Forums → WEPR → [necro]Nazi unit leader found in US
| 115 | 46970 |
[url=http://news.msn.com/us/shock-lingers-after-nazi-unit-leader-found-in-us]
I kept seeing this on MSN, and it kinda bugged me. Anyways, to sum it up, "An Associated Press investigation found that Karkoc served as a top commander in the Ukrainian Self-Defense Legion during WWII. The unit is accused of wartime atrocities, including the burning of villages filled with women and children" -MSN
Read the article, its interesting. I wasn't aware people were still prosecuting ex Nazis. The man is 94 years old, and lives in Minneapolis. I want to know your opinions on this matter. Should he be prosecuted for crimes that was committed over 70 years ago?
- 115 Replies
which is what this would be a case of, was defined into law after the events. Doesn't seem very fair.
So, by ex post facto law, no acquittal for him.
i say to leave the guy alone and let him live until his end and not to persecute him or anything because if Germany finds out about this they will get angry and probably decrease their relation with USA and chances are that they might wage war and America will get bad reputation from other countries if they torture him for a crime he did 70 years before .
Dalek it is better to sacrifice yourself than to kill innocent people and corrupt your soul and anyways if somebody disobeyed the Nazis and went against them instead of killing innocent people people would make them heroes or make statues of them in tribute.
----
i say to leave the guy alone and let him live until his end and not to persecute him or anything because if Germany finds out about this they will get angry and probably decrease their relation with USA and chances are that they might wage war and America will get bad reputation from other countries if they torture him for a crime he did 70 years before
No -_-⢠none of that would happen.
See, besides the fact that we have prosecuted the Nazi people once before...Germany likes to not look at that point in history. They'd hardly give two ScheiÃes
Dalek it is better to sacrifice yourself than to kill innocent people and corrupt your soul and anyways if somebody disobeyed the Nazis and went against them instead of killing innocent people people would make them heroes or make statues of them in tribute.
At best, one measly statue..and that is hardly likely.
Well to me it works like this: what crimes did he commit? I don't care. Should he be punished?
Of course not! Executing him wouldn't be justice. Killing someone is not right. It is not justice. It's nothing more than petty revenge. Killing some one to punish them is just as immoral as killing someone for any other form of personal gain. It does not matter what he did. "He deserves to suffer" in no way follows from "he did a bad thing." The entire concept of retributive justice, or rather revenge masquerading as justice, is the very evil that leads to these things in the first place. We pretend that killing someone is right, because they did something to wrong us.
An eye for an eye is just senseless brutality. Revenge helps no one. It won't bring back his victims. It won't clean his soul of sin. It won't help anyone with anything, except making some people feel better in their guts because they can pretend like justice was metted. We're killing a person for nothing more than making ourselves feel good. The evil is apparent.
I speak specifically of execution, but this applies to any form of punishment. He is no danger to anyone. So it helps no one to harm him. ll it does is that. Harm him. Add a little more pain and misery to this world.
All of that being said, there is the matter of his age. I believe strongly in the rule of law. I think the line of thinking that we ought to make an intuitive exception on the basis of his age to be a flawed one. We should make no such intuitive or instinctual assumptions. We should not follow our feelings on the matter. We should follow the law. If we don't like what that entails, we should change the law. But never ignore it. We might think it terrible to persecute an old man, but to undermine the rule of law would be worse.
What you don't realize is that the length of this situation is to a high extreme, 5 - 8 months of community service is not going to cut it when 11 million people were killed. The man is either going to be acquitted or is going to spend his last breaths behind bars. No judge, in any world, is going to over look the numbers. And if he is indeed innocent, which the numbers may be very slim, is a judge going to send him to prison for, lets say, 10 years? Is this anyway to punish a innocent? Not to mention a 94 year old man?
The gravity of the situation is rather heavy. Trial will be interesting to say the least. With the traditional views of the law, the man is going to rot behind bars, innocent or not. This is no normal case to say the least. Most of the remaining Nazi associates are indeed dead, but if they are that age, and forced into a situation like this, traditional views will be a bit harsh, considering that vendetta over comes all logic leading to horrible actions that he will live and die with.
You didn't give justice to my point which is summed up as: Punishment is optional, acquittal is not. We can choose not to punish him, because after all, there's no point in doing so to achieve the traditional purpose of punishing a criminal, a) Set an example b) An eye for an eye, and c) To protect people. The Nazi have been tainted beyond salvation, the man is too old and infirm ed to commit more crime.
Punishment is an option. Nazi criminals have often been found guilty, but not sent to jail, such as Maurice Papon, who was released from French prison after being deemed too old and sick to serve his 10-year sentence. The Lithuanian Nazi collaborator, Algimantas Dailide, was convicted in 2006 but didn't get a jail term since he was 'no longer a threat to society.'. If punishment no longer serves the purpose it was intended for, it is up for discussion whether to scrape it or not. BUT it isn't a question at all whether to judge this man not guilty if enough evidence is found. A crime is a crime.
Yes, it does. It's what separates the mercy of human beings from the strict emotionless unvaried-ness of laws.
Mercy is indeed a quality not often shown, as stated above, when it comes to dealing punishment; however, mercy should not be a factor in deeming whether a person is guilty of a crime or not.
Furthermore, I disagree with the argument that orders were to be followed. This man was not part of the German population, who might be forgiven for their part, he was part of the Ukrainian Self Defense force, a Waffen SS Division that was based on volunteerism. Historically, the force itself was not wholly made of volunteers; people were pressed into service yes, but we must bear in mind that this man was top brass, a position that would unlikely be filled up by and allocated to reluctant citizens forced into the army, but rather men who could be trusted, and displayed enthusiasm for the work they did.
Lastly, this plea of following orders, otherwise similarly known in tort law as ''Master-Servant'' rule, is not always a defensible plea. It has been used widely, and most notoriously in the Nuremburg Trials, and has been ruled in a way that only allows the lessening of penalties, not full acquittal, specifically
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.".
In effect though, individual cases of the Superior-Orders-plea are ruled by an individual basis, so ultimately, we will have to wait for the trial to unfold.
Yes, it does. It's what separates the mercy of human beings from the strict emotionless unvaried-ness of laws.
i dont feel the need to have mercy for someone that was leading atrocities.
and anyone that does should really think hard about why we should feel sorry for him while he did what he did. and then tell me a good reason. because he's old isn't a reason. and if so, from what age are you old enough to escape from law?
(at what age can i burn down a house, killing 3 people and get away whit it because i'm old?)
ow and i didn't read this page yet only the 1st 3 sentences.
if it is about the death penalty... then i got only 1 stand. the death penalty is nothing more then a medieval barbaric punishment. (yes also when done in a electro-chair or by a simple needle.)
Xzeno, there's also the aspect of setting an example, telling the people "look, if you do this, you'll get that". And more important, if anyone could do a crime and get away with a reprimand and a promise not to do it again, where would we end? Every act comes with a responsibility. Sometimes you have to take the consequences of it.
Now I don't suppose you would extend your argumentation to every judicial case. So let's just look at this case.
Of course he may not do something bad again, punishing him might be gratuitious. But as I already said before, he has to be trialed and justice has to found out what was his role in all of this. It will help clear out the path to take (if he can be evidenced to be not guilty, there's no punishment anyway), and it does matter for all families who had a member involved in the war crimes committed by his troups (thinking mostly of the victims' family).
So whether punishment ensues or not, there has to be a trial. Now can there be a person found guilty in trial and not punished? Hardly, unless the judge sets him free due to his age.
No. No he didn't.
If I'm thinking of the same incident, which I'm pretty sure you yourself gave me a link to...the boy was merely collateral damage. Nothing new in war times.
yes, yes he did.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/10/former-obama-press-secretary-16-year-old-american-killed-in-drone-strike-should-have-had-more-responsible-father/
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/now-he-tells-us-obama-admits-killing-four-americans-in-secret-drone-strikes_052013
here's another link about 3 other people.
1) Loving the sources. They do not seem heavily biased at all
2) Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. He was killed alongside two alleged al-Qaeda members..do you know what that means?
Either:
a) He has a strong suspected link to al-Qaeda
b) Collateral damage
3) Your second source states how Abdulrahman was the only "intentional" attack, and that the other three were accidents. Do you know what accidents are called in times of war? Collateral damage.
it's easier to send a few troops in, instead of killing 3 innocent men and one suspect. Our government is unjust. He should have been arrested and tried. Do you not see how ridiculous it is? I'm not attacking you, so why are you defending something that's naturally wrong?
it's easier to send a few troops in,
Um..no, no it isn't.
instead of killing 3 innocent men and one suspect.
You word that as if they were killed on purpose.
Our government is unjust. He should have been arrested and tried.
What kind of trial, though?
It can't be military, because al-Qaeda is a rebel group, not legitimate military.
And it can't be citizen because, again, they are a rebel group, a form of militia..and because of their rebel status they cannot be classified as regular citizens.
I'm not attacking you, so why are you defending something that's naturally wrong?
Because it isn't wrong.
Well accident or not, he took 3 innocent people's lives. I can't talk about this with you if you're that inhumane.
Thread is locked!