On the Prosecution of Nazi War Criminals 10 02 2014
The way my High School history professor portrayed it was that if you did not kill (as a Nazi did) you would be killed by the Nazis. Even some Polish were given Nazi Uniforms and told kill or be killed by the Nazis and the were on the Nazi side. Some of it probably out of hunger?
So how can you prosecute them while leaving the higher classes of criminals untouched.
1. The Nazi Scientists that came to work for the United States?
2. The Nazis that lived under house arrest in Great Britain afterwards, Hess and Spencer. That is likely why Hess traveled to England to assure a safe house arrest?
But here is the crux of the issue, "If they did not kill you did you expect them to become MARTYRS and die for you?" There was a Jewish boxer a few years back who refused to knock someone out because violence was against his religion. Isn't that a little arrogant or expecting too much from them?
So a philosophical question arises, "When should one expect others to martyr themselves for them?" and "If you refuse to defend yourself do you expect other people to martyr themselves in order to save you?"
All of this philosophy arose because I don't understand why the upper echelons were not executed. In this war they had to obey what we would consider illegal orders or be killed.
And here is another crux. When we are given illegal orders are we expected to immediately kill those who gave them to us? If you want to make that a military law please do so! But when we are given an order by an authority we are not to judge the legality of it, that isn't the way the military operates. The military operates under the principle of you do what I tell you! If I tell you to dive on a live grenade to save us you do so. In effect that is you kill for the side that gives you orders even if it means you kill yourself in the process.
So they way to stop a military industrial complex from overtaking a world is to legislate that if you are given an illegal order you must kill the person that gave you the illegal order in order to; protect the Constitution? It breaks the principle hierarchy of chain of command! But we are not supposed to have an army in times of peace because it incites wars. It is illegal per our Constitution. So in effect FDR and the pre era of him has edicted that the last 100 years we were to live in a time of war! And that is unconstitutional! And a family member told him that he broke the Constitution in many ways!
So if that legislation were in effect today how many people in United States Government and Corporate military contractors would be killed?
And what one person might feel compromises human reason and human conscience another might not even be able to consider the relevance of? So in effect this would create a whole spaghetti nest of legal conflict whereby the person who obeys the human will is convicted; when they should not be!
My imagination ends there and does not start on what a world like that would be. Only the honest would or could make it to the top and be successful? For some reason the gestalt I am getting is that it would be a more quiet and peaceful world. And some would equate that with a depressive era? Interesting concept to consider.
How many Nazi's would not have killed the declared enemy and instead killed the person telling them to kill if that had been a world law and they had legality on their side?
What it boils down to then is that we each have a gun at our home and if a war starts it is fought that way? And that is the meaning of readiness and the second amendment! And it cannot be infringed! That means you cannot change the Constitution! Now how many of us would fight to protect that Constitution if indeed people tried to declare it irrelevant? And when they declared it irrelevant they open the doorway up to the exact opposite of the legislation I proposed.
There are many places to start petitions but there are none that they whole world's population can sign off on. (per my knowledge 10 02 2014.) Maybe there should be?
The way it stands it is asking a person to be a martyr and potentially be labeled a coward or traitor by their own country and prosecuted and killed if not killed immediately for failure to obey an order.
And if you bring it up right away that the CO is giving you an illegal order he could in effect kill you right away for that and use the alibi you failed to obey or were a traitor or coward, and he would have the h311 law on his side?
Copyright 2014 Thomas Paul Murphy
originally published on 10 02 2014 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com
The way my High School history professor portrayed it was that if you did not kill (as a Nazi did) you would be killed by the Nazis. Even some Polish were given Nazi Uniforms and told kill or be killed by the Nazis and the were on the Nazi side. Some of it probably out of hunger?
So how can you prosecute them while leaving the higher classes of criminals untouched.
1. The Nazi Scientists that came to work for the United States?
2. The Nazis that lived under house arrest in Great Britain afterwards, Hess and Spencer. That is likely why Hess traveled to England to assure a safe house arrest?
But here is the crux of the issue, "If they did not kill you did you expect them to become MARTYRS and die for you?" There was a Jewish boxer a few years back who refused to knock someone out because violence was against his religion. Isn't that a little arrogant or expecting too much from them?
So a philosophical question arises, "When should one expect others to martyr themselves for them?" and "If you refuse to defend yourself do you expect other people to martyr themselves in order to save you?"
All of this philosophy arose because I don't understand why the upper echelons were not executed. In this war they had to obey what we would consider illegal orders or be killed.
And here is another crux. When we are given illegal orders are we expected to immediately kill those who gave them to us? If you want to make that a military law please do so! But when we are given an order by an authority we are not to judge the legality of it, that isn't the way the military operates. The military operates under the principle of you do what I tell you! If I tell you to dive on a live grenade to save us you do so. In effect that is you kill for the side that gives you orders even if it means you kill yourself in the process.
So they way to stop a military industrial complex from overtaking a world is to legislate that if you are given an illegal order you must kill the person that gave you the illegal order in order to; protect the Constitution? It breaks the principle hierarchy of chain of command! But we are not supposed to have an army in times of peace because it incites wars. It is illegal per our Constitution. So in effect FDR and the pre era of him has edicted that the last 100 years we were to live in a time of war! And that is unconstitutional! And a family member told him that he broke the Constitution in many ways!
So if that legislation were in effect today how many people in United States Government and Corporate military contractors would be killed?
And what one person might feel compromises human reason and human conscience another might not even be able to consider the relevance of? So in effect this would create a whole spaghetti nest of legal conflict whereby the person who obeys the human will is convicted; when they should not be!
My imagination ends there and does not start on what a world like that would be. Only the honest would or could make it to the top and be successful? For some reason the gestalt I am getting is that it would be a more quiet and peaceful world. And some would equate that with a depressive era? Interesting concept to consider.
How many Nazi's would not have killed the declared enemy and instead killed the person telling them to kill if that had been a world law and they had legality on their side?
What it boils down to then is that we each have a gun at our home and if a war starts it is fought that way? And that is the meaning of readiness and the second amendment! And it cannot be infringed! That means you cannot change the Constitution! Now how many of us would fight to protect that Constitution if indeed people tried to declare it irrelevant? And when they declared it irrelevant they open the doorway up to the exact opposite of the legislation I proposed.
There are many places to start petitions but there are none that they whole world's population can sign off on. (per my knowledge 10 02 2014.) Maybe there should be?
The way it stands it is asking a person to be a martyr and potentially be labeled a coward or traitor by their own country and prosecuted and killed if not killed immediately for failure to obey an order.
And if you bring it up right away that the CO is giving you an illegal order he could in effect kill you right away for that and use the alibi you failed to obey or were a traitor or coward, and he would have the h311 law on his side?
Copyright 2014 Thomas Paul Murphy
originally published on 10 02 2014 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment