Germany refuses to hand over evidence

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
How long has it been since we killed people in a war anyway? 60 years?

Kosovo. Probably also Afghanistan (SpecOps).

If you are opposed to killing then you ought to be consistant. Why is it right to kill soldiers who have not had the opportunity of trial and not an obvious murderer who has been tried and found guilty?

Against "death penalty" isn´t the same as against "killing under any circumstances". I´m not a pacifist. A war where both sides try to kill eachother is a little bit different from a civil trial which ends with the death penalty...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Our duty to human rights is a tad more important to us than our duty to your truth.

So, ally?, suppose you find evidence that al Qaida operatives are about to attack the Sears tower in Chicago. On the basis of protecting human rights, you f*cking a**holes refuse to turn over the evidence because we just might arrest the terrorists, place them on trial and execute them?

You have no concept of human rights!

We are in a war. This is not about a trial of a simple murderer.

[Lincoln]

"A war where both sides try to kill eachother is a little bit different from a civil trial which ends with the death penalty..."

Why is it moral to kill some poor soldier who may have just been drafted by some dictator and may have not yet killed anyone, yet it is not moral to kill someone who is a tried and convicted killer? The state is the one doing the killing in both cases, except in one there is individual guilt but in the other the man is killed because he belongs to a group.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Why is it moral to kill some poor soldier who may have just been drafted by some dictator and may have not yet killed anyone...

It isn't. Not unless absolutely necessary. Hence the Geneva Convention.

...yet it is not moral to kill someone who is a tried and convicted killer? The state is the one doing the killing in both cases, except in one there is individual guilt but in the other the man is killed because he belongs to a group.

And who, exactly, is this "tried and convicted killer"? We're talking conspiracy here, not murder.

However, the rights and wrongs of the death penalty are not relevant here. Germany has a constitution, they have laws, they have no legal or moral obligation to break those laws just to comply with an American desire that isn't even compelled under US law.

If the US needs the evidence to secure a conviction, they can have it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned


So, ally?, suppose you find evidence that al Qaida operatives are about to attack the Sears tower in Chicago. On the basis of protecting human rights, you f*cking a**holes refuse to turn over the evidence because we just might arrest the terrorists, place them on trial and execute them?

Ned, German intelligence gave strong warnings about what was going to happen before September 11th. Preventing an attack is not the issue.

Moussai (sp) is already arrested and on trial, and prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. It's against German law, in this instance, to hand over the evidence.

All the U.S. has to do is not seek the death penalty, and they get it.

Your reference to people as "f*cking a**holes" for upholding their constitution is smarmy and ignorant.

You have no concept of human rights!

You do seem to have a rather hysterical concept of hyperbole, though.

We are in a war. This is not about a trial of a simple murderer.

War or not, the law is the law, for all nations. If your worldview wasn't as narrow as a shrew's rectum, you might comprehend this.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

It isn't. Not unless absolutely necessary. Hence the Geneva Convention.

And who, exactly, is this "tried and convicted killer"? We're talking conspiracy here, not murder.

However, the rights and wrongs of the death penalty are not relevant here. Germany has a constitution, they have laws, they have no legal or moral obligation to break those laws just to comply with an American desire that isn't even compelled under US law.

If the US needs the evidence to secure a conviction, they can have it.

Actually I was talking to BeFro here on a bit of a thread jack issue. Of course I was assuming that this guy was eventually convicted. If that turns out to be the case then the morality of the death penalty does enter the picture. As far as Germany's constitution I would expect them to honor it.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by El Awrence
Siro, I wish the US wouldn't impose their morals on the rest of the world.

I don't recall the US forcing UK or France or Italy or Spain or Germany to use the Death Penalty against terrorists convicted using US support.

[Sirotnikov]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Yes, that's why the geopolitical region is usually referred to as the EU.

Siro, they aren't "forcing" their morals on anybody else; they have the right to decide to hand over evidence or not, and they have the right to ask that certain conditions be met before they do so.

Sure they are forcing their morals.

They know that their evidence are needed to achieve justice.

But they see greater value in making sure their morals are upheld than in achieving justice.

Justice should be uncoditional.

I'm allowed to decide not to sell you a gun if I think you might not use it responsibly.

I don't think it's possible to equate this to such a silly example.


Imagine this: You are being trialed for murder. I have key evidence proving your innocene. You ask me to supply them. I say "ok, but only if you convert to Judaism". Or "Ok, but only if you will be judged according to ancient hebrew law".

Why is that comparable?

The legitimacy of DP is a moral belief with a moral and often religious background.

The condition Germany gives, is that in exchange for the evidence, the US accepts Germany's moral code and belief.

That means that they are committed to spreading their culture and morals, more than justice and truth.

[Sirotnikov]

War or not, the law is the law, for all nations. If your worldview wasn't as narrow as a shrew's rectum, you might comprehend this.

There's a difference between crimes, and war making.

What we are supposed to do is try the terrorists as illegal combatans for terror and war crimes.

What we do instead, is try them as regular fellons for crimes of conspiracy against the state.

This is silly.

[Sava]

It is silly, and it's crap. They are terrorists who have commited war crimes, those ungrateful Germans; we should have stopped in Belgium and let the Russians take all of Germany.

[markusf]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Well Germany, will get a major diplomatic fracas then with the US... major mistake in my opinion.

And really nice to see Germany is hindering the prosecution of a terrorist.

Its german law, besides the USA is in violation of several international treaties..

[KrazyHorse]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Sirotnikov
They know that their evidence are needed to achieve justice.

But they see greater value in making sure their morals are upheld than in achieving justice.

Justice should be uncoditional

In their minds justice is not served by killing a prisoner, so why should they aid a miscarriage of justice?

I don't think it's possible to equate this to such a silly example

It's perfectly reasonable.

Imagine this: You are being trialed for murder. I have key evidence proving your innocene. You ask me to supply them. I say "ok, but only if you convert to Judaism". Or "Ok, but only if you will be judged according to ancient hebrew law".

Why is that comparable?

The legitimacy of DP is a moral belief with a moral and often religious background.

The condition Germany gives, is that in exchange for the evidence, the US accepts Germany's moral code and belief.

That means that they are committed to spreading their culture and morals, more than justice and truth.

You silly, silly boy.

Germany doesn't require that all dp cases in the US stop before they hand over evidence; they require that this specific evidence not be used to help put someone to death.

By facilitating the execution of a prisoner, they become complicit, both morally and legally in the death of that prisoner. Their moral stance is that the dp is wrong. Why should they help someone do something they believe is wrong?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I don't recall the US forcing UK or France or Italy or Spain or Germany to use the Death Penalty against terrorists convicted using US support.

If you thought about it for half a minute you might see the difference that crops up when you attempt to reverse the situation in this straightforward a way.

[Sava]

My kitten's cuter AH...

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ned
So, ally?, suppose you find evidence that al Qaida operatives are about to attack the Sears tower in Chicago. On the basis of protecting human rights, you f*cking a**holes refuse to turn over the evidence because we just might arrest the terrorists, place them on trial and execute them?

Great post.

Sava

It is silly, and it's crap. They are terrorists who have commited war crimes, those ungrateful Germans; we should have stopped in Belgium and let the Russians take all of Germany.

I´m from eastern Germany, the part taken by the Russians...

Siro

But they see greater value in making sure their morals are upheld than in achieving justice.

This case is primarily about law, not about moral.

Lincoln

Why is it moral to kill some poor soldier who may have just been drafted by some dictator and may have not yet killed anyone, yet it is not moral to kill someone who is a tried and convicted killer? The state is the one doing the killing in both cases, except in one there is individual guilt but in the other the man is killed because he belongs to a group.

And except that a war has nothing to do with normal law that is used during peace time. Or are you seriously saying that death penalty is the same as death in combat action during war time, when two sides use armed forces?

BTW, I don´t think it is really moral to kill anyone, even during a war, but there may be times when you have no other choice. But I don´t see that the state has no other choive when it comes to death penalty...