In article <ftc2d8$90v$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Sean O'Hara <seanohara@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Why? Germany still prosecuted genuine crimes like rape and murder
> > under the Nazi regime, ...
>
> Anyone convicted of those genuine crimes by the Nazi regime should
> have been given the benefit of the doubt, and freed.
Oh, come on.. Overturn a legitimate conviction at the local level
simply because upper level government was evil? You're compounding the
problem, not righting a wrong.
> If a criminal gang tem****arily took over your town, should its
> decisions be honored as the acts of a legitimate government?
Show me that the Nazi regime was not a "legitimate" government. I'm not
arguing good vs evil.. that is all too clear. Demonstrate that, in
broad terms, they were not the "legitimate" government of Germany at
that time. If not them, then who? Yes, they manipulated the people, and
murdered. However, the people DID put them into power. Scoundrels at
best, liars, cheats, and even murderers.. but the fact remains they
WERE the "legitimate" and internationally recognized government of
Germany.
> > Simply reversing every conviction from 1933 to 1945 would set loose
> > people who belonged in jail,
>
> Yes. And when a hospital emergency room saves someone who had been
> shot, they may be setting loose someone who the world is better off
> without. Just because someone was shot by a criminal gang member
> doesn't necessarily mean they're a good guy.
The hospital doesn't confine someone, therefore "setting them loose" is
not an option. They simply treat injuries. However, they are required to
re****t all apparent gunshot wounds to the police... and the officers
standing outside the patient's room ARE empowered to hold them. You're
confusing and conflating geography with authority.
>
> > and given the state of Germany at the time, giving everyone a new
> > trial (which would require tracking down witnesses, many of whom
> > were dead, and evidence, much of which would've been destroyed)
> > would've been infeasible.
>
> That's why I think they should all have simply been freed and had
> their records expunged. Any who were genuine criminals would be back
> in jail soon enough. If they'd victimize a few innocent people first,
> well, the damage to innocent German civilians would be far less than
> the Allies had already done.
So you think it wise and just to add to the list of victims? That's
ridiculous. The potential harm far exceeds the perceived benefit. And
what makes you think only _Germans_ would be harmed?
Free Jews? Of course. Free homo***uals? Absolutely. Free rapists and
murderers? Don't be silly.. the ONE thing we can agree with the Nazis
on is those people were bad eggs.
This has to be one of the most... bizarre... ideas you've promulgated
here... and that's saying something.
--
"The Dream is Alive! Music of the Space Shuttles" now available at your
local filk dealer, at http://cdbaby.com/cd/joeellis,
and as a digital
download on iTunes at http://preview.tinyurl.com/yd7gns
|
