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.
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
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/25/85)
There is a big difference between the regular German armed forces and the SS. The SS was responsible for the war crimes; the rest of the German armed forces got on with the business of fighting a war. This is not to say that *no* atrocities were commited by non-SS members, but the particular vile horror of the haulocast was the doing of volunteers to the SS elite who believed (or at least professed to believe) in Hitler's racist doctrine. To say that the German people as a whole, or to say that all the German soldiers are responsible for the haulocast is to slander them - and is a form of the same ``we are human -- those monsters are not human'' dogmatic hatred that at least contributes and may cause such atrocities in the first place. However, to say that volunteers to the SS are in some way not responsible for their actions makes a mockery of the notion of personal responsibility. To be 16 and join the German airforce in time of war -- understandable. To be 16 and to join the SS? Barely understandable and not to be condoned or excused. Laura Creighton --this account will be gone by the time you read this note... utzoo!laura
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (04/25/85)
In article <5541@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >There is a big difference between the regular German armed forces and the >SS. The SS was responsible for the war crimes; the rest of the German >armed forces got on with the business of fighting a war. This is not to >say that *no* atrocities were commited by non-SS members, but the particular >vile horror of the haulocast was the doing of volunteers to the SS elite >who believed (or at least professed to believe) in Hitler's racist doctrine. First you gotta prove that all of the SS were responsible for the war crimes. Many of the SS regiments (eg: SS Panzers) were elite combat troops - not concentration camp guards or punishment troops. (kinda like impugning all of the Green Berets for "Tiger Cages") Germany certainly couldn't afford to use mechanized regiments for running concentration camps. In contrast, though, the forbidding of the SS lightning bolt seems reasonable - when it is used as a symbol of the denial or support of atrocities or current neo-nazi groups. [As is the swastika when used by neo-nazi's, but not in the art of BC Indians, India and China. My mother has a small silver bracelet made before the war by Indians from British Columbia. She doesn't wear it (even though the swastika is backwards) precisely because most people tend only to think of Hitler when they see it.] > >To say that the German people as a whole, or to say that all the German >soldiers are responsible for the haulocast is to slander them - and is a >form of the same ``we are human -- those monsters are not human'' dogmatic >hatred that at least contributes and may cause such atrocities in the first >place. However, to say that volunteers to the SS are in some way not >responsible for their actions makes a mockery of the notion of personal >responsibility. To be 16 and join the German airforce in time of war -- >understandable. To be 16 and to join the SS? Barely understandable and >not to be condoned or excused. Secondly, to be 16 and join the SS? What would a 16 year old (or most other German citizenry) have known about the SS? That they were elite troops? Yes. That they (amongst other things) ran concentration camps and what was happening in them? No. The "fact" of Hitler's "Final Solution" was one of the best-kept secrets of the war. Except for some rumors that even the Allies considered to be too horrible to be true, the only people who knew about it were: 1) dead, or 2) in a concentration camp, or 3) orchestrating the whole mess, or 4) unable to speak (or refuse to act) on pain of death. (By the time a volunteer SS soldier found out what was really going on it was too late to back out) Convict the people under "3", but not in "4" - Even you, Laura, should agree with that (considering your comments in the Life-boat discussions in net.flame). When it comes down to a decision between "me" or "you" (where you have no other alternative) common law and justice does not expect you to commit suicide. However, those who do are cannonized. A lot of Germans did choose suicide (even in the SS). (eg: the various failed attempts at the assassination of Hitler) There is an extremely good book on the subject of me versus you (though it has no connection with WW II) called "Covenant with Death". Though a work of fiction, it has a very good discussion on this topic w.r.t. morals, justice and the law. [ The plot line was basically that a man was wrongly convicted of murder. At the execution the man managed to save himself by pushing the hangman off the scaffold (who died in the fall). Shortly afterwards the real murderer confessed, and the Judge had to make some sort of decision w.r.t. the hangman's death. It sounds like clear-cut self-defence doesn't it? Well, it wasn't, (partially because the execution was state-condoned so normal rules of intent on the part of the hangman didn't apply) but I'm not sure that I can explain it well enough here. Try reading the book (or see the movie, but the title is different) - the summation goes far beyond the specific case. Sorry, I forget the author's name. ] > >Laura Creighton --this account will be gone by the time you read this note... >utzoo!laura Regardless of any remarks made by anyone (Nuremburg, Time magazine etc.), the guilt of any member of the SS *must* be determined individually on a case-by-case basis. Both our law and and natural justice make that essential. Thus, I feel that the brouhaha about Reagan's visit to a cemetary that contains (in addition to others) some SS dead to be inappropriate. In no way could Reagan's visit (in the absence of proof to the contrary) be construed as any kind of support of the atrocities of WW II. After all, he isn't specifically visiting the SS dead is he? However, his avoidance of the concentration camps may be such. Maybe he would do better to avoid both. [ I don't like Ronnie, but the uproar is inappropriate ] -- 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