Nazi prison guard found living in U.K.

[dross]

We as Americans like to forget that we slaughtered and imprisoned a continent of people. America was created through a genocide worse than what the Nazis did. Do you have an "informed revulsion" for every American veteran throughout our expansion?

Who is "we?" I didn't slaughter or imprison anyone. Do you know of someone living who did? If there are any people alive today who committed crimes against humanity concerning the Indians, let's bring them to trial. I'd be all for it.

Also, it's simplistic to lump the entire history of expansion and interactions with Indians all together and call it genocide. Each tribe, each area, each time period is a different set of circumstances. Some of it came close to being genocide. Some of it was completely different, and some of it was entirely justified.

If you don't, then you're being an extreme hypocrite. Or how about our own internment of Japanese-Americans? I also can't see how our carpet bombing cities is somehow forgivable. As others have mentioned, prosecution of Nazis are basically witch hunts. People get rabid and start frothing at the mouth at the mere mention of them. Someone mentioned in another thread how we like to think of the Nazis as some soulless beasts spawned straight from hell, creatures of pure evil, instead of humans.

Our internment of Japanese citizens was tyranny. It was not, however, comparable to the death camps. Differences in degree matter.

Carpet bombing cities? Perfectly justifiable, IMO. Don't bring about a war if you don't want to face the horrors of war. If you hit me, I don't have to just hit you as hard as you hit me, I can justifiably hit you until you are no longer capable of hitting me.

It is precisely BECAUSE the Nazis were human that we must hunt them down and punish them. We must make other humans realize how badly it will go for them if they choose that path.

All I'm suggesting is that I don't think every man that ever wore a Nazi uniform should be held responsible for the actions of everyone else.

Neither do I. Who is advocating that position?

 

[Bond 281]

Bond281, your argument has more holes in it than a sieve. Time to find the Tylenol.

I'm not trying to make a rock solid complete argument, simply trying to make a few counter-points. The simple fact is that of all the various people and governments that have committed genocides over the years, the Nazis have been far more demonized than the others. The russians, chinese, americans, rwandans, etc have all committed mass genocides. Are we clamoring for the prosecution of the russian soldiers from the war? They slaughtered plenty of innocents too. How about our unjust imprisonment and torture at Ab 'Ghraib. I think there's far more cause to clamor for murder charges and war crimes in that case than for us to get up in arms about a foreign people killing another foreign people 70 years ago. The simple fact is that nobody really gives a flying f--k about the tens of millions of people that died in other genocides, but we're somehow supposed to be deeply grieved about the German one. They're all equally terrible, and you're either an idiot or a liar if you claim that overall the Holocaust isn't held as far worse.

 

[Bond 281]

Who is "we?" I didn't slaughter or imprison anyone. Do you know of someone living who did? If there are any people alive today who committed crimes against humanity concerning the Indians, let's bring them to trial. I'd be all for it.

And not every Nazi killed Jews. That's sort of my point. We need to judge even the Nazis as individuals and not damn them because of their uniform. And I think you know very well that "we" meant the United States.

Also, it's simplistic to lump the entire history of expansion and interactions with Indians all together and call it genocide. Each tribe, each area, each time period is a different set of circumstances. Some of it came close to being genocide. Some of it was completely different, and some of it was entirely justified.

Again, more of a general point, but giving Indians smallpox infested blankets is on the same level as letting people die from typhoid in a camp.

Our internment of Japanese citizens was tyranny. It was not, however, comparable to the death camps. Differences in degree matter.

I'm not suggesting they're the same degree, but our country's no stranger to rounding up people and imprisoning them based on race. I guess what I'm trying to convey is that while the Germans took it too far, they did many of the same things we have. I think it's important that we don't view Nazis as soulless Jew-killing machines, but as a group of people that got caught up in a bad path.

Carpet bombing cities? Perfectly justifiable, IMO. Don't bring about a war if you don't want to face the horrors of war. If you hit me, I don't have to just hit you as hard as you hit me, I can justifiably hit you until you are no longer capable of hitting me.

I didn't realize the civilians started a war. I don't disagree with you, though. It's a practical necessity of war. Just like murdering prisoners when you have to abandon a camp, or giving priority on food and medical supplies to your own troops before prisoners. That alone would justify thousands of Jewish deaths. From a practical standpoint anyway.

It is precisely BECAUSE the Nazis were human that we must hunt them down and punish them. We must make other humans realize how badly it will go for them if they choose that path.

I agree that we should punish those that we can prove did commit war crimes. I also think that we should be far more concerned with the war crimes our military commits than what some Germans did. With this guy there's no evidence, yet people are still calling for blood.

Neither do I. Who is advocating that position?

And I believe jbombelli advocated automatic guilt based on a man's assignment.

 

[dross]

And I believe jbombelli advocated automatic guilt based on a man's assignment.

I think you missed my point. The people who committed crimes against humanity perpetrated on the Indians are all dead. So there is no "we."

In the case of this prison guard, however, we have a live person who may have actually committed crimes. That's the distinction.

When the perpetrators are all dead, it's a history lesson. When one is still alive, we have a criminal trial.

Edit: And as to the smallpox infected blankets, that was a British officer before the U.S. was even a country. As I pointed out, the Indian story in America isn't one story, it's hundreds of stories that can't be lumped together.

 

[dross]

What American war crimes should we be concerned with, btw?

 

[PatriotPride]

fixed it for you brother

Jerk

 

[PatriotPride]

What American war crimes should we be concerned with, btw?

A valid question.

 

[Bond 281]

What American war crimes should we be concerned with, btw?

The CIA agent that tortured a guy to death. The rape and humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The American squad that killed civilians for sport US military in Afghanistan uncovers sadistic death squad in ranks - Telegraph.
Or the unlawful detainment of prisoners at Guantanamo. They aren't quite so big as what the Germans did, but they're much more relevant to us.

And just to be clear: I don't mean to in any way justify or excuse the Holocaust. My main issues are that we demonize the Nazis to a greater extent than we should, imo (being that we have plenty of our own issues to deal with), and that people are calling for trials and assumed guilt for a man that there's no actual evidence against.

 

[dross]

The CIA agent that tortured a guy to death. The rape and humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The American squad that killed civilians for sport US military in Afghanistan uncovers sadistic death squad in ranks - Telegraph.
Or the unlawful detainment of prisoners at Guantanamo. They aren't quite so big as what the Germans did, but they're much more relevant to us.

And just to be clear: I don't mean to in any way justify or excuse the Holocaust. My main issues are that we demonize the Nazis to a greater extent than we should, imo (being that we have plenty of our own issues to deal with), and that people are calling for trials and assumed guilt for a man that there's no actual evidence against.

I don't know about the CIA agent.

I don't think anyone was actually raped at Abu Ghraib, but in any event, we put the idiots who did that on trial as I recall. As to the "death squad" in Afghanistan, they're going to trial too, aren't they?

Illegal detention in Guantanamo? I've never agreed that was illegal - reasonable people may disagree. But again, as I recall, that went to the Supreme Court.

Sounds like we have dealt with that stuff. If those people had fled the country, I would be for prosecuting them if we caught them, just like the Nazis we catch.

BTW, your language indicates you are already convinced of the guilt of all of the above, which is what you're arguing against when it concerns the former prison guard.

 

[T.Lex]

The CIA agent that tortured a guy to death. The rape and humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The American squad that killed civilians for sport US military in Afghanistan uncovers sadistic death squad in ranks - Telegraph.
Or the unlawful detainment of prisoners at Guantanamo. They aren't quite so big as what the Germans did, but they're much more relevant to us.

But, none of them also suggest a system-wide abuse of authority/genocide.

(I included Gitmo in your quote, but there are compelling arguments that your assertion that it is "unlawful" is incorrect anyway.)

And, frankly, while I myself am prone to reductio ad absurdum when it serves a purpose, your proposition that the events you mention are somehow morally equivalent to Hitler's organized Final Solution is a bit offensive.

I generally agree that individual guards are not necessarily guilty of atrocities, simply for having worn the uniform. But, that isn't the legal test, either.

Edit:
Crap. I need to SIGNIFICANTLY edit my post, if it looks like dross and I agree..... :doh:

 

[NYFelon]

legitimate question as I don't know the answer, and it seems a fair parallelism...did every single soldier involved in My Lai get prosecuted?

 

[Bond 281]

From the Wikipedia article:

The prisoner Manadel al-Jamadi died in Abu Ghraib prison after being interrogated and tortured by a CIA officer and a private contractor. The torture included physical violence and strappado hanging, whereby the victim is hung from the wrists with the hands tied behind the back. His death has been labeled a homicide by the US military,[7] but neither of the two men who caused his death have been charged. The private contractor was granted qualified immunity.[8]

Major General Antonio Taguba has stated that there is photographic evidence of rape being carried out by Brent Rowe at Abu Ghraib.[9] An Iraqi teenage boy was raped by a uniformed man while photos of it were taken by a female US military police officer.[10] The alleged rapist was identified by a witness as an American-Egyptian who worked as a translator, and who is now the subject of a civil court case in the US.[9] Another photo shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner.[9] Other photos show sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube, and a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.[9] Taguba has supported President Obama's decision not to release the photos, stating, "These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency."[9]
In other alleged cases, female inmates were said to be raped by soldiers.[11] In one reported case, senior US officials admitted rape had taken place at Abu Ghraib.[12]

Photographic evidence is usually pretty indicative of guilt, though I'm not suggesting that they not get a trial.

We're pretty good about keeping troops in line overall. But I simply don't think that Nazi war crimes have much relevance to us. I'd rather we focus on our own issues, whether war crimes or the various instances of LEO abuse of power or whatever.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Jerk

i meant for her not you

 

[Bond 281]

And, frankly, while I myself am prone to reductio ad absurdum when it serves a purpose, your proposition that the events you mention are somehow morally equivalent to Hitler's organized Final Solution is a bit offensive.

I didn't mean to imply a moral equivalent. What I will say is that atrocities committed by one foreigner against another foreigner 70 years ago shouldn't matter as much to us, as present day Americans, as the aforementioned issues. They should go the way of the historical example of how a convoluted ideology presented under the right conditions to a civilized western country can result in terrible things happening. The Holocaust should be a lesson of what men, even decent men, are capable of, not something done by mythical evil zombie Nazis that bear no relation to us.

 

[NYFelon]

Answered my own question with a little google-fu. The My Lai incident produced only 25 prosecutions and 1 conviction. If it is the UK's decision to bring this man to trial, so be it. My personal opinion is that it would be a waste of resources as no punishment meted out in a court could have any longstanding effect, as the man would more than likely die within a short period of any incarceration.

And what evidence could conceivable remain as to what his day to day duties were, and how they were executed? At best it would be an emotionally charged process of vindictive justice based in part or in whole on circumstantial evidence. Again, a waste of time.

 

[dross]

From the Wikipedia article:


Photographic evidence is usually pretty indicative of guilt, though I'm not suggesting that they not get a trial.

We're pretty good about keeping troops in line overall. But I simply don't think that Nazi war crimes have much relevance to us. I'd rather we focus on our own issues, whether war crimes or the various instances of LEO abuse of power or whatever.

As we are perfectly capable of doing more than one thing at once, I don't see a problem with being concerned with all kinds of war criminals - present and past.

You seem to have some other reason or some strongly felt issue at stake here.

What is it that makes this an important issue for you?

 

[techres]

I'm not trying to make a rock solid complete argument, simply trying to make a few counter-points.

Yeah, why? What makes you want to defend this guy so vehemently? Is it just a streak of devil's advocate?

The simple fact is that of all the various people and governments that have committed genocides over the years, the Nazis have been far more demonized than the others.

Jews have worked hard to never forget. We have not forgotten the romans either, it is something we do. Others can choose to forget, or not, that is not our fault. So long as we can, the memory will be kept going and the Nazi's never forgotten. So long as we remember, maybe they and their kind will not return. Forgetting will give way to return.

The russians, chinese, americans, rwandans, etc have all committed mass genocides. Are we clamoring for the prosecution of the russian soldiers from the war?

If the Armenians could, yes. If the Ukranians could, yes. And they would get my full support. As a matter of fact, the barrier of Turkey to the EU is tied to their refusal to remember/admit what they did. That is a good thing. Evil should not be forgotten or excused.

Ever.

They slaughtered plenty of innocents too. How about our unjust imprisonment and torture at Ab 'Ghraib.

There were prosecutions and there were jailings. I do not get your point.

I think there's far more cause to clamor for murder charges and war crimes in that case than for us to get up in arms about a foreign people killing another foreign people 70 years ago. The simple fact is that nobody really gives a flying f--k about the tens of millions of people that died in other genocides, but we're somehow supposed to be deeply grieved about the German one.

Actually, people do give a f--k about it. The drive to deal with darfur in the US is driven by the Jewish community who sees genocide. The same with Kosovo, and the same with Rawanda.

And this month we are happy to see another butcher being dragged off to jail and trial for what he did in the former yugoslavia. To say that no one cares is to be completely inaccurate to modern international law.

Is the Holocaust held up as a unique case? Sure, it is the first genocide that a group refused to forget or forgive. Blessed be the victims of any others that also refuse to forget or be forgotten. Let the butchers of Africa, Asia, Europe, or any other place be hunted down and held to account. That is what justice is.

They're all equally terrible, and you're either an idiot or a liar if you claim that overall the Holocaust isn't held as far worse.

No, here is the logical error. They are not equally terrible. To put Abu Graib in the same category as Aushwitz is simply not intellectually honest or historically accurate.

Do not follow a desire to have a bleeding heart for forgotten victims to a place of mentally burying others.

And if that is not your intent, then I simply have to assume that the loudness of the Holocaust memory puts you off some how. Let me offer you this: it is the example for the future, it is the way we should respond to any genocide - never forget, never stop bringing criminals to justice.

 

[Bond 281]

Answered my own question with a little google-fu. The My Lai incident produced only 25 prosecutions and 1 conviction. If it is the UK's decision to bring this man to trial, so be it. My personal opinion is that it would be a waste of resources as no punishment meted out in a court could have any longstanding effect, as the man would more than likely die within a short period of any incarceration.

And what evidence could conceivable remain as to what his day to day duties were, and how they were executed? At best it would be an emotionally charged process of vindictive justice based in part or in whole on circumstantial evidence. Again, a waste of time.

Clearly you're a Nazi sympathizer with no concept of just how evil they were. Kill them all, let God sort it out.

 

[dross]

Yeah, why? What makes you want to defend this guy so vehemently? Is it just a streak of devil's advocate?



Jews have worked hard to never forget. We have not forgotten the romans either, it is something we do. Others can choose to forget, or not, that is not our fault. So long as we can, the memory will be kept going and the Nazi's never forgotten. So long as we remember, maybe they and their kind will not return. Forgetting will give way to return.



If the Armenians could, yes. If the Ukranians could, yes. And they would get my full support. As a matter of fact, the barrier of Turkey to the EU is tied to their refusal to remember/admit what they did. That is a good thing. Evil should not be forgotten or excused.

Ever.



There were prosecutions and there were jailings. I do not get your point.



Actually, people do give a f--k about it. The drive to deal with darfur in the US is driven by the Jewish community who sees genocide. The same with Kosovo, and the same with Rawanda.

And this month we are happy to see another butcher being dragged off to jail and trial for what he did in the former yugoslavia. To say that no one cares is to be completely inaccurate to modern international law.

Is the Holocaust held up as a unique case? Sure, it is the first genocide that a group refused to forget or forgive. Blessed be the victims of any others that also refuse to forget or be forgotten. Let the butchers of Africa, Asia, Europe, or any other place be hunted down and held to account. That is what justice is.



No, here is the logical error. They are not equally terrible. To put Abu Graib in the same category as Aushwitz is simply not intellectually honest or historically accurate.

Do not follow a desire to have a bleeding heart for forgotten victims to a place of mentally burying others.

And if that is not your intent, then I simply have to assume that the loudness of the Holocaust memory puts you off some how. Let me offer you this: it is the example for the future, it is the way we should respond to any genocide - never forget, never stop bringing criminals to justice.

Well argued, well said.

 

[T.Lex]

What I will say is that atrocities committed by one foreigner against another foreigner 70 years ago shouldn't matter as much to us, as present day Americans, as the aforementioned issues.

I respectfully disagree, mostly. The system is the solution. The system allows for the investigation and prosecution 70 years later, so there should be some follow through.

I hedge in this respect: if the prosecutor said, "WTF? Dude's almost dead anyway. Let him die on his own, and leave the issue between him and his Maker." That is a reasonable reaction, and supported by the system ("prosecutorial discretion").

In this case, though, I think a proper investigation and prosecution is appropriate, in part to remind the world that parts of the civilized world really don't care how much time passes. Mladic was recently arrested after what - about 15 years?

Yes, there is a point of diminishing return. But some things are worth doing without regard to the passage of time.