War crimes

[fishdip]

So after reading about a Nazi member being charged with war crimes a few days back. I don't understand how they are able to charge him with a war crime if at the time it was not a crime to do it? Its not about right or wrong I am looking for the law side of it.

[Boom King]

It's war. When you lose, it's not like you get sent home with a nice severance package.

[fishdip]

Originally Posted by Boom King

It's war. When you lose, it's not like you get sent home with a nice severance package.

That is true. But 60 years later. My understanding is he killed citizens but the 4th Geneva amendment was add after world war 2. So at the time it was not in violation of the war time laws.

[Boom King]

Well I'm sure the Nazis broke existing laws under the Geneva Convention of the time. They may have ordered and condoned the acts, but if they thought the atrocities that they were committing were legal as viewed by the rest of the world then they wouldn't have shrouded their acts in such secrecy, destroyed documents, and jailed/killed sympathizers and witnesses.

Laws get amended and modernized all the time. At the time, no one thought a human being was capable of committing such horrific crimes against a fellow human. The laws were amended so that the powers could put these monsters on trial, lock them up and throw away the key. You don't send your sons and daughters out to die in war and shed blood only to let the enemy walk away and wipe his hands.

[fishdip]

Originally Posted by Boom King

Well I'm sure the Nazis broke existing laws under the Geneva Convention of the time. They may have ordered and condoned the acts, but if they thought the atrocities that they were committing were legal as viewed by the rest of the world then they wouldn't have shrouded their acts in such secrecy, destroyed documents, and jailed/killed sympathizers and witnesses.

Laws get amended and modernized all the time. At the time, no one thought a human being was capable of committing such horrific crimes against a fellow human. The laws were amended so that the powers could put these monsters on trial, lock them up and throw away the key. You don't send your sons and daughters out to die in war and shed blood only to let the enemy walk away and wipe his hands.

This is true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=il59S3HT6jI

[JohnnyBravo]

Where did all this come from?

[Klondike1020]

Haha
Johnnybravo just fish slapped Fishdip

War crimes are tricky. Just google the case your are referring too.

They invest a lot of International resources making sure the big shots in charge get a spanking too.

[JohnnyBravo]

[fishdip]

Originally Posted by JohnnyBravo

Where did all this come from?

Originally Posted by Klondike1020

Haha
Johnnybravo just fish slapped Fishdip

War crimes are tricky. Just google the case your are referring too.

They invest a lot of International resources making sure the big shots in charge get a spanking too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hot-burnt.html

[JohnnyBravo]

No comment (period)

[Whiskey]

Originally Posted by fishdip

That is true. But 60 years later. My understanding is he killed citizens but the 4th Geneva amendment was add after world war 2. So at the time it was not in violation of the war time laws.

Originally Posted by fishdip

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hot-burnt.html

Murder was always illegal, using the daily mail as a reliable source of information does not reflect well on you, it's a rag that's barely fit to line the bottom of a bird cage

[fishdip]

Originally Posted by Whiskey

Murder was always illegal, using the daily mail as a reliable source of information does not reflect well on you, it's a rag that's barely fit to line the bottom of a bird cage

Its the first link on Google and the fact its almost a full copy and paste from a few other news sites I do not see how it reflects at all. And murder is not illegal in a time of war this is why we have the Geneva stuff.

[professor gascan]

War is a crime.

[Whiskey]

Originally Posted by fishdip

Its the first link on Google and the fact its almost a full copy and paste from a few other news sites I do not see how it reflects at all. And murder is not illegal in a time of war this is why we have the Geneva stuff.

No surprise that they copied & pasted from somewhere else, did they add a few xenophobic lines & dumb it down to appease their readership?

There is a difference between shooting at enemy soldiers & lining up an entire village & shooting them.

Staff Sgt. Robert Bales is serving life for shooting afghan civvies as a case point.

[fishdip]

Originally Posted by Whiskey

No surprise that they copied & pasted from somewhere else, did they add a few xenophobic lines & dumb it down to appease their readership?

There is a difference between shooting at enemy soldiers & lining up an entire village & shooting them.

Staff Sgt. Robert Bales is serving life for shooting afghan civvies as a case point.

Did not read it just seen it looked the same. And Robert violated the 4th Geneva code. And case in point good old USA killed a wedding party don't see any one getting charged with a war crime or murder. Also the point of war is to kill any one who dose not share your same view point or gain land. A order is a order no mater what the order is you are fighting for your leader at that time just like all the troops before and after this guy.

[Whiskey]

Originally Posted by fishdip

Did not read it just seen it looked the same. And Robert violated the 4th Geneva code. And case in point good old USA killed a wedding party don't see any one getting charged with a war crime or murder. Also the point of war is to kill any one who dose not share your same view point or gain land. A order is a order no mater what the order is you are fighting for your leader at that time just like all the troops before and after this guy.

Subtle difference between a strike targeting a terrorist leader who will continue to order attacks against your guys & only emerges from his compound occasionally, which also hits a couple of civvies & the order to go to village X & kill all living things there because one of our guys was killed.

Civvies getting caught in the crossfire is a sad fact of war, it's very different to go & kill everyone that looks sideways at you

As for the bit in bold

'Only following orders' didn't work at Nuremburg, and I'm certain the US also hanged a number of it's own troops who murdered civvies during WWII

[corksil]

That's how legal code works.

We americans have the right to bear arms.....

(In your place of sojourn, with the windows closed and the blinds shut.)

(On the way to or from a place of repair, gun show, firing range, or hunting preserve -- only with the firearm unloaded, locked securely in a separate container from ammunition, which must also be locked securely with a separate key.)

(Apart from the above, you cannot bring a firearm out of storage or remove it's locking mechanisms.)

(And you may only take your firearm to the firing range on one of three days per month, between certain hours.)

(And when you get to the firing range, you must surrender your firearm for inspection by the range safety officer prior to removing the gun locks.)

(And your firearm may only contain 10 rounds, including the round in the chamber.)

(And you may not posses an extended barrel, magazine, or suppressor under any circumstance or you will be charged with a class I felony.)

(And you may not hunt with a firearm containing less than a 5" barrel.)

(And you may not bring home any deceased 'game' without registering the ear tag with the appropriate authorities.)

(And you may not sell any part of the animal to any individual under any circumstances.)

(And you may not posses hollow point ammunition under any circumstances.)

(And you may not...




Catch my drift? Laws are created. They get amended. Then the amendments get amended. And then the amendments get amended.

Legal code is like math. A = B.

If B = C.

Only if B = D.

And B*D = X, which is inequal to Y, which is equal to A, elseif B=E.

In which case E is equal to M, which is always equal to N, unless N = Z.

And everyone knows that Z =/= A, under all circumstances aforementioned preceding the case of 1933 in which A = Z due to litigation between parties determined that A > Z in some cases, under certain circumstances, prior to X = Y.

Would anyone like a continuance? If all parties agree to the terms in question, this will go to trial.

(If anyone is a software programmer, the answer is Q.)

You follow me? No? Get a lawyer.

This is precisely where a jury was instated -- in an attempt to overcome the rhetoric and bring a human element back into the court room.

I don't even know what we were discussing anymore.

[fishdip]

Originally Posted by corksil

That's how legal code works.

We americans have the right to bear arms.....

(In your place of sojourn, with the windows closed and the blinds shut.)

(On the way to or from a place of repair, gun show, firing range, or hunting preserve -- only with the firearm unloaded, locked securely in a separate container from ammunition, which must also be locked securely with a separate key.)

(Apart from the above, you cannot bring a firearm out of storage or remove it's locking mechanisms.)

(And you may only take your firearm to the firing range on one of three days per month, between certain hours.)

(And when you get to the firing range, you must surrender your firearm for inspection by the range safety officer prior to removing the gun locks.)

(And your firearm may only contain 10 rounds, including the round in the chamber.)

(And you may not posses an extended barrel, magazine, or suppressor under any circumstance or you will be charged with a class I felony.)

(And you may not hunt with a firearm containing less than a 5" barrel.)

(And you may not bring home any deceased 'game' without registering the ear tag with the appropriate authorities.)

(And you may not sell any part of the animal to any individual under any circumstances.)

(And you may not posses hollow point ammunition under any circumstances.)

(And you may not...




Catch my drift? Laws are created. They get amended. Then the amendments get amended. And then the amendments get amended.

Legal code is like math. A = B.

If B = C.

Only if B = D.

And B*D = X, which is inequal to Y, which is equal to A, elseif B=E.

In which case E is equal to M, which is always equal to N, unless N = Z.

And everyone knows that Z =/= A, under all circumstances aforementioned preceding the case of 1933 in which A = Z due to litigation between parties determined that A > Z in some cases, under certain circumstances, prior to X = Y.

Would anyone like a continuance? If all parties agree to the terms in question, this will go to trial.

(If anyone is a software programmer, the answer is Q.)

You follow me? No? Get a lawyer.

This is precisely where a jury was instated -- in an attempt to overcome the rhetoric and bring a human element back into the court room.

I don't even know what we were discussing anymore.

Yes but the issue at hand is if you had said hallow points 5 years ago and now its illegal they don't charge you for it if you no longer have them.

[Whiskey]

Originally Posted by fishdip

Yes but the issue at hand is if you had said hallow points 5 years ago and now its illegal they don't charge you for it if you no longer have them.

So he was involved in a massacre & the people he killed are no longer dead

[fishdip]

Originally Posted by Whiskey

So he was involved in a massacre & the people he killed are no longer dead

No but at the time it was not a crime to kill non combatants in war.

[Whiskey]

Originally Posted by fishdip

No but at the time it was not a crime to kill non combatants in war.

It also wasn't a crime to gas jews, but that sent quite a few nazis to the gallows, and quite rightly so.

You should lay off the newly legalised stuff mate...

[fishdip]

Originally Posted by Whiskey

It also wasn't a crime to gas jews, but that sent quite a few nazis to the gallows, and quite rightly so.

You should lay off the newly legalised stuff mate...

You are looking at it as right and wrong. I am simply looking at it as braking the law not braking the law.

[Whiskey]

Originally Posted by fishdip

You are looking at it as right and wrong. I am simply looking at it as braking the law not braking the law.

Hague convention 1899, Section III, Article 43

SECTION III. -- ON MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER HOSTILE TERRITORY

Article 43
The authority of the legitimate power having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all steps in his power to re-establish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

In legal terms shall = MUST

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague02.asp

[Boom King]

As it has been pointed out, murdering civilians was never legal. The Leipzig War Crimes Trials after WW1 set the precedent for trying war criminals including crimes against civilian populations in occupied foreign territories. Article 46 and 47 of the Hague Convention state "family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious conviction and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated. Pillage is formally forbidden." So no doubt that a nation may put on trial a Nazi if he, while occupying foreign soil murdered a Polish citizen for example.

Don't forget that Germany was warned during the war that if they lost that they would be held responsible and punished for their violations of exciting treaties and atrocities. The Allies declared that they would "pursue them to the uttermost ends of the earth... in order that justice may be done."

Edit: The link to the actual case was not working for me yesterday, but in reading through it today, they are not charging him with any war crimes as you stated but rather for murder and accessory to murder. So sounds like he will be tried under German Public Law rather than international laws for being a war criminal in legal terms. I think this has been standard practice in Germany since the 1960s.