Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (133680)	5/20/2004 4:27:03 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Edit...ahhh, I should have suspected a much more difficult moral quandry from you Neo. :) Difficult question. I would probably have let them off, stress of war and all. Tough call though...

To: Neocon who wrote (133680)	5/20/2004 4:33:18 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Patton threw the report in the trash

To: Neocon who wrote (133680)	5/20/2004 4:49:21 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Neo, my uncle Jim [who died last year aged 93] was captured in the desert in the fighting with Rommel and held prisoner for a long time in Germany. Captivity seems to have been reasonable, in general, though I think it would have been better to be imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. But all was not joy. Anyway, towards the end of the war, they were being marched here and there, with allied troops getting closer. There was one German guard who was a particularly cruel piece of work, who killed some of the prisoners who couldn't proceed and I forget what else. When the jig was up and the allies were too close to avoid, the German leader told them to go that way while the Germans went the other way. Jim and co asked for the vicious German guy to be handed over to them as a prisoner. The lead German declined and directed them to freedom. He could have done as the GIs did and killed them all. The intention of Jim's mates was clear and I would have had sympathy with them killing the German, at whose hand they had suffered. Similarly, with the Buchenwald SS, though I think there was more to it than the horror they encountered; the GIs had got there the hard way, and would have lost buddies along the way [I suppose] and were in no mood to wait for military trials of their captives. Perhaps some of the GIs were actually not much better than the cruel German, enjoying a last chance to kill some German prisoners. The USA is currently prosecuting some overly enthusiastic and cruel prison guards, so it's not beyond the realms of possibility. It's too hard to judge from this distance and with such little information. Revenge in the heat of action is notoriously unjust and best avoided. I don't like the "lost it" excuse. People know what they are doing. "Oh, sorry boss, I lost it". Yeah, right. We all have emotions and we don't go around "losing it". We decide to take each action and can at any instant change our minds. Mqurice

To: Neocon who wrote (133680)	5/20/2004 4:56:25 PM
From: Lou Weed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

No matter how horrific the events there is always due process.....that is what differentiates us from our enemy. This is one of the cornerstones of what a democratic free society is based upon. When the law is taken into one's own hands the process breaks down. Naturally the emotions of the Army were running high however the SS guards also had a right to trial even though the crimes were barbaric. Were they sure that all the SS officers in the prison were involved in the exterminations. Some of them could have been field troops? Even if they were all camp guards it still doesn't make it right. Where do you draw the line when you make exceptions. Everyone has a right to trial unless you're caught doing x, y and z to either a, b or c. Doesn't work that way and never should. So in answer to your question I believe in the integrity of our judicial system and believe the offending GI's should have been charged. I'm no lawyer but I believe there's temporary insanity pleas etc. that can be used as a defense. To rationalize that this action should be acceptable is to undermine the very core of the political package that we are over there (Iraq) trying to install. MON.

To: Neocon who wrote (133680)	5/20/2004 5:15:11 PM
From: Suma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

They should have been punished. As much horror as those guards did to the prisoners when the conquer becomes as bad as those they are conquering..... then they deserve to be punished. The Geneva Convention was in force then too.

To: Neocon who wrote (133680)	5/20/2004 11:00:30 PM
From: h0db	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It was Dachau; US forces killed 520 German Waffen SS after they had been captured at Dachau on April 29,1945. humanitas-international.org The US unit responsible was engaged in hot combat with retreating German units on the day Dachau was liberated. Formal German surrender did not occur until May 8, 1945. It was also a world-wide total war, fought over six years, that saw entire cities destroyed by firebombing and nuclear weapons. If the US or any Western leader today ordered what we did back then to Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki, the would probably be viewed as war criminals. Different times, different technologies, different sensibilities and expectations. Punishing the US troops for violating the Geneva Convention at Dachau would have been like passing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

To: Neocon who wrote (133680)	5/21/2004 2:30:14 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Do you think they did the right thing, or should the offending GIs have been busted for having lost it over the horror they had encountered? Do you need to ask? They killed them not from a sense of duty, not from necessity, and not because it would prevent a greater harm; they killed them because they got angry. And those they killed were all unarmed and defenseless. Did they do the right thing? We all get angry sometimes. That doesn't allow us to act out our anger without some penalty. The penalty may be lessened depending upon whether a reasonable person might have been overcome by rage, but unless they were "temporarily insane," the crime is not excused. Nor should it be. They shot unarmed and defenseless PEOPLE, some of whom were undoubtedly individuals who would have been spared by the VICTIMS based upon acts of lesser cruelty or perhaps even kindnesses. The killings of the soldiers were not much different than the acts of the German soldiers who mowed down unarmed prisoners. But we would not penalize our soldiers much. The reason is clear; when we send men to kill others we can't expect them to respect life and abhor killing like they did before we sent them to war. These guys had undoubtedly killed other men who'd done far less to arouse their ire than had these guards. In those circumstances their actions were predictable. If there was anyone that we might truly find morally repugnant, it might be their Company or Platoon officer whose job it was to follow the rules and "protect" his men and the prisoners from these acts of rage. But then this stuff happens all too often in times of war, including from our soldiers despite all the protestations of the naive that "Americans don't do these things." That's the face of war and that's why so many of our generals and our veterans had a far higher standard for invading and occupying Iraq than the "no shows."