Not trying to re-write international law. I wasn't aware a child soldier was fifteen and under. I thought it was 18.
OK, just be a little careful with your terminology. For a minute there, I thought you were trying to stretch a point invalidly.
Heck, many first world countries allow you to join at 17.
String him up for something he was forced to do under threat of death? I wouldn't even consider him a Nazi, since he never voluntarily signed on for anything.
Yes. At law, the defense is called "duress." If somebody kidnaps your family and tells you they'll kill them if you don't rob a bank, and you do and get caught, duress is a defense. But it does not apply to murder. Basically, the law says that you must die before deliberately killing an innocent person.
Three times this has been tried, three times it's been rejected. The man is ninty-effin-two years old. Let him live out what's left of his life in peace.
That, I did not know. Three times? If they ain't got him yet, the general rule is leave him be, absent overwhelming new evidence that could not have been obtained before.
So after all of that, turns out I agree with you. Who'da thunk it?
I would say people who are empathetic and realistic to what happens in war and that not all the 'soldiers' really are fighting by choice, especially back then.
Even the ones fighting by choice end up facing terrible moral choices, Serryah. I've often said I hope for mercy, not justice.