anthony@utcsstat.UUCP (04/17/85)
Subject: Re: Rebuttal to new testement > Summary: what's that about turning the other cheek? > > I agree with much of what Tony Ayiomamitis wrote, but I can't let > this one pass: > > || my favorite contradiction is the remark that [Jews] > ||believe in forgiveness ("turning the other cheek") BUT they then turn > ||around and hunt down war criminals. > > Pardon me? Judaism has no concept of "turning the other cheek". > That's a Christian concept. > Dave, "turning the other cheek" was not meant to be interpreted as being ad verbatim from Judaism but was rather used for illustrative and/or clarification purposes. Nevertheless, this is seemingly a minor point in lieu of the discussion below. > Furthermore, war criminals are not appopriate objects for > "forgiveness". The scale of what happened to Jewish communities > during the Holocaust is so horrible that justice - even justice > delayed by 40 years - should be done. > I would like to raise two arguments here for possible (future) disc- ussion. The first argument reads as follows: Let's assume individuals A, B and C are caught and succefully con- victed for war crimes and they are imprisoned for life. What does that really accomplish? First and foremost, it does not help alleviate the pain, suffering and mental agony suffered by survivors and/or relatives of survivors/victims nor does it erase these bad memories. With these guys in jail, they are assured of "peace of mind" as they would have a roof to sleep under, with three warm meals a day, a color tv and newspapers to keep up with the happenings in the world, etc., full access to medical services when in need etc. Conversely, if they are left alone purposely (without knowing this is purposeful), they will always be on the run and wondering when the day will come, if it comes, when they have to "explain" their actions. In other words, no "peace of mind". Granted they may be well-established (ex. Barbi in Canada), and hence have few worries about food, shelter, ..... the mere pos- sibility of their capture is overwhelming. My second argument, and in possible contradiction with the first, is as follows: It is GENERALLY agreed upon that with age comes wisdom. Given that 40 years or so have passed since these crimes took place, it would seem that possibly they have had the time, as a result of their isolation and self- inflicted continuous exile, to give a little more thought to the events that took place and have come to appreciate and understand their actions - to such an extent that they realize that they were caught up in one man's idiosyncracy that got carried away too far. By punishing them, when they are in their eighties or nineties, would seem to be an overkill (NO pun intended!). Without doubt, their immediate punishment following the war would seem quite justified. But by the course of events that did take place, punishing them 40 years or more later makes me wonder somewhat if anything is really ac- complished ?! -- {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!utcsstat!anthony {ihnp4|decvax|utzoo|utcsrgv}!utcs!utzoo!utcsstat!anthony
shindman@utcs.UUCP (04/18/85)
What Anthony seems to be proposing is a statute of limitations on
major crimes. Sorry, Anthony, but your arguments just don't stand up.
What, then, would be your time limit? Five years? Ten years? Twenty???
If I murder your family tomorrow, and then elude the law for 30 years
(but I'm a model citizen the whole time) by your standards I'm now
ok. I didn't get away with it, of course, since I had some terrible
feelings of remorse, but I've been over the remorse for at least 15 years and
I'm sorry I did it....:-).
Then how would you like to meet me in the street 30 years from now...
and even though you were upset that I killed your father, mother, 3 sisters
and 2 brothers (and you witnessed the whole thing in person), you're a
forgiving guy cuz it's been 30 years, and I'm pushing 70, and I've been a nice
guy the last 30 years anyway -:). Can you honestly say that you wouldn't
want me prosecuted 30 years from now even though I did in your family?
BAH!!! COW FLAPS!!! A murderer is a murderer. Just because someone eludes
the law for a long time does not remove their responsibility for the crime
they committed. I won't discuss what is accomplished, since there are
various reasons (practical, philosophical, irrational, rational) why we
generally try to put murderers in prison, away from freedom and society.
Consider that a murderer has committed the *most* serious of crimes in
having caused the snuffing out of another human's life. Our judicial
system, when it finds that there is a guilty party, in return suspends
the freedoms of the perpetrator of the crime, no matter when the murder
took place.
Your suggestions just don't fit in to the way the system works.
Paul
--
-----------------
Paul Shindman, U of T Computing Services, Toronto (416) 978-6878
USENET: {ihnp4|decvax}!utcs!shindman
BITNET: paulie at utoronto IP SHARP MAIL: uoftnixon@utai.UUCP (Brian Nixon) (04/18/85)
I have to disagree with Anthony for two reasons: 1. Biblical justice permits the state to punish murderers. 2. Although war criminals have had 40 years to contemplate the consequences of their crimes, it is still the case that reunions of Nazi officers have recently been held. This strongly suggests that there has not been a change of heart on their part. Brian Nixon.
fred@mnetor.UUCP (04/18/85)
> I have to disagree with Anthony for two reasons: > > 1. Biblical justice permits the state to punish murderers. > > 2. Although war criminals have had 40 years to contemplate the consequences > of their crimes, it is still the case that reunions of Nazi officers > have recently been held. This strongly suggests that there has not > been a change of heart on their part. > > Brian Nixon. OK People, this is not a clear cut problem. First, let me address Brian's two points above. 1. The state punishes murderers, provided that the murders were not committed on behalf of the state! ALSO, The state would do so even if biblical justice did not permit it! 2. The simple fact that these officers hold reunions does not mean that they are still supporting Nazi beliefs. Maybe they are, I don't know. We cannot, however, condemn them for getting together, or even for whatever beliefs they may or may not have. The only justification for punishing someone is by proving, beyond any reasonable doubt that they have done something illegal. Now, about the business of a statute of limitations on war crimes; True, these were crimes of great magnitude! We must do all we can to insure that nothing like the murder of millions of people ever happens again. It would be a deterent to anyone thinking of committing such a crime to know that society will never let them rest afterwards. It is a deterent to know that saying, "I was only following orders." is not an excuse. We are all ultimately responsible for our own actions, even though in military service! OK, OK, I've convinced myself. We must still search for war criminals. What we must guard against is doing it for revenge. Perhaps the greatest punishment that could be exacted on these criminals is publicity. We find them, and expose them. It may no longer serve any purpose to imprison them. Have they not made their own prison? But to say, "Yes, we know who you are, and you know what we think of you." This might be a very appropriate punishment, in a way it is more severe that a sentance of death. Cheers, (the future is brighter.) Fred Williams
nishri@utcs.UUCP (Alex Nishri) (04/20/85)
In article <431@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: >Perhaps the greatest punishment that could be exacted on these >criminals is publicity. We find them, and expose them. It may no >longer serve any purpose to imprison them. Have they not made >their own prison? But to say, "Yes, we know who you are, and you >know what we think of you." This might be a very appropriate >punishment, in a way it is more severe that a sentance of death. When an otherwise well behaved child does something wrong in class the teacher may publically identify him in class as a deterent. As long as the 'wrong' was minor and as long as it is not part of a pattern, the punishment, 'publicity', might be viewed as being appropriate. My Mother witnessed a german soldier grab a baby, her cousin, by the legs, yank him out of his crib and smash his head on a wall. Am I to believe that you are suggesting that if that soldier is found living in Toronto, the Canadian people should feel satisfied with just 'publicity'??!! I cannot see that such minor punishment is appropriate for murder. The views expressed are not necessarily those of my co-workers or my employer. Alex Nishri University of Toronto, N 43 38'33" W 79 23'14" UUCP: ...utcs!nishri BITNET: alex at utoronto
fred@mnetor.UUCP (04/23/85)
> In article <431@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: > >Perhaps the greatest punishment that could be exacted on these > >criminals is publicity. We find them, and expose them. It may no > >longer serve any purpose to imprison them. Have they not made > >their own prison? ... > ... > My Mother witnessed a german soldier grab a baby, her cousin, by the legs, > yank him out of his crib and smash his head on a wall. Am I to believe > that you are suggesting that if that soldier is found living in Toronto, > the Canadian people should feel satisfied with just 'publicity'??!! > > I cannot see that such minor punishment is appropriate for murder. > You make a good point. Please understand that I am not trying to belittle the crimes involved. But what is the purpose of sentencing convicted criminals. Different people will give different answers, such as: 1.) To prevent the criminal from repeating the crime. (ie. to remove him/her from society. 2.) To punish the criminal thereby teaching him/her that such things are not permitted. 3.) To serve as a deterent to others. A person who has been living in our society, or one not too different from our's, for 40 years and has not broken the law, has proved something. They are not likely to repeat the crime. Have they not learned that what was done is not moral? Can we imagine the guilt they must live with? The only reason I can see for continuing to prosecute war criminals from WW2 is number three, and this seems to be valid. We must not let this happen again. I am surprised that what no-one picked up in my previous posting was that merely publicizing that so-and-so is a war criminal and leaving him/her at large would probably result in vigilante action and leave the door open to anarchy. It hit me later that this could happen and so I retract the suggestion, for this reason and because of item 3 above. By the way, similar crimes, (usually to a lesser degree), are committed in every war usually by both sides. -Food for thought! Cheers, Fred Williams.
larry@utcsstat.UUCP (04/23/85)
Some comments re: Fred Williams' article on war criminals. > A person who has been living in our society, or one not too > different from our's, for 40 years and has not broken the law, has > proved something. They are not likely to repeat the crime. Huh?!?! Quite a few of these people lived 40 years BEFORE committing the crime: what did that prove???? > Have they not learned that what was done is not moral? Are you serious? Do you honestly think that someone who did these things thought they were moral WHEN they did them. If so these people are so deranged that we cannot expect them to look back with regret. > Can we imagine the guilt they must live with? You seem to have the impression that these people committed one terrible act in the heat of anger and are spending the rest of their lives thinking "what have I done!!!!". I am not convinced that war criminals are overwhelmed with guilt. > By the way, similar crimes, (usually to a lesser degree), are > committed in every war usually by both sides. -Food for thought! I disagree. Don't forget, we're not talking about people who were killed by enemy forces. These victims were killed by their own countrymen. Larry Wasserman -- {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!utcsstat!larry {ihnp4|decvax|utzoo|utcsrgv}!utcs!utzoo!utcsstat!larry
shindman@utcs.UUCP (04/23/85)
In article <455@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: > > A person who has been living in our society, or one not too >different from our's, for 40 years and has not broken the law, has >proved something. They have proven that they can elude criminal prosecution for their crimes. >They are not likely to repeat the crime. They haven't had the opportunity. Had there been another war in the interim who is to say these criminals would not have been at it again? > Can we imagine the guilt they must live with? Can we imagine them chuckling at how simple it has been to hide here in canadian society? -- ----------------- Paul Shindman, U of T Computing Services, Toronto (416) 978-6878 USENET: {ihnp4|decvax}!utcs!shindman BITNET: paulie at utoronto IP SHARP MAIL: uoft
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (04/23/85)
In article <2186@utcsstat.UUCP> larry@utcsstat.UUCP (larry) writes: > > Some comments re: Fred Williams' article on war criminals. > >You seem to have the impression that these people committed one terrible >act in the heat of anger and are spending the rest of their lives >thinking "what have I done!!!!". I am not convinced that war >criminals are overwhelmed with guilt. Nor am I. However, consider the environment in which they were living. The society positively reinforced such actions. Any and all dissent was violently suppressed. If you were able-bodied and within draft age (sick and between 12 and 80 by 1945) you were placed in the army and told what to do. There were very few alternatives - flee the country (which was very hard, particularly, since most other countries wouldn't accept you), die for your beliefs (also very hard, what about your children?), or go along with it (to various extents). A lot of Germans died for refusing to follow orders or actively trying to change the system. As a matter of survival you might have to do things that you wouldn't normally dream of doing. This is not to suggest that "War Criminals" should not be pursued. People like Mengele should be. They went considerably beyond what was necessary for their own survival. There are other categories, though: I believe that many so-called war criminals may also be of the "neutral-morality" (or "reduced mental capacity") variety of human being. Their crimes (if they be called that) are more of a reflection of the lack of societal constraint and the active reenforcement of what they were doing, rather than "innate evil". In this latter case, indictment of the society (beyond attack now) may be more appropriate (depending on individual circumstances) than individual prosecution. Similar reasoning applied to Patti Hearst (particularly including the sensory deprivation). Even Alex Nishri's example (of the German soldier killing a baby) *may* fall under the reduced-capacity/environmental argument - as unfair as it seems to us. It depends on many things that we cannot know. As long as such people are judged "fairly" - by the appropriate laws then justice would probably be served. That's what we have laws for. My greatest fear is that the current situation creates the possibilities for severe abuse of people's legal rights - up to and including lynch mobs - with the news media happily gobbling it all up and fanning the flames. I keep remembering the case, in the US, where a man's life was totally ruined by a case of mistaken identity. Many camp survivors positively identified him as one of their guards. The trial went on for years. Finally, prosecution was terminated because the prosecutor discovered evidence that the man could not possibly have been involved in the alleged crimes. Unfortunately, the damage was already done. > >> By the way, similar crimes, (usually to a lesser degree), are >> committed in every war usually by both sides. -Food for thought! > >I disagree. Don't forget, we're not talking about people who were >killed by enemy forces. These victims were killed by their own >countrymen. Not true - what about the Poles and Russians? Jews were not the only ones to be "genocided" in WW II. Many seem to want to forget this fact. Most wars do have "atrocities" of greater or lesser extent performed by both sides. For example: Cambodia, Vietnam, Iran/Iraq, South America and most wars prior to the 1900's. WW II is just an example of where the balance was a lot more one-sided (but not totally so) than usual. > > Larry Wasserman -- Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd. UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321
eugene@utcsri.UUCP (Eugene Kligerman) (04/24/85)
In article <458@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >Nor am I. However, consider the environment in which they were living. >The society positively reinforced such actions. Any and >all dissent was violently suppressed. If you were able-bodied and >within draft age (sick and between 12 and 80 by 1945) you were placed >in the army and told what to do. There were very few alternatives - >flee the country (which was very hard, particularly, since most >other countries wouldn't accept you), die for your beliefs (also >very hard, what about your children?), or go along with it (to >various extents). A lot of Germans died for refusing to follow >orders or actively trying to change the system. As a matter of survival >you might have to do things that you wouldn't normally dream of doing. I do not think that anybody is suggesting that the whole German nation be held responsible or guilty for the atrocities committed in WWII. The members of the wehrmacht are not considered to be war criminals -- they were soldiers, and soldiers may in the heat of the moment ... etc. And you are right, Chris to say that the soldiers were not necessarily volunteers (though I am sure a lot of them were). However the really criminal organization was the SS -- belonging to the SS was considered to be a crime at the Nuremberg trials. What you seem to forget, however, was that the membership in that particular organization was _voluntary_ (though maybe not in the last stages of the war). Those who joined, did so voluntarily, knowing the goals of that organization (elite police force, Aryan purity, etc.) Suggesting that the members of the SS (organization, members of which committed the lion's share of the atrocities) are really unwilling conscripts, in my mind makes them out to be the victims of the regime which is a desecration of the memory of millions of people who were murdered during the war. This topic happens to be particularly relevant in view of the 40'th anniversary of the war's end (and liberation of many concentration camps), and in light of Pres. Reagan's intended visit to the Bitburg cemetary in W. Germany. May I also recommend as reading this week's issue of Time magazine. -- Eugene Kligerman, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto UUCP: {linus ihnp4 allegra floyd utzoo cornell decwrl uw-beaver}!utcsri!eugene
nishri@utcs.UUCP (Alex Nishri) (04/24/85)
>This is not to suggest that "War Criminals" should not be pursued. >People like Mengele should be. They went considerably beyond >what was necessary for their own survival. There are other categories, >though: I believe that many so-called war criminals may also be of >the "neutral-morality" (or "reduced mental capacity") variety of >human being. Their crimes (if they be called that) are more of >a reflection of the lack of societal constraint and the active >reenforcement of what they were doing, rather than "innate evil". If your boss orders you to steal software from a competitor and you do it, have you not stolen? If all your co-workers also do this, does this change the fact *YOU* are stealing? If a murderer joins an organized crime group, does this lessen the crimes? What if she or he pleads ignorance of the law? How about "neutral-morality?" "active reenforcement" by peers? I believe there is existing law for what constitutes a "war crime." Peer pressure doesn't seem to me to be a valid excuse for such acts. >> >>> By the way, similar crimes, (usually to a lesser degree), are >>> committed in every war usually by both sides. -Food for thought! >> >>I disagree. Don't forget, we're not talking about people who were >>killed by enemy forces. These victims were killed by their own >>countrymen. > >Not true - what about the Poles and Russians? Jews were not >the only ones to be "genocided" in WW II. Many seem to want to >forget this fact. > >Most wars do have "atrocities" of greater or lesser extent performed >by both sides. For example: Cambodia, Vietnam, Iran/Iraq, South >America and most wars prior to the 1900's. WW II is just an example >of where the balance was a lot more one-sided (but not totally so) >than usual. I'm afraid I have trouble following this line of reasoning in any direction. Criminal acts were committed against people of many religions and nationalities in World War II; does this in any way change the gravity with which I should view these acts? There may have been other times in history when one human being committed a horrible criminal act against another; if there are a lot of bank robbers around will you feel that its ok to rob banks? In my opinion, how often and when criminal acts are committed does not alter the way I view such an act. My reaction is the same whether its committed as part of the Iran/Iraq war, World War II, or on the streets of Toronto. The views expressed are not necessarily those of my co-workers or my employer. Alex Nishri University of Toronto, N 43 38'33" W 79 23'14" UUCP: ...utcs!nishri BITNET: alex at utoronto
chris@aquila.UUCP (chris) (04/25/85)
Just as an item of interest re: the SS -- it is illegal (verboten) to display the SS motif (two lightning bolts forming the S's) inside West Germany. One amusing consequence of this law was that the rock group "KISS" was supposed to change its logo when it toured Germany -- they used the double S's in their name. It seems a little strange that every member of the SS was supposed to be a war criminal; but then, if you hang around with scum, ... Chris Retterath. [ send mail if you didn't get this -- our outgoing news appears to be bottled up :-) ]
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (04/25/85)
Alex,
True, one is guilty in any of the circumstances that you name.
Ignorance of the law has been never a particularly good
excuse. However, none of the situations that you suggest
are parallels to what happened in WW II. The level of
propaganda (and the creation of laws and/or violent
repression to support them) was *very* high in pre-war
Germany. In fact, instead of "ignorance of the law" the
defence used was more "in accordance with our law".
Nuremburg's claim to validity was thru application of
some "higher - moral law" (which was the only way they
could prosecute).
A closer parallel to what actually happened to many
(though certainly not all) of the Germans in WW II is
something like this:
Take someone of relatively normal (or slightly
sub-normal) intelligence and subject them to
10 or more years of state-supported brainwashing
specifically designed to produce hatred. Then,
give him a gun and tell him to kill those people
he's been taught to hate. Also, make it impossible
for him to see any counteracting information.
Also, make it clear that disobedience means death.
[ kinda sounds like the normal preparations for
war doesn't it? However, Hitler wanted and
achieved a far greater effect by completely
eliminating the concept of "mercy" ]
Who's guilty in this case? Depending on the precise
circumstances, our laws would probably exonerate many
such people. For example, if you can somehow control
someone of reduced capacity sufficiently to order him
to kill someone you are guilty of murder, not the "tool".
As mentioned earlier in another newsgroup, the veneer (sp?)
of civilization of human beings is VERY thin. To our
own shame, it is shockingly easy to strip off this layer
(when given sufficient power to manipulate) and produce
the beast. The beast is in all of us (though it is a lot
closer to the surface in some). You might want to go
through the life-boat discussions in net.flame for examples.
In Hitler's Germany the manipulators (creators of policy)
are to blame - rarely the foot soldiers. And, most of
the manipulators are dead now. However, the potential
of present and future manipulators frighten me (eg:
the current militarization of the U.S., Right-wing
religious groups, fanatics and terrorists).
Alex, the remarks about reciprocal atrocities were more
of a side-comment, and I know that Fred did not intend
to have them somehow apply to lessening the guilt of the
guilty in ANY situation. My remarks were mainly to debunk
the "we've never done it myth". [ as many consider
Dresden, Nagasaki, and the population-centre-fire-bombing
of Japan to be atrocities too (along with a lot of
considerably clearer and lesser cases). BTW: I'm not
particularly certain what I think about the cases I
mentioned myself - I don't know enough about the reasoning
behind them. With my current knowledge, I would tend
to agree with the actions w.r.t. Hiroshima,
but not Nagasaki and the fire-bombing. I just don't know
about Dresden (though I think I go along with Kurt Vonnegut
on this - he is very strongly anti-war but he had some
very interesting comments w.r.t. WW II which many didn't
expect). ]
--
Help save Canadian Beavers from being Sterilized!
Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd.
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (04/26/85)
In article <458@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: ||Not true - what about the Poles and Russians? Jews were not ||the only ones to be "genocided" in WW II. Many seem to want to ||forget this fact. Sorry, Chris. Millions of Poles and Russians did die in WWII, but there was no Nazi policy of murdering *all* Poles or *all* Russians. Europe was to be made "Judenrein" (not Polenrein or Russenrein). Dave Sherman -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (04/26/85)
In article <624@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: > >Sorry, Chris. Millions of Poles and Russians did die in WWII, but >there was no Nazi policy of murdering *all* Poles or *all* Russians. >Europe was to be made "Judenrein" (not Polenrein or Russenrein). True - not as a "up-front" explicit policy. However, upon occasion such policy was made up "on-the-fly". Think of the "kill/destroy anything inside Warsaw" directive when the Poles attempted to rebel (expecting the Russians to be there to help). Also, think of the "slave-labour" camps where Eastern Europeans and Russians were worked to death (or sent to the camps if they couldn't work). Granted, this are not exactly extermination of a race, but the atrocity was not *only* "Judenrein" it was the up-front "Aryans superiority". Poles, Russians, and lots of other people (including some Allied POW's) died in the concentration camps for simply not being Aryan. I see no effective difference between the Judenrein policy subset of the Aryan superiority (send all East Europeans to the camps if they couldn't work) policy. The *only* difference is that the Germans liked Jews *even less* than East Europeans and that most Jews didn't get a chance to live a little longer by working in the forced labour camps. -- Help save Canadian Beavers from being Sterilized! Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd. UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321
sgcpal@watdcsu.UUCP (P.A. Layman [EE-SiDIC]) (05/01/85)
How about moving this discussion of war criminals to some more appropriate news group like can.legal or can.flame. My index finger is tired of hitting the `n' key. P. Layman (sgcpal@watdcsu)