Did Nazis war criminals recieve better treatment and fairer trials than those at Guantanamo?

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: JD50
We also threw over 100,000 American citizens into internment camps, yet the left still has a love affair with FDR.

Doesn't everyone have a love affair with FDR? Yea, the internment camps where wrong, but was that his idea? Did he agree with it? Even so, he did a lot of incredible things that allow us to put that behind us.

He issued the executive order for it. He should have been executed as a war criminal.

wtf? what he did was a wrong thing but was not a war crime. those camps were not concentration camps.

get a clue before you post.

Fine, it was a crime against humanity. What you call it doesn't really change anything.

it wasn't that either but you are getting warmer.

Nah, you're getting colder.

 

[OutHouse]

go look up what a crime against humanity is them you can come back and play.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Citrix
go look up what a crime against humanity is them you can come back and play.

Issues like this are not clear cut. That's why there are trials. Perhaps you should realize that and then come here and "play." IMO, FDR could easily be tried under crimes against humanity for his despicable actions.

 

[OutHouse]

despicable actions like internment camps?

WWII was nasty on all sides, nobody is completly innocent for doing some bad stuff. you forget the world was in engaged in a Total War. There are no civilians in total war.

Dont get me wrong the internment camps was total bullshit and out of line, but it was not a war crime or crime against humanity. it was a violation of an americans civil liberties and bill of rights.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: techs
Did we gave fairer trials and better treatment to Nazis war criminals after WW2 than to those we imprisoned at Gauntanamo?
If so, why?

Guantanamo holds out of uniform enemy combatants who could just as well be treated as spies and summarily executed.

Really? Ok, then execute them. Oh wait, that's right, after 6 years there's no charges brought against most of them because there's no evidence against most of them.

Originally posted by: Citrix
Dont get me wrong the internment camps was total bullshit and out of line, but it was not a war crime or crime against humanity. it was a violation of an americans civil liberties and bill of rights.

Well at least we don't do stuff like that anymore. Uh oh.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: techs
Did we gave fairer trials and better treatment to Nazis war criminals after WW2 than to those we imprisoned at Gauntanamo?
If so, why?

Invalid comparison for a number of reasons, IMO.

On the one hand, we've got regular uniformed military from a recognized nation. OTOH, we've got irregular, non-unifomed *fighters* that are not part of any recognized nation's military.

Germany had been defeated at that point, the war was over. The AQ/Talibam thing (*war* if you will) is not over, upon release they could return to the field of combat etc. You might remember that those German soldiers captured prior to the war's end were held in POW camps indefinately without trial. Many were put to labor and remained in captivity for several years after the war's conclusion (e.g., some were required to remain in France etc and do *free farm* work as reparations).

We had a pretty good set of well-defined rules created for the type of conventional war that WWII was (GC). We do not have such a thing for those GITMO - looks more like an artificially constructed blend of regular law enforcement and military institutions. While I'm no expert on the trials of Germans I do not recall hearing of numerous of their Constitutional rights etc.

2 different things IMO.

Why not ask how they compare to US prisioners in Japan or Vietnam? Or ask about the treatment of German POWs held while the war was still being fought?

Fern

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Citrix
despicable actions like internment camps?

WWII was nasty on all sides, nobody is completly innocent for doing some bad stuff. you forget the world was in engaged in a Total War. There are no civilians in total war.

Dont get me wrong the internment camps was total bullshit and out of line, but it was not a war crime or crime against humanity. it was a violation of an americans civil liberties and bill of rights.

There's no reason why it can't be both.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: techs
Did we gave fairer trials and better treatment to Nazis war criminals after WW2 than to those we imprisoned at Gauntanamo?
If so, why?

Invalid comparison for a number of reasons, IMO.

On the one hand, we've got regular uniformed military from a recognized nation. OTOH, we've got irregular, non-unifomed *fighters* that are not part of any recognized nation's military.

Germany had been defeated at that point, the war was over. The AQ/Talibam thing (*war* if you will) is not over, upon release they could return to the field of combat etc. You might remember that those German soldiers captured prior to the war's end were held in POW camps indefinately without trial. Many were put to labor and remained in captivity for several years after the war's conclusion (e.g., some were required to remain in France etc and do *free farm* work as reparations).

We had a pretty good set of well-defined rules created for the type of conventional war that WWII was (GC). We do not have such a thing for those GITMO - looks more like an artificially constructed blend of regular law enforcement and military institutions. While I'm no expert on the trials of Germans I do not recall hearing of numerous of their Constitutional rights etc.

2 different things IMO.

Why not ask how they compare to US prisioners in Japan or Vietnam? Or ask about the treatment of German POWs held while the war was still being fought?

Fern

Okay, so how does any of this make it "invalid"?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JD50
We also threw over 100,000 American citizens into internment camps, yet the left still has a love affair with FDR.

I think Vic said it best when he said that FDR and Bush arent that far apart. The lefties today would probably view FDR as some neocon fascist if he were alive today. But since they have a romantic view of the man thanks to

A. being a democrat
B. erecting social insitutitions.
C. meddling with the markets which prolonged the depression

They let the other stuff pass apparently.

They were very similar, other than their character, and policies (domestic and foreign). But they were both white males, exactly the same on those attributes.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JD50
We also threw over 100,000 American citizens into internment camps, yet the left still has a love affair with FDR.

I think Vic said it best when he said that FDR and Bush arent that far apart. The lefties today would probably view FDR as some neocon fascist if he were alive today. But since they have a romantic view of the man thanks to

A. being a democrat
B. erecting social insitutitions.
C. meddling with the markets which prolonged the depression

They let the other stuff pass apparently.

Apparently so, see Craig's post for confirmation.

What the hell does "let the other stuff pass" mean? We condemn it. We led a bill that officially on behalf of the US apologized and gave them money.

What should we do, erase his presidency from the record books officially? Say that his other policies did not happen because the bad one did? What the hell is your point?

Oh, ya, your point is that you want to try to win a debate with a lie, that wouldn't it be convenient if liberals were hypocritical and did not recognize that in those times, the nation was more panicked about the Japanese people in America, with their mysterious links to 'the Emperor' and who knows what loyalties (McCarthy was soon after questioning the loyalty of the US Army if not President Eisenhower, so what chance did the Japanese have), with Truman on a 'loyalty oath' kick, and put them in camps wrongly?

Ya, you would find that useful, and so you like and say it's the case. Way to argue.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JD50
We also threw over 100,000 American citizens into internment camps, yet the left still has a love affair with FDR.

I think Vic said it best when he said that FDR and Bush arent that far apart. The lefties today would probably view FDR as some neocon fascist if he were alive today. But since they have a romantic view of the man thanks to

A. being a democrat
B. erecting social insitutitions.
C. meddling with the markets which prolonged the depression

They let the other stuff pass apparently.

The same is true of Bush and Lyndon Johnson really, another hero of the left.

Ah yes, the famous Johnson Depression.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Okay, so how does any of this make it "invalid"?

Too much *apples to oranges* IMO (and for the reasons I stated above)

Fern

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Okay, so how does any of this make it "invalid"?

Too much *apples to oranges* IMO (and for the reasons I stated above)

Fern

Okay, let's give it a second look.

On the one hand, we've got regular uniformed military from a recognized nation. OTOH, we've got irregular, non-unifomed *fighters* that are not part of any recognized nation's military.

They're not apart of any nation or apart of any nations military, they however are not un-uniformed. They're all apart of tribes and many of them usually have some kind of bandanna or something that marks the as a member of such. In any case I don't see why this matters, terrorism is mostly just a way groups/countries fight wars that don't have a standing army.

Germany had been defeated at that point, the war was over. The AQ/Talibam thing (*war* if you will) is not over, upon release they could return to the field of combat etc. You might remember that those German soldiers captured prior to the war's end were held in POW camps indefinately without trial. Many were put to labor and remained in captivity for several years after the war's conclusion (e.g., some were required to remain in France etc and do *free farm* work as reparations).

The war against Germany was a war against an actual entity, unlike the "War on Terror" which is indefinite and a concept. We conquered and removed Nazi Germany, but can you do that too terrorism? Not quite.

We had a pretty good set of well-defined rules created for the type of conventional war that WWII was (GC). We do not have such a thing for those GITMO - looks more like an artificially constructed blend of regular law enforcement and military institutions. While I'm no expert on the trials of Germans I do not recall hearing of numerous of their Constitutional rights etc.

There is no regular law enforcement involved, only military police.

Well, of course they didn't have any constitutional rights, OTOH they do have plenty of human rights. I'm sure with the war there were multiple times the Germans had theirs violated but in any case I don't see any reason why the GITMO detainees should have such trials.

 

[JS80]

WHAT KIND OF FOODS WERE EACH TYPE OF PRISONERS SERVED?

 

[event8horizon]

forget trials, they snuck many german war criminals out via the ratlines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_%28history%29
Ratlines were systems of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward safe havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil and Chile. Other destinations may have included the United States, Canada and the Middle East.
One ratline, made famous by the Frederick Forsyth thriller The Odessa File, was run by the ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen; "The Organization of Former SS-Members") network organized by Otto Skorzeny. National governments and international institutions played a larger role than secret societies.

then rounded up the german scientisst via operation paperclip to come to the u.s. and work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_paperclip
Operation Paperclip (also Project Paperclip) was the code name for the O.S.S.?U.S. Military rescue of scientists from Nazi Germany, during the terminus and aftermath of World War II. In 1945, the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency was established with direct responsibility for effecting Operation Paperclip. [1]

then used the german general reinhard gehlens spy ring to spy on the soviet union while gehlen and the cia trained the israeli mossad.

maybe we can be buddies with AQ again (like the bosnian war) since zawahari seems to be against iran and use them for further destabilization of iran and move closer to ww3.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JD50
We also threw over 100,000 American citizens into internment camps, yet the left still has a love affair with FDR.

I think Vic said it best when he said that FDR and Bush arent that far apart. The lefties today would probably view FDR as some neocon fascist if he were alive today. But since they have a romantic view of the man thanks to

A. being a democrat
B. erecting social insitutitions.
C. meddling with the markets which prolonged the depression

They let the other stuff pass apparently.

Apparently so, see Craig's post for confirmation.

What the hell does "let the other stuff pass" mean? We condemn it. We led a bill that officially on behalf of the US apologized and gave them money.

What should we do, erase his presidency from the record books officially? Say that his other policies did not happen because the bad one did? What the hell is your point?

Oh, ya, your point is that you want to try to win a debate with a lie, that wouldn't it be convenient if liberals were hypocritical and did not recognize that in those times, the nation was more panicked about the Japanese people in America, with their mysterious links to 'the Emperor' and who knows what loyalties (McCarthy was soon after questioning the loyalty of the US Army if not President Eisenhower, so what chance did the Japanese have), with Truman on a 'loyalty oath' kick, and put them in camps wrongly?

Ya, you would find that useful, and so you like and say it's the case. Way to argue.

It means that you morons call for the hanging of GWB because he has thrown some terrorists into Gitmo without a trial, but you give FDR a pass on throwing over 100,000 American citizens into internment camps, without a trial. Oh wait, you condemn it, and you officially apologized, so everything's ok now. I'm sure that you'd just let GWB off the hook if he'd just apologize too, right?

It's not a lie, it's the truth, everyone can see it in your post. You downplay one of the most egregious things that a US President has ever done, just because you think that he did some good in other areas, it's ridiculous. I don't even know why I'm arguing this with you, you're so full of yourself that you even quote yourself in your own sig...:roll:

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

IMO injecting the Japanese internment camps and an FDR-Bush comparison into this discussion is an attempt to sidetrack it, because neither of those things is relevant to the topic at hand.

To return to that topic, I think it's pretty clearly the case that the Nuremberg trials were fairer than the kangaroo court we are conducting at Gitmo. As a former JAG it saddens me, in that there is a public misconception that these trials are being conducted like military courts-martial. IMO the military justice system is perhaps the fairest and best-thought-out system of criminal justice in the world, but the rules for the Gitmo trials are materially different in ways that amount to stacking the deck in favor of the prosecution, and I do not endorse them in any form or fashion. Ultimately, as yesterday's sentence demonstrated, it may not matter, since our current regime takes the view that we can hold these people indefinitely whether or not they've been convicted and/or served their sentences.