Interesting Media Omissions

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

AG: Guarantee is the wrong word, I suppose. I would say that a civilian trial would have a higher probability of impartiality than a military commission that would, in all likeliehood, have a vested interest in obtaining convictions. After all, how could they justify holding these people if they aren't guilty of anything.

My bone of contention is WHY is there a higher probabilty of impartiality, and WHY do they have a vested interest in obtaining convictions.

After relieving Dachau, the Americans set up these "Tribunals." They were virtually revolving doors to the execution site. Ask anyone who was there and I have spoken to some who were.

My piont was do you think this was a group of soldiers taking the law into thier own hands or were these "tribunals" a formal sanctioned event. because i can not find any ref to them .I've found refs to soldiers acting independantly.

The point seems to be getting lost that these "Tribunals follow no rukles of psocedure: the Judges are the prosecutors: there is secret evidence to which the accused are not privy and defence councils are not informed.

I believe i've explained this before there is a panal of judges, a prosecuting team and a defense team. Yes there may be evidence that the defense is not privy to due to security etc.etc. and yes the Accused does not have to be present at trial.

I don't agree with the last two, however these does not happen in all cases.

There is a raft of problems with them as I noted earlier. They are merely a pretext to justify sentences, guilty or not.

Here is where i have a problem, Are you guys suggesting that anyone who was tried at Numemburg recieved punishment that was unwarrented. because you make it sound like revenge.

And for that matter are you suggesting that those killings of concentration gaurds by individual soldiers and POW's was unwarrented or unjustified.

I'll give you my answer. I think all those charged at numemberg got off lucky. and they got exactly what they deserved.

Those killings of death camp guards, i will not make any excuses for them,what they did was wrong according to law. However i was not there, to experiance the conditions, the smell of death, the sounds of the dying, the pure eviliness that was inflicted. And can't say i would have reacted any differently.

[Guest eureka]

In the bodies at issue there is not a prosecuting team. The judges are also the prosecutors. That is only one of the points. Everything about them is wrong. These kinds of courts disappeared from use more than 200 years ago when absolutism gave way to democracy.

[Guest eureka]

I have met some who were at Dachau in a number of circumstances, shoop. Not that it matters or that you are entitled to an explanation. It should be enough that I said that I have.

I knew Jews in Montreal who were survivors and who were with me in opposing the "Fascism" of Quebec. I have talked with journalists who were there at the liberation. A cousin of mine was there in a military role.

Rene Levesque's much touted bravery in war was due to the fact that he entered the camp as a journalist after it was taken. I taunted him about that more than once with comparisons to the survivors in his audience whose rights he was violating.

[kimmy]

Its a lot more complicated than that. Military tribunals, as people have pointed out in this thread, have vastly differently rules and procedures than regular criminal trials. Its not just a different "venue."

Yes, yes, I realize all that.

What I am wondering... is are people upset that he is being held for trial, or merely at the way the trial will be conducted? In this thread I have read a great deal about legal tradition and so on, but nobody really arguing against the overall idea that Omar Khadr should be tried. I'm curious as to whether people would still be upset if Khadr's case were heard in a regular court in the US, or in Afghanistan for that matter.

...

Personally, I suspect that a lot of the fuss over Khadr is tempered with the relief at the knowledge that he won't be coming back to Canada. I suspect that Paul Martin won't make a stand on Khadr's behalf (other than asking that he not be put to death) because Paul Martin and his advisors know that getting Khadr sent back to Canada would be a political hot potato that Paul Martin wants no part of.

I'm actually starting to wish that the US would just let him plead guilty to some lesser charge (say, loitering) and send him back to Canada. I think it would be tremendously interesting to see peoples' reactions if he were sent home to bump around Toronto as freely as any other Canadian.

-k

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Army Guy,

Here is where i have a problem, Are you guys suggesting that anyone who was tried at Numemburg recieved punishment that was unwarrented. because you make it sound like revenge.

I am not saying the punishment wasn't warranted, just that it wasn't really 'legal', nor do I believe was there ever a precedent in the history of mankind for it. However, after reading Albert Speer's book, I am glad he didn't get the death penalty. He was pretty much the only one to take blame upon himself (for using slave labour) and was not linked to the Holocaust, though his actions did prolong the war. Not because he believed in the cause, mind you, but because he was a very efficient industrialist and architect.

And for that matter are you suggesting that those killings of concentration gaurds by individual soldiers and POW's was unwarrented or unjustified.

Again, no. Just illegal. I do agree with you, though,

Those killings of death camp guards, i will not make any excuses for them,what they did was wrong according to law. However i was not there, to experiance the conditions, the smell of death, the sounds of the dying, the pure eviliness that was inflicted. And can't say i would have reacted any differently.

I might have easily done exactly the same, probably between bouts of throwing up.

[Guest eureka]

You both would have suspended your humanity for the time it would take to murder the guards?

[Army Guy]

Fleabag:

I am not saying the punishment wasn't warranted, just that it wasn't really 'legal', nor do I believe was there ever a precedent in the history of mankind for it. However, after reading Albert Speer's book, I am glad he didn't get the death penalty. He was pretty much the only one to take blame upon himself (for using slave labour) and was not linked to the Holocaust, though his actions did prolong the war. Not because he believed in the cause, mind you, but because he was a very efficient industrialist and architect.

At the time i don't believe that there was an organization in place to put these guys on trial. Hence why i don't believe that it was Illigal, After all they could have just shot them as Eureka suggested. And i still don't know why is was left to the military to punish them.

Yes today we have an international court, that has very limited means to handle charging those involved in crimes that the Nazi's committed. This court was a recent subject on 60 minutes, who decribes it as a court with no power.

Eureka:

You both would have suspended your humanity for the time it would take to murder the guards

Are you saying that you would have not. I have visted Dachau twice once as a child and once as an adult, both times i left the camp very, confussed as to how one person could inflict such pain and humility on another, it also filled me with anger.

absence from both vists were the sight, smells, and survivors accounts of what really happend. So yes i would have suspended my humanity, in fact i could not say with certainity i would have not shot them myself.

[Army Guy]

I found this article on the net.

My Webpage

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

You both would have suspended your humanity for the time it would take to murder the guards?

There is really two questions here. First, "would I willingly take the life of another human being"? Second, really a 'subsection' of one of the two answers, is "Under what circumstances?".

I note well your use of the word 'murder', for that is what it would be, whatever rationale or justification I may think I had.

It is a very dark question you ask, but I do believe that there are circumstances where I would feel justified in taking the life of another person, and it would have to be an extreme case for me to go from 'soldier' (that is, actively fighting for a cause) to 'executioner' (where the fighting was over, and I killed someone because I chose to). Still, yes, I can envision circumstances to that effect. Concentration camp guards in the Holocaust??? Some of them might have felt they had no choice, that they were just following orders...but, none of them could have been refused combat duty had they asked. In that light, some of them, I might have flayed. Most likely, though, I would have armed the freed prisoners, and have them make the decisions as to who merited mercy.