Since I haven't seen this brought up........

Paul B.

New member
Let me see. Lon Horiachi (sp) was absolved of any wrongdoing for shooting Vickie Weaver. He was "Just doing his job." Ok. How many Germans were "Just doing their job" and were executed for it after WW-2?
The government "Did no wrong at Waco." Uh huh!
If the American people believe all this whitewash, then I have a bridge I'll sell them real cheap.
The crimes are the same. Only the names have changed, and they ain't innocent.
Paul B.

[This message has been edited by Paul B. (edited July 23, 2000).]
 
Paul, it has been brought up before but as far as I am concerned, it is still a flaming hot subject.

There are many on this board who are far more articulate than I but the concensus seems to be that "I was only doing my job" is not a defence for atrocities comitted by individuals. Recent precedent for establishing guilt was set in the Nurenburg trials. Individuals found guilty even tho they were following the orders of superiors.

Here we have a problem, the superiors are the ones passing judgement on the individuals. The government in general is so corrupt and amoral that the only appearant rectification is to remove em all.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
There is something I don't understand. Maybe I am stupid or just killed off too many brain cells. When I was active duty military, which is a federal organization, we were told that we would be just as guilty as the person issueing an unlawful order. That we were not to follow that order and to report it ASAP. "We were just doing our job" was NOT a defense for getting out of a court martial. Now; if I remember right, the killing of non-combatants was an unlawful order. Just as running over and taking a medical facility was unlawful. Now, how is it that "he was just doing his job" is a defense for the elite federal thugs but not for us poor saps going overseas to "police" the people. Sounds as if the old double standard is alive and well. FBI/BATF = Okay to kill anyone. Military = You can't kill anyone. Police = Sued if you have to kill anyone. DOJ = Okay to nuke, kill, maim, burnout, torture everyone and anyone, American or not. President = Okay to do anything you want and still get a BJ on the side. What was that old Mel Brooks saying, "It great to be king".

USP45usp
 
The GESTAPO was once a highly respected German national police force. As to what they did when Hitler came to power, you cant blame them, they were only following orders.
 
It's not hard to pass a test when you're the one who writes it. Like Mr green eggs and packin said, "The government in general is so corrupt and amoral that the only appearant rectification is to remove em all."

They all suffer from that ever-present malady that afflicts so many these days, cranium-rectal inversion.

There are cures, of course, but they're real dang painful :)

------------------
Those who would appease a tiger do so with the hope
that it will eat them last. Winston Churchill
 
It looks like the rules were written just before the Nazi trials . Before anyone flames me may I place one caveat in their way . Tell me about the Japanese war trials .Tell me why Hirohito stayed in power . If Hitler would have lived would he have been allowed to stay in power ?

------------------
TOM
SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA GOA
 
Several Japanese officers were convicted of war crimes. Hirohito stayed in power because, in the judgment of Gen. MacArthur and Harry Truman, Japan could not rebuild into a peaceful and prosperous nation without some stability at the top. I'm not saying they were right or wrong, but that's the call they made.

By the way, the feds who spoke for Horuchi did not claim "he was just following orders" but that he made a mistake and either was shooting at one of the armed men or thought Vicki Weaver was armed, depending on who you listen to. I don't know if Horuchi himself ever had to give any sworn testimony about it.

[This message has been edited by RHC (edited July 23, 2000).]
 
The rules *were* written just before the Nuremburg trials (possibly during) but they prevail now. Some of the rules are downright frightening see Principle II at: http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm

For the question at hand, the aplicable principle is:

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.

Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal. Adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950
[Report of the International Law Commission Covering its Second Session, 5 June-29 Duly 1950, Document A/1316, pp. 11-14.]


Do you think one defense may be lack of moral choice due to lack of morals?

Me neither.

Bentley

"And then I said farewell to sunlight; and set out to become, what I became."
-- "Interview With A Vampire" [movie], Anne Rice

[This message has been edited by ICBentley (edited July 23, 2000).]
 
I am kind of torn on this whole issue. There had ben a Gunfight. I don't think that the sniper should be crucified as the antichrist like people seem to want but he shot a civilian while trying to shoot another unarmed person. Was he following orders? Yes. owever this is not quite the same as Shooting someone in the back of the head and kicking them into a ditch. The crime is NOT the same. Should he get off Scoot free. HELL NOT. But he isn't a cold blooded killer.

Has anyone here spoken to the Sniper? Have they heard him talk about what heppened? Well me niether. But I would bet that this guy is paying for it every moment of his live.

Without reservation I thing the whole situation was as bad as Waco (just on a smaller scale). But lets punish the guys who should be pusnished. Not the "Pions"

Let me put it another way. How many people here served or are close to people who have served in war time. I will bet money that a good number of them have done things they didn't want to do. Should they be put up on trial as well. What about the pilots who bombed that Iraqi Convoy that was fleeing. he how about this. Lets put every person who has ever shot someone in a gunfight on trial. It isn't going to happen.

Once the first shots were fired at Ruby Ridge it was a combat zone. THe sniper made a bad call. And people died. it is Tragic. My heart goes out to Randy Weaver. He was set up and then they tried to take him down and "Make an example of him". So go after the people who orcestrated the whole ting. Not the little guy.
 
Kevinw writes- <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Once the first shots were fired at Ruby Ridge it was a combat zone.[/quote]Yep, but since the government fired the first shots, I don't think they should be using this as an excuse. It's like the Menendez brothers asking for mercy because they are orphans.

TB., NC
 
I made the mistake of watching crime files on court tv last night. They had a expose on the LAPD and that scandle where 30 officers were relieved of duty etc. It centered around one officer who snitched on them. Now this will floor you ( well maybe not we're all pretty jaded here ) - here is a short list of the crimes of the main officer:
Stole 8 pounds of cocaine out of evidence and sold it.
Set up about 30 people on false charges.
Was involved in multiple murders.
While harassing a guy who had no criminal record he got mad and shot him 2 times in the chest and one in the head, dropped a gun on him and set him up - he lived somehow, the judge noted his lack of repentance and gave him 23 years, the guy that was shot & set-up. The guy is still paralized.
Set another guy up and he got 3 years.
Was involved in a bank robbery.

Now lets see what he was sentenced to, first, he told them he'd set up a guy that was doing 23 years but would refuse to reveal his identity if he didn't get to "cop a plea", he'd also agree to snitch on his fellow officers. So the prosecuting attorney drops all charges but the cocaine one. He is prosecuted and gets 16 months ! That's it for his entire reign of terror - but it gets worse. He read off some crap letter he wrote and the reactions were, one guy said he was about to cry, his ex wife likened him to Christ bearing his cross and a whole other array of crap. I almost experienced had a stroke at that point. The moral was that they can do anything they want and will never pay for it at all. Un believeable, anybody else watch this crap ?
 
kevinw,

Nope. I don't think that Our Pal Lon should bear the entire brunt. But, he did shoot a "non-combatant," if you will and at the least, should have been slapped with a manslaughter (woman w/babe in arms, no less) or negligent homicide charge.

Other than the obvious (to me) BS sweeping it all under the rug (as with Waco), there is a very implicit double standard at work in our society.

Case in point. We, the people are supposed to know all the thousands of additional laws stuck into the books every year. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

However, as with the Cathleen Willy fiasco, the powers that be were held to be not culpable in releasing her private info (privacy act, etc.) because they "had no intentions to cause harm & weren't really aware of ... " blah, gag.

I do believe that none of these good folk will be held accountable, ever, because once that starts, the guvmint will actually have to admit that they did something (anything!) wrong. One can never allow that one piece of doubt to even come into The Peoples' l'il head or they may "think" that other things may be amiss.
 
And who, may I ask, are the UN that they may determine what is moral?

The UN is a club of gevernments, formed during WWII, whose members are mostly not elected by their respective population, determined to take guns away from whichever citizens still have access to them.

There are laws that prevent me from commenting on the Nuremberg trials, and they were passed under pressure from the same US that perports to honor a first amendment.

------------------
If the priority of the archive over witnes accounts is given up, history ceases to be a science and becomes an art.

http://www.ety.com/tell/why.html
 
Gunter has a point - the US at LEAST had enough power to install whatever constitution/govt. type it wanted on Japan and Germany, and these countries laws do not protect the rights of free speech. Only posterity keeps that alive in the US - generally limits on government are an annoyance in this day and age.

Even the history channel called the Nuremberg trials a sham by the standards by which a trial is conducted in the US. It was formalized retribution against those who took over France and nearly England. Did they invite any soviets to the trial? Did anyone care about the soviets killing a lot more people than Hitler did?

Black people could not serve fully in the allied services, yet we are to believe (at the time) they were fighting against Racism with Germany? Just as they would NEVER have dropped the A-bomb on europeans, Hirohito got off because he didn't bomb London.

Hitler however would not have been left in power. There was talk of not even allowing Germany to become an industrialized nation again.

Don't take my scepticism of the trial to mean I don't think that many of the defendants were world-class criminals/murderers.

Gee; but just imagine if Hitler won WW2. Other than the people he wanted to kill off (and had mostly succeeded in that anyway) think of how horrible it would be today in Europe. Heavy taxation, no freedom of speech - indeed you can be jailed for a long time for saying the wrong thing.

He probably would have even banned guns. May have gotten a REAL mean streak one morning too and gotten into environmentalism - taxing gasoline to hell and forcing people to drive around in dinky little 3-cylinder cars.

Yep, I bet Gunter and his countrymen (and other Europeans in general) are glad that THIS didn't happen.


Battler.
 
Battler, Germany was to be demilitarized and have the indurstrial capacity to wage war dissolved and that would have happened had it not been for the Cold War. With the east loading up the west had to rearm Germany. Back then it was a half million troop limit I dont know if there is a limit still, imposed or not.

And the US did not instill a constitution on germany, and if it did it would probably look just like ours. I believe most would have thought it a good idea then as we werent infused with the liberal mindset as we are now. The germans from surrounding states got together to form a new basic law that was later implemented as a constitution.

[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited July 25, 2000).]
 
The Japanese occupation of China makes the Nazi death camps pale in comparison . There were competitions to see who could chop 100 heads off first . Women tied to chairs with their legs up and raped until they bled to death . Millions killed for lack of anything to do . Babies thrown up in the air and caught on the ends of bayonets .
These people really needed trials after the war . I guess Chinese lives are not worth as much as one would think .

------------------
TOM
SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA GOA
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RHC:

By the way, the feds who spoke for Horuchi did not claim "he was just following orders" but that he made a mistake and either was shooting at one of the armed men or thought Vicki Weaver was armed, depending on who you listen to. I don't know if Horuchi himself ever had to give any sworn testimony about it.

[This message has been edited by RHC (edited July 23, 2000).]
[/quote]

Lon Horiuchi exercised his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
 
I think the history of the A-Bomb development was to counter a German nuclear bomb.

It would have easily been used on the Germans but there was no need as the war was essentially won before it was available.

The Japanese still had the option of opposing us and the invasion of the home islands was going to happen in 46-47. The bomb ended that earlier.

As far as the war crimes trials, any problems you have with the procedures is trivial as compared to the crimes. Get real.
 
Guys, I love that we're all so passionate, but every once in awhile, it leads us down the wrong road. Doesn't anybody have anything to say about the fact that the defense you all castigated Horiuchi for using was NOT the one he used?

On the other hand, there is still a connection. Horiuchi claimed he was trying to kill Kevin whatsisname and Randy Weaver as they ducked inside the door, accidentally hitting Vicky Weaver instead only because she was behind the door. He claimed the curtain on the door's window was closed and that he didn't know he shot Vicky Weaver until days later. Indeed, he sure didn't tell anyone that whether he knew or not--the siege was probably lengthened, because negotiators on bullhorns tried to appeal to Vicky's concern for her children and the people inside assumed they were taunting them about their mother's death--and sending the message that no one would be allowed out alive.

The point is, even if Horiuchi's story is true, he was still firing at fleeing people who posed no threat, so the order SHOULD have been debated. As several people have pointed out, he was wrong and criminal to have followed it. More disturbingly, in Randy Weaver's trial, a key piece of evidence was discovered after having been withheld, supposedly accidentally, by the FBI. Supposedly they withheld it even from the prosecutor, which enraged him, of course.
The evidence was a sketch of the door Horiuchi made the night of the shot on his hotel stationery. It clearly shows the curtains drawn open and two heads through the window. Now it's possible that Horiuchi did make the mistake he says he made even if the window was open, but if so, lying about it was a bad idea. (Or maybe it wasn't. :mad: )
Finally, there's the matter of Horiuchi's initial defense, which was that Kevin whatsisname and Randy Weaver were firing at a helicopter behind him when he took the first shot, wounding Weaver in the arm at the shed out back, and then tracked them back to the cabin, where Vicky was killed. The problem is that it was proven by the FBI's own logs and witnesses that no helicopter was in the air at that time and Weaver was not observed to fire by anyone else on scene. Horiuchi and the FBI withdrew that one early on, but to me it indicates a sort of "drop gun" mentality--no one will be looking too close, their word against ours, just make up whatever you have to, we'll look out for our own.
 
Quoth Kevinw:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
But I would bet that this guy is paying for it every moment of his live.[/quote]

[rant]
Good! As far as I'm concerned, Whore-iuchi can suck off a shotgun, and should, posthaste.

He knew damn well who was slightly blurred behind his crosshairs, and made the conscious decision to pull the trigger on an unarmed woman. That makes him a murderer.
[/rant]
 
Back
Top