![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 48. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on October 13, 2006, at 23:50:34
In reply to If I were an MD, I think I would volunteer to go., posted by madeline on October 13, 2006, at 22:00:01
If you were an MD would you have volounteered to be a doctor in a concentration camp?
Posted by alexandra_k on October 13, 2006, at 23:59:56
In reply to Re: doctor jailed for refusing order to go to Iraq, posted by Jost on October 13, 2006, at 22:46:16
> I mean I'm not at all clear that the US (and other) troops in Iraq are doing the killing, as opposed to the protecting at this point.
The charges against him are dated 2005.
> the big difference between Iraq and other US wars...
?
I'm sorry, that lost me.
His point is that he believes the invasion of Iraq was unlawful and hence orders to train for and go to the war are unlawful.
He isn't just saying it. He claims to have documents to support his beliefs. He has impecable character references. He is known as being a thoughtful and intelligent person. He studied... It might even be the ethics of warfare when he did philosophy (can't quite remember, something on Kant's ethics anyway). He has never been reprimanded before. He has gone where ordered and trained when ordered. He claims this is different because he believes the invasion of Iraq was unlawful and hence orders to train for and go to the war are unlawful.
When members of the Nazi party were tried they pleaded 'but we were just following orders'. They were told that that was no excuse. So it seems that we would have wanted them to have said 'that order is unlawful and hence i am not going to follow it'. That is precisely what this guy is doing. Not following orders he has good reason to believe are unlawful.
They managed to say that the legality / illegality of the invasion was irrelevant to the legality / illegality of the orders. When the orders were given the freely (?lol) elected Iraq government asked for help (?) from the coalition forces. Hence the orders he was given were lawful at the time they were given regardless of the legality / illegality of the invasion in the first place.
That was the upshot of the trial.
I know people on these boards feel differently...
But personally... I think charges of war crimes are appropriate given the conduct of certain parties... Kendall-Smith is just getting the ball rolling on that... War crime charges. That is what this is really about. Some f*cking accountability.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2006, at 0:00:40
In reply to Re: doctor jailed for refusing order to go to Iraq, posted by alexandra_k on October 13, 2006, at 23:59:56
Accountability via a court of law.
That is an important point too.
Accountability via a court of law.
Not about who has the biggest nukes...
Posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2006, at 0:09:29
In reply to Re: doctor jailed for refusing order to go to Iraq, posted by Jost on October 13, 2006, at 22:46:16
Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith (b. 1968/1969) was a unit medical officer with the British Royal Air Force, at RAF Kinloss in Moray. He was born in Australia, raised in New Zealand and has dual British-New Zealand citizenship.
He is the first British officer to face criminal charges for challenging the legality of the war against Iraq. On 5 October 2005 he was charged with five counts of disobeying a lawful command between 1 June and 12 July 2005. Four of these relate to him refusing to carry out preparatory training with the final charge relating to his refusal to deploy to Iraq.
In October 2005 his solicitor, Justin Hugheston-Roberts, told the Sunday Times "He is not arguing that he is a conscientious objector. He is arguing that the war is manifestly unlawful."
Pre-trial hearing
In a statement to the court martial at a pre-trial hearing in Aldershot, on 15 March 2006, Kendall-Smith said: "I am a leader. I am not a mere follower to whom no moral responsibility can be attached.""It seems to be the thrust of your argument that the initial invasion of Iraq was unlawful, and that nothing that was done subsequently has made the presence of British forces lawful," said presiding judge advocate Jack Bayliss. Kendall-Smith nodded.
Philip Sapsford, QC, defending, told the court martial: "The flight lieutenant is entitled to advance before this tribunal that the use of force in Iraq was unlawful in international law," essentially reasoning that Kendall-Smith should be allowed to argue that any participation in the war effort was therefore unlawful. Sapsford added that the defence team was prepared to produce expert evidence to show that UN Resolution 1546, relied upon by the UK and U.S. governments to justify the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, was no defence in international law. Sapsford also said he was considering calling former SAS soldier Ben Griffin, who recently resigned because of his objections to the war, to give evidence.
Prosecutors argued that the legal questions surrounding the invasion of Iraq were irrelevant and that the case should centre only around the official orders given to Kendall-Smith. Prosecutor David Perry argued that at the time Kendall-Smith refused to deploy, the invasion itself was over and British forces were in Iraq with the authority of U.N. Security Council resolutions passed after Saddam's fall.
A ruling on 22 March 2006, by the judge advocate Jack Bayliss, concured. Bayliss dismissed Kendall-Smith's argument, ruling that he must face trial by court martial and will not be allowed to argue that the order to deploy was illegal. Obviating Kendall-Smith's argument that any participation in the war effort was unlawful on the basis of an illegal invasion, Bayliss asserted that British forces had full justification under U.N. resolutions 1511 and 1546 to be in Iraq at the time the charges were filed against Kendall-Smith in June and July, 2005.
Although Principle IV of the Nuremberg Principles states that acting under orders of a "Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law," the judge advocate also rejected Kendall-Smith's claim that by serving in Iraq he could be complicit in a crime of aggression. Such a crime "cannot be committed by those in relatively junior positions such as that of the defendant. If a defendant believed that to go to Basra would make him complicit in the crime of aggression, his understanding of the law was wrong," Bayliss said.
Court-martial
A Court-martial in Aldershot acted from 11 April to 13 April 2006. Kendall-Smith was found guilty on all five charges of disobeying orders, and sentenced to a penalty of eight months in prison. As well as the jail sentence, which he serves in a civilian prison, Kendall-Smith was ordered to pay £20,000 towards his defence costs which were covered by legal aid. The court heard that he had personal savings of £20,000. Kendall-Smith also received a discharge from the Service.Post-Trial Statement
Shortly after the Court-Martial passed sentence, Kendall-Smith made the following statement:"I have been convicted and sentenced, a very distressing experience. But I still believe I was right to make the stand that I did and refuse to follow orders to deploy to Iraq - orders I believe were illegal. I am resigned to what may happen to me in the next few months. I shall remain resilient and true to my beliefs which, I believe, are shared by so many others.
Iraq was the only reason I could not follow the order to deploy. As a commissioned officer, I am required to consider every order given to me. Further, I am required to consider the legality of such an order not only as to its effect on domestic but also international law. I was subjected, as was the entire population, to propaganda depicting force against Iraq to be lawful. I have studied in very great depth the various commentaries and briefing notes, including one prepared by the Attorney General, and in particular the main note to the PM dated 7 March 2003. I have satisfied myself that the actions of the armed forces with the deployment of troops were an illegal act - as indeed was the conflict. To comply with an order that I believe unlawful places me in breach of domestic and international law, something I am not prepared to do.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq is a campaign of imperial military conquest and falls into the category of criminal acts. I would have had criminal responsibility vicariously if I had gone to Iraq. I still have two great loves in life - medicine and the RAF. To take the decision that I did caused great sadness, but I had no other choice."Debate and comment
MPs said that the high-profile case illustrated the "legal quagmire" created by Tony Blair's decision to follow George Bush and take part in the conflict. Nick Harvey, Liberal Democrat spokesman on defence said "Hostility to the war is not just confined to the public at large, many members of the armed forces share their concern and have genuine moral objections to serving in Iraq. This case illustrates the legal quagmire that has developed over the Government's decision to go to war. The Government has repeatedly had to hunt around to find legal justification for this war."At the centre of the debate on the Iraq war lies legality and the invasion's questionable basis in international law. Leading the argument for the British Government is Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General. He told the Prime Minister that UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which found Saddam Hussein to have failed to disarm, could be used to justify war without a second resolution being passed, if it could be shown that Iraq was still in direct breach.
It is now clear, however, that even Lord Goldsmith had his reservations about the Government's position because of worries that 1441 did not explicitly set out the conditions upon which military action could be taken.
During an earlier hearing, Assistant Judge Advocate Jack Bayliss had ruled the doctor could not use the defence that in refusing military orders he had acted according to his conscience. The judge maintained that the US and British forces were now in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government. Judge Advocate Bayliss accused Kendall-Smith, a former university tutor of moral philosophy, of "amazing arrogance" and seeking to be a "martyr". The sentence was intended to make an example of him and serve as a warning to others in the force, citing the importance of conformance to orders:
"Obedience of orders is at the heart of any disciplined force. Refusal to obey orders means the force is not a disciplined force but a rabble. Those who wear the Queen's uniform cannot pick and choose which orders they will obey. Those who seek to do so must face serious consequences.
We have considered carefully whether it would be sufficient to dismiss you from the Royal Air Force and fine you as well. We do not think that we could possibly be justified in taking such a lenient course. It would send a message to all those who wear the Queen's uniform that it does not matter if they refuse to carry out the policy of Her Majesty's government."
A spokeswoman for the Royal Air Force Prosecuting Authority said: "It is right that Flight Lieutenant Kendall-Smith was prosecuted for disobeying legal orders. British troops are operating in Iraq under a United Nations mandate and at the invitation of the Iraqi government."He has been followed by the similar case of Trooper Ben Griffin.
Posted by madeline on October 14, 2006, at 7:37:54
In reply to Re: If I were an MD, I think I would volunteer to go., posted by alexandra_k on October 13, 2006, at 23:50:34
Hardly a fair comparison do you think?
Posted by Dinah on October 14, 2006, at 7:47:55
In reply to Re: doctor jailed for refusing order to go to Iraq, posted by alexandra_k on October 13, 2006, at 21:43:29
What are you saying about my brother?
Posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2006, at 7:57:16
In reply to Re: If I were an MD, I think I would volunteer to go. » alexandra_k, posted by madeline on October 14, 2006, at 7:37:54
> Hardly a fair comparison do you think?
I think it is a fair comparison (in certain respects) yes.
More to the point, his argument was that the wars were moral equivalents in the following respects:(This has been developed since the Nazi trials)
Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.
[thus Kendall-Smith would have been responsible for his actions and liable for punishment had he followed orders and it been decided later that the war was illegal]
Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
[thus even if the war isn't considered illegal by US or British law international law is what is relevant]
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
[and this is the crucial point. 'i was just following orders' IS NO EXCUSE. Nazi's were tried and executed even though some claimed they were 'just following orders']
Principle V
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
[and that is the bit that is considered relevant to this case]
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War Crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2006, at 8:08:25
In reply to Re: doctor jailed for refusing order to go to Iraq » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on October 14, 2006, at 7:47:55
> What are you saying about my brother?
I haven't said anything at all about your brother.
You said the following about your brother:
> As much as I hope my brother won't be called on to go to Iraq, I would honor him for fulfilling the obligation he signed up for when he reenlisted.
Your brother isn't in Iraq so I don't see how I'm saying anything about your brother. I'm sorry if I've been insensitive to people who know people who are fighting in Iraq. Surely... One can love people without being obliged to condone their every action though - can't one?
> I also admire him for his service in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and for reenlisting in these perilous times.
Kendall-Smith has been in the air force for a while... He hasn't not followed an order before.
It is just this particular conflict that he felt he shouldn't obey the orders for. For the moral reasons I've given.
Basically...
At the time of invasion...
Did the UN (international law) consider it was acceptable for the US to invade... Or did the UN say 'no, don't do that'?
The reasons for the war (the reasons that were given for the war) turned out to be false. There were no weapons of mass destruction, but even worse there is evidence that the administration had evidence that there were no weapons of mass destruction even when they were citing weapons of mass destruction as a reason why invasion was justified.
I find it hard to see how the invasion is lawful by international law...
Posted by madeline on October 14, 2006, at 11:15:58
In reply to Re: If I were an MD, I think I would volunteer to, posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2006, at 7:57:16
Would you feel any different if the doctor had deployed to Iraq but then refused to treat the wounded there because he disagreed with the politics?
If a policeman and a burgular shoot each other, a physician has to treat both patients - he doesn't get to pick which patient he agrees with.
If an ordinary enlisted man had refused to deploy to Iraq, saying "I will not kill a single person for your politics" then I would absolutely support his decision.
But this isn't a soldier - it is a doctor. Not only that - one that freely enlisted in order to treat the injured in battle.
In my mind, he may have a legal ground on which to stand, but his morals seem to be a bit questionable.
Posted by Jost on October 14, 2006, at 16:39:29
In reply to Re: doctor jailed for refusing order to go to Iraq, posted by Jost on October 13, 2006, at 22:46:16
My point about the low mortality was not the low mortality of non- US troops. Obviously, those are horrendous--
I meant there has been relatively very low mortality, as opposed to traumatic injury, of US troops.
This is hardly an unalloyed good-- traumatic injury is also horrendous. So I was only making the point that doctors on the battlefield are saving lives-- and this seems, overall, to be a value. I'm sure, despite the horrors of it, having one's loved one back alive, in most instances, except the worst, is something families and survivors prefer.
It doesn't mean the war, as a whole, is moral or legal, according to International Law. I'm not sure of it's legality. I'm less sure of its morality.
However, I'm also not sure that it reaches the moral pitch where if you're a doctor, you have the moral high ground in not going. That's what I"m not sure of.
Is it valuable to have people refusing to go to a morally questionable war? Undoubtedly. People can protest, refuse to enlist, protest more-- but if you've enlisted, I"m not sure, absent things I"m not at all sure I see here-- and you're a doctor who will save lives-- I'm not sure it's morally so great.
If all you're going to do is go and kill and be killed-- well that's somehow different.
The moral equivalence of this and Nazi Germany? No, that I can't see.
I think if what was happening now was what we wanted to have happen, or have planned to execute-- as our ultimate strategy-- maybe that would be-- getting there-- but I haven't yet gotten anywhere near the conclusion that our government wanted this to happen. No way.
By the way-- I'd always understood that those who practiced civil disobedience expected to be punished for it-- that was part of the idea. That you disobey, despite the consequences. Which doesn't make the consequences good- but it does make them normal science-- not Nazi science.
Jost
Posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2006, at 18:59:03
In reply to Re: If I were an MD, I think I would volunteer to, posted by madeline on October 14, 2006, at 11:15:58
> Would you feel any different if the doctor had deployed to Iraq but then refused to treat the wounded there because he disagreed with the politics?
I don't think disagreeing with the politics is a legitimate defence.
> If a policeman and a burgular shoot each other, a physician has to treat both patients - he doesn't get to pick which patient he agrees with.And if a Nazi and a Jew are both injured in a concentration camp...
He actually has to... Follow orders.
> If an ordinary enlisted man had refused to deploy to Iraq, saying "I will not kill a single person for your politics" then I would absolutely support his decision.You might support it but it isn't a defence in a court of law.
> But this isn't a soldier - it is a doctor. Not only that - one that freely enlisted in order to treat the injured in battle.In a battle that is legal by international law. He has gone to treat the injured in battle before... But he will not go to Iraq because he has good evidence that leads him to believe that the law is NOT legal according to international law. So once more... If you were a doctor you think you would be obliged to follow Nazi orders so you can go be a doctor in a concentration camp?
> In my mind, he may have a legal ground on which to stand, but his morals seem to be a bit questionable.It is good to question.
I wish I summarised better because I'm not sure people are hearing his arguments...
Posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2006, at 19:12:24
In reply to Re: doctor jailed for refusing order to go to Iraq, posted by Jost on October 14, 2006, at 16:39:29
> My point about the low mortality was not the low mortality of non- US troops. Obviously, those are horrendous--
I thought something happened with that.
>doctors on the battlefield are saving lives-- and this seems, overall, to be a value.Doctors saved lives in concentration camps too. Would you really volounteer to follow Nazi orders to go work in one, though?
> I'm sure, despite the horrors of it, having one's loved one back alive, in most instances, except the worst, is something families and survivors prefer.
What I really struggle with is why they don't prefer them to stay safe in the first place. I mean, I can understand people choosing to go and fight in a war because they believe in the cause (fighting Hitler, for example). But fighting in a war risking your life killing others because... Some guy in a uniform says 'do this'. And somehow this is meant to be necessary for the good of... The country? I really struggle with this...
> However, I'm also not sure that it reaches the moral pitch where if you're a doctor, you have the moral high ground in not going. That's what I"m not sure of.The point is he got a court trial and his defence was that the war was unlawful. He was the first person to have a court trial and attempt to argue that the war was unlawful. They didn't hear his evidence to that effect... But he is going to continue.
If people didn't go to war... How many (US) lives and post traumatic stresses do you think that would save? How many lives and post traumatic stresses do you think Kendall-Smith would be saving if this has the result that the US doesn't invade contrary to UN policy again?
> The moral equivalence of this and Nazi Germany? No, that I can't see.
The moral equivalence he is claiming is that they are both contrary to international law.
> I think if what was happening now was what we wanted to have happen, or have planned to execute-- as our ultimate strategy-- maybe that would be-- getting there-- but I haven't yet gotten anywhere near the conclusion that our government wanted this to happen. No way.The US government didn't want to invade Iraq?
> By the way-- I'd always understood that those who practiced civil disobedience expected to be punished for it-- that was part of the idea. That you disobey, despite the consequences. Which doesn't make the consequences good- but it does make them normal science-- not Nazi science.
Normal science / Nazi science isn't thought to be a point in common here.
If the war was illegal then he wasn't committing civil disobedience.
To the contrary if he had have followed the order he could have been prosecuted for war crimes later.
The analogy again:
'Do this xxx' Person does this, person is later tried for being a war criminal. Defence: 'I was just following orders'.
Sentenced to death in some cases. Following orders is no excuse.
Kendall-Smith 'Do this xxx'. Kendall-Smith has done some reading about the justification for the war and knows what the UN has said and he is concerned that the war is an unlawful act of agression. If he follows orders and later the war is judged (by international law) to be an act of agression then he can be sentenced for war crimes. So... He said he wouldn't.
How many people followed German orders?
How many people are prepared to electrocute in the Milgrim experiment?
The Milgrim experiment doesn't need to be replicated...
I think Kendall-Smith should be commended.
Posted by madeline on October 14, 2006, at 21:43:04
In reply to Re: If I were an MD, I think I would volunteer to » madeline, posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2006, at 18:59:03
Well to answer your question - yes, if I were a doctor I certainly would go to a concentration camp (even though I maintain that this is not really applicable in this setting).
What I would NOT do, is follow an order NOT to treat a wounded jewish detainee in that concentration camp.
I think physicians simply do not have the right to say when and under what political (and yes in my mind war is political) conditions to treat patients.
I hear what you are saying, he is challenging the legality of this war under international law.
His challenge would have much more merit in my mind, however, if he were going there kill people rather than administer medical aid to them.
He is simply not the best spokesperson for this cause.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2006, at 22:14:39
In reply to Re: If I were an MD, I think I would volunteer to, posted by madeline on October 14, 2006, at 21:43:04
> What I would NOT do, is follow an order NOT to treat a wounded jewish detainee in that concentration camp.so you wouldn't follow orders that are unlawful under international law?
> I think physicians simply do not have the right to say when and under what political (and yes in my mind war is political) conditions to treat patients.
> I hear what you are saying, he is challenging the legality of this war under international law.yes. so it isn't a moral thing so much as it is a refusal to follow an order that he had good evidence to believe was illegal under international law.
> His challenge would have much more merit in my mind, however, if he were going there kill people rather than administer medical aid to them.
> He is simply not the best spokesperson for this cause.he is probably more articulate and informed than your average foot soldier... the court cases will continue with people making a case that the invasion of Iraq was unlawful according to international law.
other people have followed suit...
he got the ball rolling was all...
and he will appeal.
Posted by madeline on October 15, 2006, at 8:53:57
In reply to Re: If I were an MD, I think I would volunteer to » madeline, posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2006, at 22:14:39
Do you not think a physician under these circumstances has a moral imperative to help the injured in the Iraq?
Posted by zazenducky on October 15, 2006, at 9:18:29
In reply to Re: doctor jailed for refusing order to go to Iraq, posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2006, at 19:12:24
If you really think it is equivalent to the Nazis how can you live with yourself while contributing to it? Doesn't that make you a collaborator? How is it different from Germans who just looked the other way during their war?
Posted by zazenducky on October 15, 2006, at 10:04:26
In reply to Are you paying taxes that support that war? » alexandra_k, posted by zazenducky on October 15, 2006, at 9:18:29
Posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 10:39:38
In reply to Sorry. I withdraw above questions (nm) » zazenducky, posted by zazenducky on October 15, 2006, at 10:04:26
thanks. actually... my income counts as a charitable donation and hence it isn't taxed.
though i guess i pay goods and services tax etc etc etc...
Posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 10:41:15
In reply to Re: If I were an MD, I think I would volunteer to » alexandra_k, posted by madeline on October 15, 2006, at 8:53:57
> Do you not think a physician under these circumstances has a moral imperative to help the injured in the Iraq?
not if he has good reason to believe that going to Iraq is in breech of international law...
surely... there are injured people in the UK?
people who are damaged from the terrorist attacks and the like???
Posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 10:43:33
In reply to Re: Sorry. I withdraw above questions, posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 10:39:38
though i should probably say that Helen Clarke (Prime Minister of New Zealand) said 'we refuse to send people to die for a war we don't believe in' right after Bush said 'whoever is not for us is against us'. That was a little scarey... But I think it is fair to say that the PM did have the backing of the majority of the population (and probably even the UN) about then...
Posted by Jost on October 15, 2006, at 12:25:27
In reply to Re: Sorry. I withdraw above questions, posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 10:43:33
One small picky point.
The footsoldiers are not the ones charged with war crimes or cimes against humanity. You really do have to be in a position of significant power to be charged with that-- unless as in the US, a government is charging one of its own, in which case a lesser authority (eg a Marine Sgt. such as Lieutenant Calley in the Vietnam War) will be charged.
For example Adolf Eichmann, who was, I believe the one who famously claimed that he was following orders, was not a footsoldier:
"SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Karl Adolf Eichmann (1906-1962) was head of the Department for Jewish Affairs in the Gestapo from 1941 to 1945 and was chief of operations in the deportation of three million Jews to extermination camps. He joined the Austrian Nazi party in 1932 and later became a member of the SS. In 1934 he served as an SS corporal in the Dachau concentration camp. That same year he joined the SD and attracted the attention of Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich. By 1935 Eichmann was already working in the Jewish section, where he was investigating possible "solutions to the Jewish question....
It was Eichmann who organized the Wannsee Conference of January 1942, which focused on issues related to the "final solution of the Jewish question." From this point Eichmann assumed the leading role in the deportation of European Jews to the death camps, as well as in the plunder of their property."
The overwhelming majority of those in the SS and in the German army were never considered for prosecution, nor were German citizens who may have done all sorts of things.
Not, by the way, that I agree that the invasion of Iraq is even vaguely similar to the Nazi period.
My reason:
1. you intentionally decide to commit genocide or
1. You, for reasons that I won't guess at, invade a country, apparently with some idea of geopolitical gain, but also the idea of creating democracy or some friendly government with a fairly decent central authority, but
your plan doesn't work beyond your worse imaginings of not working; your political party whose goal is maintenance of power, as well as other things, must go on, so you turn a blind eye to the nightmarish consequences of your policy of invasion
2. history will judge you, but you try to think this is a "comma" in the whole parade of human historyThese are not the same cases. Given civility rules, I'll stick with that.
Jost
Posted by Jost on October 15, 2006, at 12:33:46
In reply to Re: Sorry. I withdraw above questions, posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2006, at 10:43:33
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/
The Nizkor Project
The claim was ofen made at the Nuremburg trials by defendents, also Nazi leaders:"The Nuremberg Trials were a series of trials most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military and economical leadership of Nazi Germany. The trials were held in the city of Nuremberg, Germany, from 1945 to 1949, at the Nuremberg Palace of Justice. The first and best known of these trials was the Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which tried 24 of the most important captured leaders of Nazi Germany. It was held from November 20, 1945 to October 1, 1946. The second set of trials of lesser war criminals was conducted under Control Council Law No. 10 at the U.S. Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT), including the Doctors' Trial. This article primarily deals with the IMT; see the separate article on the NMT for details on those trials."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials
Jost
Posted by Declan on October 15, 2006, at 13:35:49
In reply to Are you paying taxes that support that war? » alexandra_k, posted by zazenducky on October 15, 2006, at 9:18:29
It may not be *equivalent*, but that's not saying a lot.
Posted by Declan on October 15, 2006, at 13:40:29
In reply to Re: Sorry. I withdraw above questions, posted by Jost on October 15, 2006, at 12:25:27
I agree with you, Jost, about the second interpretation, although 'geopolitical gain' covers a fair bit of territory in the Persian Gulf.
Posted by Declan on October 15, 2006, at 13:47:39
In reply to Re: Citation for my last post, posted by Jost on October 15, 2006, at 12:33:46
Since we're on to Eichman, Jost, may I ask you your opinion of his interrogation? When I read the transcript in some book which was without commentary, I wondered/assumed that the passage of time and the position he found himself in (losing the war, change in public opinion)had softened his previous convictions. That's the only way it made sense to me.
Where was it they turned out the lights and locked the office door when they'd done their work? Budapest?
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.