And if they are no longer of sound mind, it would be a waste of time and you can be sure a defense lawyer would pursue that avenue for anyone in their 90s.
Hunt them all- More out there from other Wars that commited crimes against humanity.
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
And if they are no longer of sound mind, it would be a waste of time and you can be sure a defense lawyer would pursue that avenue for anyone in their 90s.
You are more than familiar with the Geneva Conventions and Laws of Warfare, and have quoted it on a number of occasions.
He is going to trial for execution without due process of Law.
CBC News Indepth: Iraq
The United States created a new controversy over the conventions after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The Bush administration quickly declared that members of al-Qaeda captured on the battlefield were "unlawful combatants" and not subject to the Geneva Conventions.
Mary Robinson, the UN human rights chief, said they should be considered prisoners of war, as defined by the Geneva Conventions. At the time, U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other military officials called them "detainees" or "unlawful combatants.
Juridica International
The conditions for combatant status can be derived from Article 4 of the Third Convention and Article 43 of the First Protocol, which elaborated upon the earlier article. Generally speaking, combatants are members of armed forces as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.*8 In addition, members of other militias and volunteer corps, including those of organised resistance movements, belonging to a party to the armed conflict can also have combatant status if they (1) are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, (2) have a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance, (3) carry arms openly, and (4) conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.*9 The defining feature of combatant status is the right to participate directly in hostilities; i.e., combatants have ‘a licence to kill or wound enemy combatants and destroy other enemy military objectives’.*10 They may even cause incidental civilian casualties and damage (collateral damage) under certain circumstances. Due to their status, combatants are entitled to combat immunity, which means that they may not be prosecuted for taking part in hostilities and for lawful acts of war. Such immunity is valid even if their behaviour (for example, intentional killing of another human being) would constitute a serious crime in peacetime. However, combat immunity is limited and does not extend to acts that transgress the rules of international law applicable in situations of armed conflict. When combatants are captured, they are entitled to prisoner?of?war status and to benefit from the protection of the Third Convention.
http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_849_dorman.pdf
Unlawful combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more sovereign states. Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he must be treated as a prisoner of war.[3] After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual detainee is an unlawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".[4]
http://www.gazettenet.com/home/8324478-95/germany-tries-92-year-old-for-nazi-war-crime
Transferred back to the Netherlands, he served first in the Sicherheitsdienst — the Nazi internal intelligence agency — and then the Sicherheitspolizei, or Security Police, in a unit tasked to find resistance fighters and Jews.
As part of that unit, he is accused of killing resistance fighter Aldert Klaas Dijkema in September 1944 in the town of Appingedam, near the German border in the northern Netherlands.
If convicted, he faces a possible life sentence.
Dijkema was apprehended by the Nazis on Sept. 9, 1944, on suspicion he was involved in the Dutch resistance.
According to prosecutors, Bruins and alleged accomplice August Neuhaeuser, who has since died, drove Dijkema to an isolated industrial area where they stopped and told him to “go take a leak.”
As he walked away from the car, they fired at least four shots into him, including into the back of his head, killing him instantly, according to the indictment.
Bruins and Neuhaeuser reported that Dijkema was shot while trying to escape.
Though it is not clear who fired the fatal shots, under German law if both suspects were there with the intent to kill, it does not matter who pulled the trigger, according to prosecutors.
They could get off for that in a sense but at least the record could be set straight one way or another. It might mean something to anyone who knew the victim and is still alive or to those who simply have an interest in history and want that record set straight. A person in their 90s may very well not be of sound mind but it may still be possible to establish their guilt or innocence for the crime in question even if a sentence can't be imposed. They have done similar things in South Africa and Rwanda with their truth and reconciliation commissions. We've done it here as well over the residential school system. Some of those cases happened well before WW2 but are still being dealt with.
Some are upset that after years and years, laws change and these criminals are being held to account.
we are talking about specific laws in this op. Laws that appear to apply to Former members of the WWII German Armed forces only.
The Geneva conventions are not adhered to by anyone these days. If you really want to invoke them then you best be ready to line up the entire US military and political leadership for 2 illegal invasions and mass-murder. Unless of course you only apply those laws to other countries and give a pass to the NATO members.
They sure didn't F**K around at Nuremburg, all those reprobates were disposed of without a year or so of the end of the war, same thing with Adolph Eichman, they hanged that bastard within a few months of arresting him in South America. Now it takes years just to get them extradicted!
Well you and Gerry have a hard on for the US regardless of what they do.
The issue if you look into it was after WW2 no one really wanted to do a freaking thing. Cold War Politics, scientists, add the Gestapo and SS were incorporated and used by both sides.- West - USSR.
Germany did next to nothing. Throwing roadblocks up.
It has to change.
Look to the Sudan- North - Indicted for War Crimes and travels freely thru Arab Countries.
JURIST - Paper Chase: ICC urges Nigeria to arrest Sudan president for war crimes
Kenya and the international court: It’s show time | The Economist
I think it's more about you having your head so far up the american's a$$ that you willfully ignore what they do and have done. I see you have no problem with naming the "war crimes" of anyone besides the americans.
You just ain't whistling Dixie.............Out of 314 million of them surely there's a couple who are good!
I realize the US has committed war crimes- I just do not have a singular hate on for the US. You do.
Do not expect me to join.
As to my heads location, on the top of my shoulders, and clear as day. So that point you made is in error.
So instead of your usual insulting Members, why not grow up and have a civil discussion.