[Serious Thread] Assisted Suicide.

[DanS]

NYE: That's a bad argument on its face. Yes, very reminiscent of UR.

But you should know that Drake has argued against US foreign policy with a great deal of regularity, especially with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan.

[notyoueither]

Would you please provide source material that indicates that the extermination of human beings in camps was legal in Germany between 1933 and 1945?

It was illegal even by their own laws, doofus.

Consider yourself pwned, you ignorant ****...

David Fraser’s thesis, in LAW AFTER AUSCHWITZ, is that there is little to distinguish between our fundamental understandings and practices of law and those of German lawyers and judges between 1933 and 1945. He aims to refocus jurisprudential efforts in order to confront lawyers’ collective, institutional and professional participation in the Holocaust. Rather than seeing the Holocaust as an extraordinary moment where SS madness dominated, by surveying the legal establishment’s accommodation and application of discriminatory laws, Fraser sees the Holocaust as “the culmination of the acts of ordinary people in the ordinary course of events within ordinary governmental and legal structures”(p.5), using techniques no different to today’s. For him, Auschwitz was “law-ful/full,” and rather than the extraordinariness of the Holocaust making it difficult to be judged in a court room, its ordinariness – its ordinary lawfulness – causes difficulties for law.

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/su.../fraser605.htm

Uhm. Where in there are death camps discussed?

You are familiar with the time-line and course of events, right?

[Drake Tungsten]

Uhm. Where in there are death camps discussed?

OH MY ****ING GOD!!! IT SAYS RIGHT IN THE QUOTED EXCERPT THAT AUSCHWITZ WAS LAWFUL!!! AUSCHWITZ WAS A CONCENTRATION CAMP! HOW ****ING RETARDED ARE YOU!!!

That's it, you're going on ignore...

[notyoueither]

NYE: That's a bad argument on its face. Yes, very reminiscent of UR.

But you should know that Drake has argued against US foreign policy with a great deal of regularity, especially with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't believe so, actually.

I am not deflecting criticism of Canada's, or Chinese, or some other favoured nation by criticising US foreign policy.

I am pointing to the inconsistency of someone who supports US foreign policy in large part (of course there are cases where he thinks not enough rag-heads were obliterated per bomb) but who flies off the handle and screams murder when private citizens seek to gain power over their own fate through the means legally available to them.

I am criticising the person's position, not deflecting attention from my own warts.

[Kuciwalker]

Dude, he mentions Auschwitz in the ****ing quote.

2x xpost

[Drake Tungsten]

Sorry notyoueither is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.

WTF is this? This will not stand...

[notyoueither]

Uhm. Where in there are death camps discussed?

OH MY ****ING GOD!!! IT SAYS RIGHT IN THE QUOTED EXCERPT THAT AUSCHWITZ WAS LAWFUL!!! AUSCHWITZ WAS A CONCENTRATION CAMP! HOW ****ING RETARDED ARE YOU!!!

That's it, you're going on ignore...

No, it says 'law after'.

You should know that the Holocaust starts in the mid-thirties and is entirely legal and under the purview of the courts, with their active participation. The denial of citizenship. The locking up of undesirables. Eugenics. Etc.

You should also know that the apparatus of extermination got rolling under military supervision beginning in 1939-41 and culminated in death camps in Poland such as Auschwitz.

In short, you should have a clue what you are on about, but you do not, so you don't. A proof is a proof and what not, and so on.

[SlowwHand]

The very last thing that I want, that I know of, is to be laying there unable to move or speak, but with thought process.

[notyoueither]

Dude, he mentions Auschwitz in the ****ing quote.

2x xpost

There was a hell of a lot more to this onion than what Drake assumes because an author dropped the name of the grand daddy of death camps for effect.

[Kuciwalker]

There was a hell of a lot more to this onion than what Drake assumes because an author dropped the name of the grand daddy of death camps for effect.

Sorry, doesn't work. You just asked him for source material. Now you're moving the goalposts.

[Drake Tungsten]

Seriously NYE, you just proved yourself to be one of the dumbest people on Apolyton.

[notyoueither]

Sorry, doesn't work. You just asked him for source material. Now you're moving the goalposts.

Source material about death camps. Because I do not believe it exists.

I looked back in case I inadvertantly left it open to interpretation (like by saying Holocaust). However, my query was 'would you please provide source material that indicates that the extermination of human beings in camps was legal in Germany between 1933 and 1945?'

Death camps. They were extra-legal from the get go. They were not a matter of law, but of a state gone mad.

I have zero reservations that had the Nazi regime been overthrown, the Nazis would have been strung up by Germans themselves. What they did at the extremes was in no way legal by German law.

[Drake Tungsten]

The widespread understanding of the Nazi state as a criminal regime, as radically discontinuous with that which preceded and succeeded the 1933-1945 period, is a “collective lie” that we tell ourselves in order to defend a clear line between good and evil. Thus, the way in which the Holocaust is nowadays remembered as something that is alien to the rule of law says more about the collectivity that remembers than it does about the historical events that took place. This is particularly true with regard to the key and essential elements of the legality of the Holocaust, which have been deliberately elided. The Holocaust, and the process leading up to the Holocaust, was - at the time – “perfectly lawful and legal.” It was not a lawless barbarism, but, on the contrary, a “lawful” barbarism, in which lawyers played an important part preparing, creating and perpetrating. This fact became obscured by constructions ex post, in which the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, discussed by Fraser in chapter 5, and lawyers like Radbruch played a significant role.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.germanlawjournal.com%2Fpdf%2FVol08No05%2FPDF_Vol_08_No_05_533-546_Developments_Mertens.pdf&ei=yHF2SvfvOtyJtgerj9SWCQ&usg=AFQjCNE5KBOg78wYP-a0rxvBA1KmMSrypA

Lawful barbarism is exactly what NYE and his ilk seem to be in favor of.

[SlowwHand]

From what I understand, the people of Germany, in a general statement, were appalled.

[notyoueither]

Seriously NYE, you just proved yourself to be one of the dumbest people on Apolyton.

From you, this is beginning to be a character reference.