately observed or are now accurately remembered. Most witnesses are dead and most evidence gone, not only for the prosecution but also for the defense.
The fact that a crime is heinous does not excuse us for ignoring the basic principles of our system of justice.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
Does anyone seriously suppose that any nation would actually arrest and try one or more of these individuals for war crimes? That sounds very far-fetched to me.
Realistically no. No one would want the trouble involved in prosecuting a former U.S. president or cabinet secretary. But there might be trouble some of the second-order or lower officials who crafted and implemented the policies, similar to the way only NCOs and enlisted were ever punished for the Abu Ghraib scandal.
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
The Nazi war crimes were committed 68 or more years ago. Anyone accused of them is necessarily in his or her middle 80s or later, and the witnesses are likewise aged and testifying to the events of their youth. The fact that such events were emotionally charged does not guarantee that they were accurately observed or are now accurately remembered. Most witnesses are dead and most evidence gone, not only for the prosecution but also for the defense.
The documentary evidence is probably about as well preserved as it was at the end of the war. To spin out an hypothetical, say Heinrich Müller turns up. (Unlikely, as he'd be over a hundred by now, but bear with me.) Are you seriously contending that even if there were no competent living witnesses who could swear to Müller's crimes, the document record of his Gestapo activities (including involvement in planning the Holocaust) wouldn't be sufficient to convict him?
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
The fact that a crime is heinous does not excuse us for ignoring the basic principles of our system of justice.
Except that's what you seem to be arguing. "[T]he basic principles of our system of justice" is that the accused faces trial and if evidence is sufficient is subjected to some form of punishment. You seem to be saying that there's some opt out where we don't have to bother with the weighing of evidence.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I don't think I am the one who is inverting the argument.
Suppose John Jones is falsely accused of committing a crime 50 years after its commission. If he had been accused after only 5 years, he might have been able to produce witnesses to exonerate himself, but the witnesses are now gone. Why didn't he get affidavits from them earlier? Why should he have done so if he is in fact innocent?
Even the question of identifying a man of 80 from 50-year-old photographs is hard to face. I don't know about you, but I have sometimes been misidentified. There is also the question of capacity; an old man accused of being a Nazi war criminal may suffer from memory problems which make him unable to participate in his own defense.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Say you only disappeared and murdered a few thousand dissidents?* Or wiped out a few dozen small villages of some despised ethnic minority?* Well, those aren't war crimes according to jbohn.
No - they may or may not be, I suppose. I was questioning the tired old "Bush = Hitler" trope I smelled in the OP. Starting off with a Nazi case and immediately jumping to Bush sets off the BS detector.
(Generally, "X = Hitler" is a tired trope (c.f. Godwin's Law), but there seems to be a lot of it directed at G. W. Bush., which is unfortunate - there are plenty of reasons to dislike the Bush presidency without stooping to that old canard.)
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The documentary evidence is probably about as well preserved as it was at the end of the war.
Not necessarily - evidence that ended up in Soviet hands was in some cases later destroyed, either by the Soviets, or in the fall of the USSR.
[ 29. April 2013, 20:32: Message edited by: jbohn ]
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
The fact that a crime is heinous does not excuse us for ignoring the basic principles of our system of justice.
This would appear naive in the real politik of today where justice and principles are things to mention but not really consider of much importance.
But: Guantanamo Bay
But: children imprisoned in the above
But: Water drowning torture, the so called water boarding, and all the other illegal torture done in the WOT (war on terror), done to Guatanamo Bay people and in other non-acknowledged black sites by proxies for those who wish them tortured more severely or killed
But: drone attack bombings
[ 29. April 2013, 20:41: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Shipmates might want to remember the Pinochet case of some years ago.
As far as the US is concerned, the only serious case of which I know is that of Henry Kissinger, whose attorneys' enquiries precede his travels, so that he need not worry about finding himself in a similar situation.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Of course there are going to be difficulties in prosecuting very aged people. Equally there are difficulties in trying to find evidence when the landscape - political and geographical - has changed so fundamentally.
But that doesn't mean that anyone has the right to say "OK, you can breathe easily now" to war criminals, especially those either wanted for or charged in absentia with the slaughter hundreds of innocents.
Listen to the poison and lies that is still spouted about the events of 1939-45 by Holocaust deniers, look at the preparedness of people in modern-day Russia to ignore the millions of their own countrymen and women who were murdered by Stalin, observe the re-writing of Japanese history that is going ahead almost without question: any attempt to pronounce what would, effectively, be a free pardon for perpetrators of mass murder would just give ammunition to bigots the world over.
What sort of message would it send to the people still committing horrific crimes in places like the DRC today? How about a possible future Mao or Stalin?
So prosecutions are unlikely 60+++ years after the event: that fact cannot be undone. But I suggest the very least we can offer to the victims and - perhaps more importantly - to the few remaining survivors of planned genocide is that the monsters who performed such unspeakable acts always sleep uneasily and look over their shoulder, even if they are in a wheelchair.
I'd suggest there are some crimes that are too big, too grotesque for any body or tribunal to decide that they can be officially laid to rest.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I wondered about this because half of my family of origin is German. All of the men of my family who served in the German army and SS were war killed. We know where they served, for some of them, that their units participated in atrocities, and for one that he was killed after capture. The investigation of that death is something that they won't release to us. I believe we have war crimes on both sides for this specific situation, what my cousin did, and what they did to him on capture.
The point about law and justice and rules is that the tendency is to ignore the after capture death because it was probably related to having killed civilians. At least, this is what the younger people in my family hold.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
L'organist: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
There is no statute of limitation on war crimes. That is one reason why the Massad is still hunting criminals from WWII, but it will not take long before they will be long gone.
This American, BTW, would dearly love to see George W Bush and company brought up on war crime charges. It is one reason you will not see Bush going to any Interpol countries.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
(Generally, "X = Hitler" is a tired trope (c.f. Godwin's Law)
Perhaps, but the fact remains that if Hitler was in essence an ordinary human being, someone somewhere is going to be as bad as Hitler. Setting up Hitler as some kind of 'ultimate evil' is a function of clever marketing, not factual accuracy that he is the worst of the worst and cannot be matched.
This is not to say that Hitler wasn't extremely evil. He was. It's to say that his evil is not unique.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
This thread is a massive wank which has nothing to do with justice or ethics, and is just another excuse for a moralistic wallow in anti-American bigotry.
Is it really possible to be so ignorant of (or willfully obscurantist about) modern history and current affairs as to imagine that Americans are the only ones to have ever been guilty of (alleged) human rights abuses or war crimes?
At least L’organist mentioned Stalin and Mao, a reminder that with the exception of the prosecution of some Kampuchean Khmer Rouge, there has been practically no interest in hunting down and trying communist criminals – ditto for Islamofascists, and the dictators of hellholes right across post-colonial Africa.
There was talk of arresting Pinochet, but none of arresting his fellow caudillo Castro, who has been responsible for far more deaths.
It is inconceivable that the (admittedly unsatisfactory) American detention centre at Guantanamo Bay can receive so much attention while rampant human rights abuses just over the fence in Cuba continue to be effectively ignored, as they have been for over half a century.
Likewise Abu Ghraib, which saw inexcusable treatment of prisoners by the Americans, which are endlessly publicised, but which saw infinitely more and worse atrocities, about which no-one gave or gives a fuck, committed by Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Deliberate bombing of civilians during WWII, by whatever air forces, was wrong, so according to the moral nihilism displayed on this thread, Churchill should have been in the dock alongside the Nazi leaders, and investigators should today be hunting down former members of Bomber Command.
Striving for some sense of proportion is more important than proving one’s trendy-left credentials by attacking fashionable targets.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Kaplan Corday writes:
quote:
There was talk of arresting Pinochet, but none of arresting his fellow caudillo Castro, who has been responsible for far more deaths.
There was more than talk. Pinochet was arrested twice, held in the UK from 1998-2000 under a Spanish warrant, and held under house arrest in Chile from 2004-2006 (when he died) facing over 300 individual charges. As far as Castro goes, there was discussion about a dossier against him being prepared in Spain (as a number of his victims were Spanish citizens) but it didn't get beyond draft stage, partly because of technical reasons after the collapse of the Pinochet case and partly because, at the time, he was still head of state (although that latter grounds of immunity is much more rickety than it once was).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
KC,
The first stone thrown was by a Canadian, one of the few countries not made entirely of glass. (Google Canadian War Crimes and the Internet laughs at you.)
Yes, there are other more culpable people than Bush and company, but it is not graded on a curve. Unfortunately, the pursuit of abusers will always be more about politics than justice.
Btw, America gets a spotlight because it is powerful, but mostly for all the rhetoric it throws about, then procedes to do what it says it reviles.
And to perpetrate a crime in the midst of a war on a country who's practice of the same was used to justify said war?* Crazy.
*you know, after the initial lies could no longer be sustained.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
(Generally, "X = Hitler" is a tired trope (c.f. Godwin's Law)
Perhaps, but the fact remains that if Hitler was in essence an ordinary human being, someone somewhere is going to be as bad as Hitler. Setting up Hitler as some kind of 'ultimate evil' is a function of clever marketing, not factual accuracy that he is the worst of the worst and cannot be matched.
This is not to say that Hitler wasn't extremely evil. He was. It's to say that his evil is not unique.
True. The banality of evil, as it were. It's just that his equals are quite few and far between - and I still haven't heard the justification for Bush making the short list. (Short bus - that may be another matter... ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
This thread is a massive wank which has nothing to do with justice or ethics, and is just another excuse for a moralistic wallow in anti-American bigotry.
This.
It's more of that tired old
quote:
"The Americans are wrong, and they do bad things, and they should do things the way we civilized Europeans/Canadians/Australians do They're uncouth, uncivilized, and useless - except when we want their help."
BS that pops up from time to time.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
More than than lilBuddha. This Canadian believes he had war criminal cousins.
Further, the mere acknowledgement of war crimes at all has been a difficulty. That there is perception of imbalance in the persecution of America re this, is due at least in major part to the statements about freedom, equality and democracy which doesn't correspond well to actual behaviour. Some of the behaviour does coincide with what are considered war crimes, other corresponds with what are considered violations of human rights.
But I think this is a side issue to the core. Is there ever a time to stop re war crimes and move on? I think people are saying that there really isn't but that it becomes impractical to proceed as decades pass. I'm persuaded that it is probably right to document and pursue everything, so as to hopefully learn something, and to also hold out a threat to people who contemplate such actions that there will never be a rest.
It feels different to me I think than to some of the others on this thread, given the German relatives I have, what was done by them and to them. Some things cast long shadows.
[tangent]
Cuba, which was raised, isn't committing war crimes, it is committing human rights violations. We tend to be more forgiving of Cuba than America because it is still within a blockade since it overthrew a very bad dictator half a century ago, which is more complicated because this dictator was America's guy. America seems to taking special Viagra over Cuba, which seem to correspond to neither its threat nor its politics. So it must be about money.
[/tangent]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Nobody has mentioned that most of the International Criminal Court's work has been in indicting and imprisoning several prominent war criminals in Africa. IIRC, there has been a Rwandan convicted (Désiré Munyaneza) of crimes against humanity by a Canadian court, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
[tangent]
Cuba, which was raised, isn't committing war crimes, it is committing human rights violations. We tend to be more forgiving of Cuba than America because it is still within a blockade since it overthrew a very bad dictator half a century ago, which is more complicated because this dictator was America's guy. America seems to taking special Viagra over Cuba, which seem to correspond to neither its threat nor its politics. So it must be about money.
[/tangent]
You would be looking at either genocide or crimes against humanity if you're talking about the crimes defined by the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction.
Domestic issues in Cuba would not be covered by the ICC's jurisdiction though, unless the person/s perpetrating them came from an ICC member state. This lack of jurisdiction could be overridden by a UN Security Council Resolution, but the possibility of that not being vetoed by China and quite probably by Russia would rule out any of Castro's acts being tried by the ICC.
More concerning for Bush and buddies is that Afghanistan is a member state of the ICC, which means any war crimes and/or crimes against humanity committed by the Bush administration after 1 July 2002 do already come under the jurisdiction of the ICC even though the USA is not a member state. Avoiding countries claiming universal jurisdiction would be very wise for the key players mentioned upthread.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
We tend to be more forgiving of Cuba than America because it is still within a blockade since it overthrew a very bad dictator half a century ago, which is more complicated because this dictator was America's guy.
OK, I think I've got it.
The fact that America wrongly supported Batista over half a century ago and has wrongly run a pointless blockade ever since, means that the Castro dynasty should be immune from any criticism for running a lethal dictatorship which denies Cubans fundamental human rights which we take for granted.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
We tend to be more forgiving of Cuba than America because it is still within a blockade since it overthrew a very bad dictator half a century ago, which is more complicated because this dictator was America's guy.
Cuba is being blockaded? By whom?
According to the Wikipedia article on the US embargo:
quote:
The USA does not block Cuba's trade with third-party countries: other countries are not under the jurisdiction of US domestic laws, such as the Cuban Democracy Act. Cuba can, and does, conduct international trade with many third-party countries;[4] Cuba has been a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) since 1995.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
We tend to be more forgiving of Cuba than America because it is still within a blockade since it overthrew a very bad dictator half a century ago, which is more complicated because this dictator was America's guy.
OK, I think I've got it.
The fact that America wrongly supported Batista over half a century ago and has wrongly run a pointless blockade ever since, means that the Castro dynasty should be immune from any criticism for running a lethal dictatorship which denies Cubans fundamental human rights which we take for granted.
As much as I'm not going to put Bush and Cheney at the top of the war crimes list, it always flabbergasts me when someone mounts the "this thread is invalid because it doesn't cover everything" argument.
Immune from criticism? Who said anything about being immune from criticism? This is a war crimes thread. Cuba doesn't leap to mind for war crimes. If you want to start a thread about a relevant topic, such as human rights violations in communist countries, let's see if Cuba comes up.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The first stone thrown was by a Canadian, one of the few countries not made entirely of glass. (Google Canadian War Crimes and the Internet laughs at you.)
More like a snicker than a laugh.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The first stone thrown was by a Canadian, one of the few countries not made entirely of glass. (Google Canadian War Crimes and the Internet laughs at you.)
More like a snicker than a laugh.
So, then, Bush is comparable to Hitler?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, then, Bush is comparable to Hitler?
My point is that Canada is not as clean as you were claiming it was. I agree with others on this thread that this OP is yet another BS shot at the US that a few of my fellow North Americans from north of the 49th parallel seem to thrive on.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I did say "not entirely made of glass." Which is intended to read as not entirely innocent, bu not as guilty. The UK, France, Germany, etc. would also have a difficult time approaching their international record.
It is the do as I say, not as I do coupled with superpower that often brings criticism of the US.
ETA: If you wish to return fire, you have plenty of ammunition regarding their domestic affronts.
[ 01. May 2013, 04:27: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
Does anyone seriously suppose that any nation would actually arrest and try one or more of these individuals for war crimes? That sounds very far-fetched to me.
That's what I thought about General Pinochet until the sixteenth of October 1998 (that link explains my reasons for rejoicing at the time. I don't think I've changed my opinions on this since)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
The UK does not in general have any limitation period for crimes. There are a few exceptions, but most of them are fairly minor, e.g. some motoring ones.
It seems to me there is a difference between two situations.
1. The offence is known, complained of, and the subject of investigation, from shortly after time of commission, but until years afterwards, either:-
a. Nobody has been able to solve who did it, or
b. The accused has been identified but cannot be found, or has gone to ground somewhere legally inaccessible.
In those cases, there's quite a good case for saying the wheels of justice should be able to grind indefinitely, without a limitation period.
Or
2. Nobody complained about the offence at the time, or it was known about but nobody issued any charges, until long after the event.
In those cases, I think there should be a tight limitation period. The state or the possible victim should be obliged to act promptly. This is not the case at the moment. Nevertheless, IMHO if they sit on their hands for half a generation or more, they should forfeit any right to be listened to.
So, if it's being argued that George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney have committed war crimes, the grounds are known now. So, let somebody issue charges now - even if the potential accused is legally inaccessible - or for ever hold their peace.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This is not to say that Hitler wasn't extremely evil. He was. It's to say that his evil is not unique.
True. The banality of evil, as it were. It's just that his equals are quite few and far between
Leaving Bush or any other specific person out of it, but just in general - do we really know that Hitler was nearly unique as to personality? Or was it that for once a sociopath was in the rare set of circumstances to get control of a major nation-state?
50 years earlier or later, he'd have been just another grumpy man down the street who goes to the factory every day and comes home and gets drunk spouting off nonsense - or maybe he'd be a "journalist" for a "conspiracy" loving radio station.
To me the scary thing about Nazi Germany is not just Hitler but everyone else - how far could Hitler have gotten if a whole lot of otherwise normal people weren't willing to actively participate? Otherwise normal people. In the "right" circumstances, you and me?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I think a better question is whether anyone should be tried for any crime after the passage of many years. There is a saying that "justice delayed is justice denied"; it does work both ways, unjust to both accuser and accused.
This is why some crimes have statute of limitation. But war crimes usually don't. That doesn't mean it gets easier as time goes by to get witnesses and evidence.
However saying it's unjust to not prosecute someone who fled justice for many years reminds me of the definition of chutzpah; A person who kills both his parents and throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
...do we really know that Hitler was nearly unique as to personality? Or was it that for once a sociopath was in the rare set of circumstances to get control of a major nation-state?
<snip>
To me the scary thing about Nazi Germany is not just Hitler but everyone else - how far could Hitler have gotten if a whole lot of otherwise normal people weren't willing to actively participate? Otherwise normal people. In the "right" circumstances, you and me?
I have read a great deal about German history between 1900 and 1945. Almost all the Germans who were adults when Hitler came to power had been in school while the Kaiser was on the throne. They were taught that they belonged to the state, not that the state belonged to them. They were taught that obedience was the highest virtue and that they were not supposed to think for themselves. After the Kaiser was overthrown, suddenly they were expected to embrace democracy; they didn't have a clue how it worked.
Conditions in Germany were very bad for many people during the 1920s and early 1930s. The economy was in dismal shape.
There are two things that most people insist on having--the ability to gain the things they need, and the right to live their lives in peace. When jobs were unavailable, people could get what they needed only by accepting handouts. As far as peace is concerned, street brawls were quite common and disruptive. The Nazis were involved in many of these brawls, but the Communists were equally involved. There were also quite a few smaller groups who tried to gain their way by violence. I think most of us would find these conditions unbearable.
My own personal opinion is that if the Kaiser had been left on the throne with his wings clipped, Hitler would never have come to power. It's likely that he wouldn't have wanted to come to power; he seems to have been very much in favor of the Kaiser. Many of Hitler's early followers were royalists who took Hitler as the best available option.
Finally, when the Nazis were in power, they kept tight control on what information was available to the public. The Gestapo kept a very close eye on everyone. People who repeated rumors the government didn't like could find themselves in prison or concentration camps.
When I lived in Germany in the 1950s, I knew a number of ex-Party members who had joined after Hitler came to power. They had noticed that the economy had improved and there was peace in the streets. They also still believed that they belonged to the government, rather than the government belonging to them.
In the 1950s these people were still confused about how government and society are supposed to work.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I think a better question is whether anyone should be tried for any crime after the passage of many years. There is a saying that "justice delayed is justice denied"; it does work both ways, unjust to both accuser and accused.
The quote, and its variations, are meant to emphasise the need to speed the process; not set a sell by date.
Act of limitations/Statutes of limitations are set to protect defendants, but some crimes are deliberately excluded.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I have read a great deal about German history between 1900 and 1945. Almost all the Germans who were adults when Hitler came to power had been in school while the Kaiser was on the throne. They were taught that they belonged to the state, not that the state belonged to them. They were taught that obedience was the highest virtue and that they were not supposed to think for themselves. After the Kaiser was overthrown, suddenly they were expected to embrace democracy; they didn't have a clue how it worked.
Conditions in Germany were very bad for many people during the 1920s and early 1930s. The economy was in dismal shape.
There are two things that most people insist on having--the ability to gain the things they need, and the right to live their lives in peace. When jobs were unavailable, people could get what they needed only by accepting handouts. As far as peace is concerned, street brawls were quite common and disruptive. The Nazis were involved in many of these brawls, but the Communists were equally involved. There were also quite a few smaller groups who tried to gain their way by violence. I think most of us would find these conditions unbearable.
My own personal opinion is that if the Kaiser had been left on the throne with his wings clipped, Hitler would never have come to power. It's likely that he wouldn't have wanted to come to power; he seems to have been very much in favor of the Kaiser. Many of Hitler's early followers were royalists who took Hitler as the best available option.
Finally, when the Nazis were in power, they kept tight control on what information was available to the public. The Gestapo kept a very close eye on everyone. People who repeated rumors the government didn't like could find themselves in prison or concentration camps.
When I lived in Germany in the 1950s, I knew a number of ex-Party members who had joined after Hitler came to power. They had noticed that the economy had improved and there was peace in the streets. They also still believed that they belonged to the government, rather than the government belonging to them.
In the 1950s these people were still confused about how government and society are supposed to work.
Moo
There is good information and truth in what you've written. One part of my German family would label the parts about the Kaiser, obedience and statism as Prussian and as guttural as their accents, the other part would agree and continue to see the thread as existing within the tapestry of German society and personality. But I have pictures of all them as young people wearing various uniforms and swastika armbands.
One of the clear things is that the antisemitism, which seems often the first focus when discussing Nazi Germany, was a constant among general public opinion in Germany and in other countries. The German evil genius was to industrialize it. It is also not eradicated, but is continuing in parts of Germany as well as neighbouring countries, with Roma, Turks and other less white peoples.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There is no statute of limitations here below. At all. Ever. On anything. I am guilty of the war crimes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Blair. Chamberlain. Churchill. Lloyd George. Wellington, Pitt. Name it. I claimed it all in my name. Guilty. If Caesar decides to punish Caesars's loyal subjects for their loyalty, hail Caesar.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
One of the clear things is that the antisemitism, which seems often the first focus when discussing Nazi Germany, was a constant among general public opinion in Germany
Well yes, and for some time, too.
I am currently reading a just-published biography, Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life by Jonathan Sperber.
Anti-Semitic riots took place in major German cities in 1819, wnen Marx was only one, and Sperber quotes the following description by Marx of his fellow-Jew and fellow-socialist Ferdinand Lasalle:-
"It is now completely clear to me, that, as proven by the shape of his head and the growth of his hair, he stems from the Negroes who joined the march of Moses out of Egypt (if his mother or grandmother on his father's side did not mate with a nigger). Now this combination of Jewry and Germanism with the negroid basic substance must bring forth a peculiar product. The pushiness of this lad is also nigger-like".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
This thread is a massive wank which has nothing to do with justice or ethics, and is just another excuse for a moralistic wallow in anti-American bigotry.
I'd go along with that .
Two World Wars brought to a conclusion with American help, and the Soviet threat faced down and ultimately eliminated by the US seem to be forgotten.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Two World Wars brought to a conclusion with American help, and the Soviet threat faced down and ultimately eliminated by the US seem to be forgotten.
This is analogous to a "yeah, but think of all the people I didn't kill" defense against a murder charge. It's not an argument anyone would take seriously about any other country. For instance, it could be argued that the Soviet Union was more critical to having the Second World War "brought to a conclusion" than the U.S. Does that mean they get a pass on everything else? What's the exchange rate, anyway? One concentration liberated = one gulag forgiven?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Two World Wars brought to a conclusion with American help, and the Soviet threat faced down and ultimately eliminated by the US seem to be forgotten.
This is analogous to a "yeah, but think of all the people I didn't kill" defense against a murder charge. It's not an argument anyone would take seriously about any other country. For instance, it could be argued that the Soviet Union was more critical to having the Second World War "brought to a conclusion" than the U.S. Does that mean they get a pass on everything else? What's the exchange rate, anyway? One concentration liberated = one gulag forgiven?
Sorry. I missed this. Is it being argued that one's forefathers delivering Europe from the Nazis somehow entitles one to commit war crimes now - or at least have a blind eye turned to one's lesser ones?
'Surely some mistake?'
Isn't it part of the point that war crimes aren't committed by states, but by individuals. So if you commit one, you are personally accountable - for what you yourself do, what you order others to do and what you don't stop them doing on your watch?
I still stand, though, by everything else I've already said on this thread.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
An individual might provide the focus, but the lens is most definitely the state. And we are the state.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Isn't it part of the point that war crimes aren't committed by states, but by individuals.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The most infamous example is the SS, which was declared a "criminal organization" because of its various activities under the Reich. This didn't translate to all SS members being considered criminals, though it did lead to the ruling that the Waffen-SS were ineligible for military pensions. An exception was later carved out for those who were conscripts.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I wondered about this because half of my family of origin is German. All of the men of my family who served in the German army and SS were war killed. We know where they served, for some of them, that their units participated in atrocities, and for one that he was killed after capture. The investigation of that death is something that they won't release to us. I believe we have war crimes on both sides for this specific situation, what my cousin did, and what they did to him on capture.
The point about law and justice and rules is that the tendency is to ignore the after capture death because it was probably related to having killed civilians. At least, this is what the younger people in my family hold.
No Prophet,
Killing in war is messy. However the problems you mention and those that impacted on your family relates to the systematic, organised and planned destruction of all Jews, political opponents and other undesirables of the Third Reich.
You mention one half of your family who were presumably in the (Waffen) SS. There are so many examples of the Waffen SS killing many many allied and Soviet prisoners in cold blood (But a few examples, there were in fact many hundreds of examples where 1000s were killed , General Monke near Dunkirk Wormhoult France killed surrendered British troops in 1940 by putting them in a barn shooting and setting it on fire). Malmedy Ardennes 1944 SS Officer Joachim Peiper killed (or men under him did) many US GIs, unarmed and well after the fog of war. Canadian troops June 1944 D Day slaughtered by the SS Hitler Jugend well after their surrender on orders from SS Officers and NCOs. I could go on.
It was no wonder that any Waffen SS survived at all, as allied and Soviet combat soldiers took a very dim view of their ''rules of war'' code.
The other branch of the SS (Allgemeine SS) killed men, women and infants on a mass scale. They were the camp killers and looked after the deaths of millions.
However injustice is injustice and I was surprised that a 93 year old SS man was arrested on criminal charges....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22427976
Time limits are academic now as hardly any Nazi criminals still live and those that do are too old to stand trial - IMHO.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For instance, it could be argued that the Soviet Union was more critical to having the Second World War "brought to a conclusion" than the U.S. Does that mean they get a pass on everything else? What's the exchange rate, anyway? One concentration liberated = one gulag forgiven?
Well yeah OK point taken . Mind you, no-one ever got convicted of a crime over the gulags did they ?
Maybe we shouldn't have had the Nuremburg trials and hanged all those Nazis . That seems to have set the precedent that some of the rest of us find impossible to live up to .
Iraq and Afghanistan may well have turned out all a bit all cock-up -ish , yes many civilians inadvertently killed . Guantanamo, agreed -- not great. But on a par with the activities of the Nazis ? H'mmmm
As an aside . What if N Korea really had started lobbing a few nukes around last month . What happens when Iran develops the bomb and slips a couple devices to Britain's resident suicide bombers .
Who are we going to turn to ? The U.S is my guess.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Here's some news that may be relevant to this thread.
quote:
Former Guatemalan dictator Efrain Rios Montt was found guilty on Friday of genocide and crimes against humanity during the bloodiest phase of the country's 36-year civil war and was sentenced to 80 years in prison.
<snip>
It was the first time a former head of state had been found guilty of genocide in his or her own country.
Rios Montt, now 86, took power after a coup in 1982 and was accused of implementing a scorched-earth policy in which troops massacred thousands of indigenous villagers thought to be helping leftist rebels. He proclaimed his innocence in court.
So, is thirty years too long to wait to prosecute a monster like Montt? If there is a time limit on war crimes, is it longer or shorter than that? And should he be free from prosecution because he wasn't quite as bad as Adolf Hitler, as some have suggested. (Montt probably rates ~150 milliHitlers on the scale of oppressive dictators.)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by rolyn
Two World Wars brought to a conclusion with American help, and the Soviet threat faced down and ultimately eliminated by the US seem to be forgotten.
Not forgotten - but perhaps we are more aware of the length and scale of the World Wars because we were in both for their entire length?
After all, a regular in the British Army could have been sent overseas at the beginning of September 1914, whereas the first US troops didn't arrive for deployment until the spring of 1918. The USA was only an active participant in World War I for 10½ months - rather different from the 50 months of the French, British and German armies.
Again in World War II, although the US Navy and the Coast Guard had a couple of brushes with U-boats off the US eastern seaboard, the first active engagements for US troops didn't happen until the Spring of 1942. Active participation for the US was spread over a maximum period of less than 3½ years - significantly less time than the other major participants.
Perhaps there would be less anti-americanism if the rest of the world hadn't been fed a steady diet of films showing the US single-handedly "winning the war".
It would have helped, too, if there hadn't been such a blatant sweeping under the carpet of atrocities in the Far East by Douglas Macarthur after the surrender of Japan: it wasn't only that this valued as nothing the horrors endured by British, Dutch, French and Anzac troops who had been taken prisoner in the far east, but it ignored completely the massacres and atrocities suffered by the people of China.
For much of the Cold War the appalling suffering endured by Soviet citizens at the hands of the Nazis were ignored. Worse, most americans are still pretty much unaware that China was fighting the Japanese for a full 5 years before the US entered the war. Of course, both China and the USSR had the "wrong" politics...
As for facing down the Soviet threat, I think the forces of the UK, France, Finland, Netherlands, etc, etc might have had some part in defending the western side of the iron curtain.
And before you mention the Marshall Plan, just remember that significant sums were paid to those worthy combatant nations Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland - the latter two of which made huge profits throughout the war at the expense of both sides.
This is not an anti-american rant - I rather like the denizens of the USA; but I am irritated that they re-write history to suit their own sometimes inflated view of their part in it. In this they bear a striking resemblance to another state which re-wrote history to suit its own world view - the USSR.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Everyone re-writes history. The American sin is more one of exclusion.
As to "owing" America, this does not imply ignoring abuse is acceptable.
Suppose a neighbor donated blood after you had been involved in an automobile accident. Must you then overlook his beating one of his children?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
