Alleged SS Auschwitz guard arrested in Germany

[petros]

He states he was a cook- No evidence that he was or was not. So to state he was a cook without evidence is not Kosher.

The Soup Nazi!


​

okay let me reexamine the uniforms... maybe what it represents just plays on my mind and I am not seeing them rationally. I'll try to look at the uniform through Petros eyes.

Without the pageant of imagery this coat is just a coat that would look good on either one of us.

 

[Sal]

Without the pageant of imagery this coat is just a coat that would look good on either one of us.

yeah those long leather coats are totally cool

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

It seems ridiculous to do this to this man who was a guard and they don't even know if he killed anyone. I think we need to look at the big picture and what can be accomplished because of it.

And yes if they are over 90 and it is not known for a certainty that they are guilty, do not proceed because if they are NOT guilty you have robbed them of their last few months of years.

This is why in the due process they have a preliminary hearing. The judge looks at the evidence and determines if there is a reasonable case against the person meaning the prosecution isn't going on a wild goose chase. They did that and they are proceeding leaving me to believe that even though not yet proven guilty, he's not as innocent as portrayed.

His age is incidental to the fact that expanding the scope of the prosecution to include anyone peripheral to the crimes at this stage of the game seems questionable.

I am not sure why they didn't arrest and hang these people back in 1946. But accessory to murder is a crime then as it is now. I guess it just depends on the definition of accessory. You and I have different definitions it seems. I view this guy no different than the getaway driver from a bank robbery where somebody is killed. You view him as the gas station attendant that filled up the gas tank of the getaway vehicle on their stop for gas.

In my view, regardless of their tardiness in pressing the charges, they should still proceed to their logical conclusion. The first step of that process indicates they have enough evidence for a trial.

the soup nazi!


​

lol!!!!

 

[Mowich]

How old was this guy when he was at Auschwitz: twenty two? He sure as hell wasn't one of those in charge of anything important. We all know that you didn't resign from the SS. Was he ex-Hitler youth? What chance did he have?

The chance any human being has to do what is right or what is expedient.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

How about dropping napalm on innocent women and children? Destroying whole villages? Destroying the infrastructure of an entire country on the premise of getting one man?

Generally no, unless it can be demonstrated that there is no legitimate military purpose.

 

[Cannuck]

Generally no, unless it can be demonstrated that there is no legitimate military purpose.

Who decides what a "legitimate military purpose" is?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Who decides what a "legitimate military purpose" is?

In what context?

 

[Cannuck]

In what context?

Who makes that decision? I'll give you a hint. It generally isn't the ones that lose a war.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Who makes that decision? I'll give you a hint. It generally isn't the ones that lose a war.

To the winner goes all the spoils. That is why its always best to win the war in the first place.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Who makes that decision? I'll give you a hint. It generally isn't the ones that lose a war.

Oh, I see. You weren't asking a question, you were simply teeing up your own comment.

Hope you enjoyed that.

 

[Cannuck]

Oh, I see. You weren't asking a question, you were simply teeing up your own comment.

Hope you enjoyed that.

I know it was a question you don't like but I am interested in your own idea of who makes the decision.

To the winner goes all the spoils. That is why its always best to win the war in the first place.

Yup, I'm betting that had Japan managed to rebound and win WWII, there would have been many on the Allied side paying the price for their involvement in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I know it was a question you don't like but I am interested in your own idea of who makes the decision.



Yup, I'm betting that had Japan managed to rebound and win WWII, there would have been many on the Allied side paying the price for their involvement in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Correct. That is how it works. Always has. Always will.

 

[Sal]

This is why in the due process they have a preliminary hearing. The judge looks at the evidence and determines if there is a reasonable case against the person meaning the prosecution isn't going on a wild goose chase. They did that and they are proceeding leaving me to believe that even though not yet proven guilty, he's not as innocent as portrayed.

Yes but what is he guilty of? Remember that guy from Waterloo a few years back. A sixteen year old interpreter. Never killed anyone and they knew it but they wanted to extradite him back to Germany and send him to jail. Seems to me, there's not much difference in what we are doing to them than what we are accusing them of. All the innocent in their families put through living hell and for what? For a point to be made. Only point made in my mind is our ability to lack perspective and humanity.

 

[Cannuck]

Correct. That is how it works. Always has. Always will.

So we can agree then that these Nazi war criminals are criminals simply because Germany lost the war and that Allied personnel have committed atrocities and walked away scot-free.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

So we can agree then that these Nazi war criminals are criminals simply because Germany lost the war and that Allied personnel have committed atrocities and walked away scot-free.

Not quite. Nazi's were war criminals regardless of whether they won or lost. The fact they lost made their actions more subject to scrutiny. I have not seen evidence of Allied attrocites so I cannot comment. But I have seen some from Afganistan who are on the winning side be tried so I think your blanket exemption does not hold water.

Yes but what is he guilty of? Remember that guy from Waterloo a few years back. A sixteen year old interpreter. Never killed anyone and they knew it but they wanted to extradite him back to Germany and send him to jail. Seems to me, there's not much difference in what we are doing to them than what we are accusing them of. All the innocent in their families put through living hell and for what? For a point to be made. Only point made in my mind is our ability to lack perspective and humanity.

Perhaps the German Justice System is modelled after the Italian one. I was making the assumption it was simular to ours. I don't know anything that makes me believe he is guilty or innocent. I am just assuming that the judge would be able to make that determination.

 

[Cannuck]

Not quite. Nazi's were war criminals regardless of whether they won or lost. The fact they lost made their actions more subject to scrutiny.

I think you are confusing the morality of the situation with the legality of it. Had Germany won the war, these people certainly would not be criminals. That doesn't mean their actions weren't immoral.

I have not seen evidence of Allied attrocites so I cannot comment.

So you are saying that the indiscriminate deep frying of thousands of Japanese civilians was not an atrocity? Why is that?

 

[Cliffy]

Not quite. Nazi's were war criminals regardless of whether they won or lost. The fact they lost made their actions more subject to scrutiny. I have not seen evidence of Allied attrocites so I cannot comment.

Dresden - bombed into oblivion when there was no military target. Massive civilian casualties. No legitimate excuse. Other than that, since the victors wrote the history, we can assume that any other crimes would have been covered up or white washed.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

So you are saying that the indiscriminate deep frying of thousands of Japanese civilians was not an atrocity? Why is that?

A matter of judgement. I don't think the bombings would have changed the outcome but shortened the war by months if not years. You would need to weigh in the people who died or suffered during the time against the casualties from the bombing.

I also accept it was a new weapon and the effects of it were not as widely know as they are today. I give some benifit of the doubt with regards to this.

Dresden - bombed into oblivion when there was no military target. Massive civilian casualties. No legitimate excuse. Other than that, since the victors wrote the history, we can assume that any other crimes would have been covered up or white washed.

Ok. I go back to my original assertion. To the victor goes the spoils. Case closed. End of story.

 

[Cannuck]

Ok. I go back to my original assertion. To the victor goes the spoils. Case closed. End of story.

That certainly makes it easier to pick and choose what is and isn't an atrocity.

 

[relic]

Yeah,it sure sounds like he'll get a fair trial.How many unbiased potential jurors are there just on these pages? Some {most} of you obviously got your history from marvel inc.