|
Post by ken on Aug 3, 2005 15:43:39 GMT -5
And how is this any different than what usually goes on here in CE?
|
|
|
Post by ken on Aug 3, 2005 15:44:52 GMT -5
I might add that none of this ridiculousness would happen if Shin were moderator.
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 3, 2005 15:48:30 GMT -5
Doc, it's just not worth responding. It does not matter what anyone says to you on this issue. You will insist you're being ignored, and that we all want to fry him. You're wrong, but you truly don't care.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Aug 3, 2005 16:00:02 GMT -5
It's $10.36 on Amazon, Doc. I recommend it. And while you're at it... It'll make you happy, Doc, I swear.
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Aug 3, 2005 16:40:39 GMT -5
How can I be 'wrong' when I'm not even trying to 'convince' someone that this guy (NOT Mr Kumpf from Milw BTW) is as innocent as the driven snow?
'Wrong' about what?
~
Maybe Rocky can tell us what precisely it was that this Mr Kumpf lied about to immigration circa 1948 and how it was presented to him?
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Aug 3, 2005 17:21:51 GMT -5
~ Maybe Rocky can tell us what precisely it was that this Mr Kumpf lied about to immigration circa 1948 and how it was presented to him? Certainly. He told them that he was a regular combat soldier, and not a concentration camp guard, which he actually was. He now disputes that they ever really asked, but hey, that's what the investigation is for, no?
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 3, 2005 17:37:29 GMT -5
How can I be 'wrong' when I'm not even trying to 'convince' someone that this guy (NOT Mr Kumpf from Milw BTW) is as innocent as the driven snow? 'Wrong' about what? ~ Maybe Rocky can tell us what precisely it was that this Mr Kumpf lied about to immigration circa 1948 and how it was presented to him? I did not mean that you are wrong in your opinion. It's an opinion - it can't be wrong. I meant that you're wrong in your asessment of where the rest of us stand, and our reactions to you. And while I'm on it - you're off in getting mad that some of your points have gone without response, when you've ignored and mischaracterized so many points that have been made by the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Aug 3, 2005 17:43:11 GMT -5
One has to wonder what the Germans did to concentration camp guards who deserted...rewarded their consciencious objector status with an 'attaboy' I'll betcha...how many who "just said 'no'" actually were made to regret having said 'no'? Or how many of their relatives in Frankfurt or Hamburg were made to regret they'd said 'no'?
Snipped from another Tribune article which I deleted too quickly or I'd give the URL...
...Neighbors of Firishchak and Wittje, some of whom are themselves veterans of World War II, are highly critical of the government's effort to remove them from the country in their 80s. According to neighbors, Wittje, 86, is in declining health and confined to a wheelchair.
Richard Day, a neighbor to Wittje since 1957, said he wrote a letter to President Bush criticizing the lawsuit as a waste of government resources.
"People shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of their government, and I think that's what happened in this case," said Day, 78, a U.S. Navy veteran. "When you're a private, you do what you're told to do. I don't see his service record as any different from mine."
Lawyers for many of the accused Nazi persecutors have leveled similar criticisms. Charles Nixon, a Chicago attorney who has represented several cases over the years, said the law is deficient in that OSI doesn't have to prove the commission of a war crime to strip someone of citizenship and deport him.
In the interview, Rosenbaum bristled when reminded that two years ago Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal said his work was done and the few persecutors left were "too old and fragile to stand trial."....
Tho like I said I'll not rely purely on age as the 'excuse' to not try a case like this...but the entire situation from which it springs, the conditions in countries caught in horrible circumstances where it was NOT only[/u] the Jewish people who suffered.
ALL were victims there, puppeteered by Hitler and Stalin magnificiently.
~
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 3, 2005 17:49:53 GMT -5
If people should not be held responsible for the actions of their government, then again - should anyone who worked under Sadaam be let go, because they wree ordered to do what they did? Should the soldiers who were behind Abu Grahib be able to just say "we were on orders to do it" and be let off as long as it can't be proven that there were not orders from higher ups? Do people not have some level of responsibility in standing up for what is right?
I mean, if we let this guy off completely because he was not living in a place where it was feesible to tell the government "I object to that", then is that not a bit ofa slap in the face to all of thsoe who did risk their lives to do what they thought was right?
I think this is an example that brings back my favorite movie line of all time - "What good are principles if you only stick to them when it's convenient?"
And none of this of course covers why it was okay for him to lie on his immigration papers.
Doc, I understand whree you are coming from. I really do. But I think this is an example of why an argument based on emotion rather than logic simply does not hold water. To apply your logic to ANY situation which does not have the same level of emotion, Ihave a hard time believing that you'd logically be holding to the same standards.
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Aug 3, 2005 17:55:36 GMT -5
Certainly. He told them that he was a regular combat soldier, and not a concentration camp guard, which he actually was.
As to 'presentation'...how was this question put forth? In writing? Through an interpreter?
Check the box?
0) ordinary combat soldier
0) VERY ordinary combat soldier
0) Auxiliary police force
0) SS
0)Concentration camp guard
The fact that these were off the boat DPs who'd just been on a steamer (no affordable safe passenger planes then) for weeks and are now being asked shit that's questionably placed to them.
And who without having done anything heinous, but they'd had say, 'questionable' duties....but they really really really wanna stay here and not be put back on another fucking steamer to go god-knows-where...
How does that motivate someone who's circumstances can be extenuated to near-innocence aside fdrom the prev mentioned 'born in the wrong place at the wrong time' with the cocksucking Soviets on one side and the Nazis on the other...?
Consider.
Without a thorough examination of the INS' interview procedures of 1948, this line of thought is useless but imigration was at an all time high those years.
A presumption of half-garbled communication is THAT far out of line?
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Aug 3, 2005 18:22:07 GMT -5
Certainly. He told them that he was a regular combat soldier, and not a concentration camp guard, which he actually was.As to 'presentation'...how was this question put forth? In writing? Through an interpreter? Check the box? 0) ordinary combat soldier 0) VERY ordinary combat soldier 0) Auxiliary police force 0) SS 0)Concentration camp guard The fact that these were off the boat DPs who'd just been on a steamer (no affordable safe passenger planes then) for weeks and are now being asked shit that's questionably placed to them. And who without having done anything heinous, but they'd had say, 'questionable' duties....but they really really really wanna stay here and not be put back on another fucking steamer to go god-knows-where... How does that motivate someone who's circumstances can be extenuated to near-innocence aside fdrom the prev mentioned 'born in the wrong place at the wrong time' with the cocksucking Soviets on one side and the Nazis on the other...? Consider. Without a thorough examination of the INS' interview procedures of 1948, this line of thought is useless but imigration was at an all time high those years. A presumption of half-garbled communication is THAT far out of line? Hey, thanks for quoting the first part of my post, but not the second, which referenced the investigation that you're complaining needs to be done. You make it sound like the authorities haven't put any thought into any of that whatsoever. And again, since Chrisfan has asked you this question several times and you haven't seemed to notice, COULDN'T THE SAME THINGS BE SAID ABOUT THOSE IN SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME? If all of his actions are excusable due to living in a country with an oppressive government, then why wouldn't this apply to other oppressive regimes as well?
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 3, 2005 21:03:40 GMT -5
And eventually you'll have to start recognizing that some terrorists/suicide bombers out there might have been coerced into their behavior too. If they denied the issued fatwas or the mullah's religious orders, they could be hung for aiding the infidel. And then you'll logically have to start using that nuance of yours to sympathize with terrorist killers. I highly doubt you of all people would want to be setting that sort of intellectual precedent.
It's a slippery slope, eh?
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 3, 2005 21:08:04 GMT -5
And Rocky, at the risk of rehashing old arguments, I said it before today and I said it back then too, Ratzi's age was reason enough to forgive, but I quite simply do NOT believe that it is too much to ask that a person, boy or man, who would become POPE should be expected to behave beyond reasonable expectations. If not, the Catholic Church wouldn't emphasize miracles as they do.
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Aug 3, 2005 21:25:24 GMT -5
I understand that position, Shin, but its kind of beside the point that I was making. I was just explaining the distinction as to how age played a role in the two stories. The angle that you're talking about here isn't really relevant to the point I was making.
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Aug 4, 2005 13:57:59 GMT -5
Hey, thanks for quoting the first part of my post, but not the second, which referenced the investigation that you're complaining needs to be done. You make it sound like the authorities haven't put any thought into any of that whatsoever.
The problem lies in the fact that they are already saying that he lied on his entry application and that given any sort of, heh, 'exhoneration' from the charges of him having done extraordinarily bad things in the Ukraine which no-one else was doing...even if he's exonerated, the reasonable doubt comes to the fore and that he likely didn't do what they're saying.....he's STILL gone, uprooted, vamoose...and for what precisely?
I honestly do not think that that's going to be any concern of 'the investigation'. They right now are saying he lied on those applications. And I will bet that if this OSI's investigation fails to convict on war crimes, they'll want to pin his deportation on what I feel could very easily be spurious grounds(the 1940's INS with an avalanche of non-English-speaking DPs? Come on!), just to have made it seem that this thing was worth their while. Saves face for them.
And again, since Chrisfan has asked you this question several times and you haven't seemed to notice, COULDN'T THE SAME THINGS BE SAID ABOUT THOSE IN SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME? If all of his actions are excusable due to living in a country with an oppressive government, then why wouldn't this apply to other oppressive regimes as well?
Several times? Once when I was here and the phenomenon, 'cross-posting' was ocurring...and then once when I was gone. Wow rocky. Fucking crucify me.
First of all it wasn't 'living in a country with an oppressive government' it was living in a country with a series of occupiers within quite a short time. You DO see the difference?
In Iraq, it was what, a 30-40 year occupation by Sodom? Same idea as in the Soviet Union, this was quite a long term occupation during which you still will have to find a way to survive and/or try to better yourselves. In the USSR, you joined 'The Party' IF you really wanted a better, secure position cause they pulled ALL the strings...all the education/qualifications in the world would not get you in unless you were 'Party'. Or rarely.
Government jobs in Iraq, or military, promised you the very same thing...
For CF to ask:
Should the soldiers who were behind Abu Grahib be able to just say "we were on orders to do it" and be let off as long as it can't be proven that there were not orders from higher ups? Do people not have some level of responsibility in standing up for what is right?
...makes me think that you want proof the the Iraqis who first tortured their countrymen at Abu Ghraib are only let off when it's proven that that the torture along with all the nuances of the depravity they pulled there (as recently as 5 years ago and as far back as 40)in fact WAS ordered by some slimeball Iraqi boss who was a conduit to Sodom or his fucking ding-dong sons. If they were doing crazy shit on their own to impress bosses with their 'manliness' or some such shit, fuck 'em. Sure, they should be made to feel their own torture.
But if you're saying that there being no 'trail' of written orders to follow is their 'out' yet they did horrible stuff people are saying they'd witnessed...? That is IF having their eyes gouged out wasn't part of their torture... There's a bit of a difference in being the torturer/killer and the one who's told to 'find such and such persons for inquiry'? And of course witness reliability(eyesight, age-related detrioration, etc) CAN cast reasonable doubt in most cases...well except for these OSI ones apparently.
Interestingly, there have been trials ongoing in Lituania of infamous Lith KGB members (well, of those who didn't receive public justice in 1991 or wisely fled to Moscow)and some of them are being portrayed sympathetically while others, the ones who drove their shiny Ladas, dressed immaculately and ate fresh fruit daily, all off of the backs of their 'equal' Comrades, are being howled about in the papers that 'he's responsible for the deaths of my family', etc. But Party members, if they're also 'Blood Lithuanians', are not having that held against them. It is recognized that times were tough, they were different and that each family's situation was different. You did what you had to do to survive and if you did it decently, no problem.
~ So, in the Baltics, in the Ukraine, Poland, Byelorussia, it was a serial occupation, which is different than 'living under' an oppressive government....
With excellent knowledge of what the already decades extant Soviets were capable of.
It was a pretty fluid situation y'see. And they reallyreally didn't have a wish for Soviet annexation because they had their own countries and they knew those peoples' system sucked to high heaven. And THEN...there was this thing called a 'World War' going on, NOT a bunch of pissed off Muslims, overpopulating themselves into miserable poverty, being exhorted to murderous hate first in their adolescence by their Madrassah teachers, THEN their bunch of shitheaded Imams who have said
'Voila! America loves the pig Jews, then America must be the devil and then with their short skirts, immorality and all...'
Plus, I would have to imagine that any ONE of these suicide bombers could have turned themselves in (see they're often NOT travelling in groups, they are very alone) , having seen the light and upon having been 'defused' then interrogated for every slip of info in their heads, a new life could've been handed them. The handful who'd been strongarmed into a suicide bombing cannot change the fact that the vast majority there are voluntary 'martyrs'. In the midst of an occupied nation during WWII, there was no-one to go to if you suddenly realized(discovered?) what was being done to all these Jews. A bullet in the head from the Germans...plus you would have been that much closer to being one of the Comrades in your very own SSR.
There were a million factors at work.
|
|