NationStates Jolt Archive

Back in WW II....

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14431095/

So, what do you think we should do with these old guys? Prison? Write a book for the Park Service?

Or was it so long ago it doesn't matter?

Back in WW II....

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14431095/

So, what do you think we should do with these old guys? Prison? Write a book for the Park Service?

Or was it so long ago it doesn't matter?

They should be punished according to law. If the law says that there's a statute of limitations on whatever they did, fine. If not, probably more than a fine, eh?

They should be punished according to law. If the law says that there's a statute of limitations on whatever they did, fine. If not, probably more than a fine, eh?

Good thing you weren't around back then. We would have lost the war.

Good thing you weren't around back then. We would have lost the war.

Yes. Because my saying that those who break the law should be punished according to the law would be more than sufficent to turn the tide of a World Conflict.

UK govt.'s looking at pardoning deserters from the First World War, so age/time-passed is, apparantly, no longer a factor for Western governments.

I'm still waiting for an apology from the Mongolians for the invasion of China, though.

Yes. Because my saying that those who break the law should be punished according to the law would be more than sufficent to turn the tide of a World Conflict.
Sure. We would never have any intelligence operations, never ask prisoners any questions they have to answer, and if the mainstream media back then was like the one we have now, we would have surrendered after Pearl Harbor to a rowboat with a couple of Japanese in it.

Sure. We would never have any intelligence operations, never ask prisoners any questions they have to answer, and if the mainstream media back then was like the one we have now, we would have surrendered after Pearl Harbor to a rowboat with a couple of Japanese in it.

Mmm-hmm. I'm glad to hear that my opinions would bear so much weight.

I'm still waiting for an apology from the Mongolians for the invasion of China, though.
Pfft, that's nothing.

I'm holding out on an apology from the Vatican (the last survivng arm of the Imperial Roman Government) for making war on my barbarian, Germanic ancestors.

From the article, all they appear to have done was hold prosoners incommunicado whilst under interrogation. I agree that this should not have happened, and they (and the military as a whole) should have not done so. However, I cannot see a court finding trying these men to be 'in the public interest'.

Pfft, that's nothing.

I'm holding out on an apology from the Vatican (the last survivng arm of the Imperial Roman Government) for making war on my barbarian, Germanic ancestors.
I demand an apology on behalf of your ancient primitive-man ancestor for hitting my ancient primitive-man ancestor with the thigh of a gazelle AND defiling his collection of sacred rocks.
Sacred rocks arent easy to make, you know, it takes hours to make those holes.

UK govt.'s looking at pardoning deserters from the First World War, so age/time-passed is, apparantly, no longer a factor for Western governments.



I think that is just to let the surviving family know that their (great) grand father or Dad who fought in the war wasn't a coward, thats important to some people.

From the article, all they appear to have done was hold prosoners incommunicado whilst under interrogation. I agree that this should not have happened, and they (and the military as a whole) should have not done so. However, I cannot see a court finding trying these men to be 'in the public interest'.
You don't see? If it's alright to do that then then it's alright to torture people now..

Good thing you weren't around back then. We would have lost the war.

Sometimes I wonder if you could pass the Turing test if the subject was on American history, politics, or patriotism.

This almost seems like a standard Kimchi response, no effort required. What, do you have a .txt with pre-typed responses or something?

And as for the original question? Try 'em unless the statute has run out - if it hasn't, give them token sentences because of their age.

I think that is just to let the surviving family know that their (great) grandfather who fought in the war wasn't a coward, thats important to some people.

I think it's a populist crowdpleaser rather than anything else :p Or it's trying to be, anyway.

Trilby63']You don't see? If it's alright to do that then then it's alright to torture people now..
I couldn't see any mention of torture in the article, if there was I missed it. I'd have thought torture would be counterproductive if you wanted to find out about the inner workings of a submarine.

I couldn't see any mention of torture in the article, if there was I missed it. I'd have thought torture would be counterproductive if you wanted to find out about the inner workings of a submarine.
Of course there's no mention of torture. That's not the point.. If the US bent the rules slightly in WW2 then they can break the rules today..

To which Geneva Convention are we referring to? Wasn't the big one that we all follow post-WWII?

It doesn't seem they broke it. IT sounds like heaven compared to Guantanamo

Trilby63']Of course there's no mention of torture. That's not the point.. If the US bent the rules slightly in WW2 then they can break the rules today..
Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree. Use of torture should equal a trial and punishment. But at the minute, that article's all we've got as information and it doesnt mention torture or any 'major' crimes, just holding them incommunicado while the interrogation was taking place. Assuming that's all there is to it, I don't see the point in prosecuting them, and I suspect a court would agree. They'd be better off going after the guys who are in breach of the conventions now.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree. Use of torture should equal a trial and punishment. But at the minute, that article's all we've got as information and it doesnt mention torture or any 'major' crimes, just holding them incommunicado while the interrogation was taking place. Assuming that's all there is to it, I don't see the point in prosecuting them, and I suspect a court would agree. They'd be better off going after the guys who are in breach of the conventions now.
It's typical Kimchi.. He want's you to say that they shouldn't be prosecuted to jusify his advocation of torture against suspected terrorists..

Trilby63']It's typical Kimchi.. He want's you to say that they shouldn't be prosecuted to jusify his advocation of torture against suspected terrorists..
'Suspected' implies some burden of proof...

'Suspected' implies some burden of proof...
Huh?

I think it's a populist crowdpleaser rather than anything else :p Or it's trying to be, anyway.

Not really, a few families of those executed for deserting often lobby really hard to get them pardoned on the ground of mental illness. If they didn't the gov wouldn't bother with it.

Trilby63']Huh?
some burden of proof above them being of arab descent, i mean

Logically speaking, no, they did not break the convention, so the issue is moot.

After all, the Convention didn't go into effect until after WWII, so charging them is impossible (and unconstitutional for US Citizens).

If it had been in place, the man who commanded them to violate the Convention should have been charged.

The Geneva Convention is so full of loopholes it's ridiculous.

For example, .50 caliber machine guns are not to be used against enemy troops for obvious reasons; I beleive the Geneva Convention states that their use is to be restricted to equipment; under which category things like boots and uniforms are classed. It wouldn't stand up in a court of law ["I swear I was shooting at their uniforms!"] but it's within the paramaters of the Geneva Convention to directly contradict it. In my opinion this nullifies the document, at least as its written now.

I have to say that if anything really seriously bad had gone on there, we would be hearing about it from the german prisoners who have now become American citizens. (not all of them, but quite a few) And skimming through the Geneva conventions (It's a hefty document, I don't have time to read the whole thing, but if you want to, knock yourself out. (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)) I don't see anything about keeping prisoners incommunicado.

The only rule I see having to do with interrogation (and the one we have clearly broken in recent years) is this one No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. Since these old guys haven't revealed anything about their methods, we can't really assume much beyond asking questions and perhaps offering citizenship or other benefits.

One of them recounts meeting a former prisoner at a science conference. "He looked at me, and I heard him say to someone in German: 'That was my prison warden,' " Mandel said. The two men shook hands. The exchange was respectful and friendly, he said. That hardly sounds like the way a prisoner would react if he'd been mistreated.

Pfft, that's nothing.

I'm holding out on an apology from the Vatican (the last survivng arm of the Imperial Roman Government) for making war on my barbarian, Germanic ancestors.Is their Papification of a man of germanic descent not enough?

Can you actually... you know, CITE the part of the Geneva Convention that was subverted?
Otherwise, it's a little hard to decide, no?

Can you actually... you know, CITE the part of the Geneva Convention that was subverted?
Otherwise, it's a little hard to decide, no?
No, and I personally don't care. The article has someone saying they violated the Geneva Conventions.

Probably some torture and rough interrogation, and concealing prisoners.

No, and I personally don't care. The article has someone saying they violated the Geneva Conventions.

Probably some torture and rough interrogation, and concealing prisoners.

Then the poll is pointless, as it violates the Geneva Convention. :D

See? DON'T JUST TRUST THE PRESS.

(For that matter, how can people intelligently decide on an option without knowing WHY? Oh wait, this is NS...)

Then the poll is pointless, as it violates the Geneva Convention. :D

See? DON'T JUST TRUST THE PRESS.

I only wanted to see how daft some people were.

I only wanted to see how daft some people were.

Dude, you've gotta know that by now.

Dude, you've gotta know that by now.
Just making sure.

As they are obviously guilty of War Crimes, they should be executed immediately.

They should be punished according to law. If the law says that there's a statute of limitations on whatever they did, fine. If not, probably more than a fine, eh?

Shouldnt they be tried first? I mean a kangaroo tribunal would be fine I suppose but just for decorum and for the news stories it would generate a trial might be a nice touch before the punishment phase begins.

Just making sure.

Yeah, but do you have to lead them by example?

Back in WW II....

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14431095/

So, what do you think we should do with these old guys? Prison? Write a book for the Park Service?

Or was it so long ago it doesn't matter?
They only tortured fucking Nazis. They are lucky I wasn't around then. I would've killed the motherfuckers.

Sure. We would never have any intelligence operations, never ask prisoners any questions they have to answer, and if the mainstream media back then was like the one we have now, we would have surrendered after Pearl Harbor to a rowboat with a couple of Japanese in it.
This is almost like deja-vu all over again. Couldn't we substitute a couple words here and there and have a very familiar story?

I wonder if it's because news is so commercialized, or is it because so few reporters have any idea what military service involves, or is it because [fill in the blank]?

No, and I personally don't care. The article has someone saying they violated the Geneva Conventions.

Probably some torture and rough interrogation, and concealing prisoners.


OK, so how about you explain how during WWII they violated a treaty that wasn't even signed until 1949?

Or is the word of the park ranger who was NOT a serving member of that team to simply be taken as gospel? Especially given his basic premise is laughable right off the top. The Hague Conventions were in effect for WWII, not the Geneva Conventions.

But it must be true. After all, Park Rangers are notoriously privy to such detailed information on vintage military secrets.....



Incidentally, I see nothing that states torture in that article... besides your assumptions.


You are, however, maintaining your crown as the King of the Strawman.

Congratulations.

Shouldnt they be tried first? I mean a kangaroo tribunal would be fine I suppose but just for decorum and for the news stories it would generate a trial might be a nice touch before the punishment phase begins.

That's part of being punished by law, as far as I'm concerned.

Trials are too good for these scumbags. They deserve to be executed immediately.