Namibia Seeks German Aid for Genocide Reparations

Jabulani22 said:
So uh , is nobody going to address

Yeah and no actual evidence was required for conviction , whats your point ?



The remaining Khoi and San after the genocide by the colonists from central Africa.
Khoi and San got some cash coming up it seems.
Click to expand...
Actual evidence was required. Months of testimony, with vaults full of documents were used.
 
buka001 said:
Actual evidence was required. Months of testimony, with vaults full of documents were used.
Click to expand...
The trials were conducted under their own rules of evidence. The Charter of the International Military Tribunal permitted the use of normally inadmissible "evidence". Article 19 specified that "The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence ... and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value". Article 21 of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal (IMT) Charter stipulated:
The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United [Allied] Nations, including acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military and other Tribunals of any of the United [Allied] Nations.
Click to expand...


From the wiki.
But you knew that , no need to inform you.
 
supersunbird said:
vs Hereros keeping slaves. Was keeping slaves alright or not? So why do some have to pay reparations for slavery and others not, or are you of the view of no reparations for slavery?
Click to expand...
Because slavery equals genocide. Let's compel Portugal to pay Moz, Angola, Sao Tome, China (Macau), Eq. Guinea, etc. Belgium? UK? US? Iran? West African arabs, etc? Issue under discussion is genocide. We can start a new thread and discuss slavery elsewhere.
 
Reparations is a difficult, emotive and complex subject.

It is difficult to define how much and who should receive it, if the generations that perpetrated it and those who were persecuted have past away.

Legally it is a minefield.

Cases like the Rwandan Genocide, Srebenicia massacre are easier to rule on and determine reparations. In these cases, reparations should be pursued for victims and their families.

As you move further back it becomes increasingly difficult. How does the Namibian government distribute the money? What happens if a family gets money, but their ancestor helped enable the genocide? How do you prove these things, when it can be difficult to prove a case if murder when it happened a week ago.

Setting up funds for education or healthcare for all is probably the best "middle ground" solution, but again how much? How do you determine the cost, in an equitable manner? What happens if the oppressor is poor and the persecuted country is now prosperous?

It is fraught with complex issues.
 
Jabulani22 said:
The trials were conducted under their own rules of evidence. The Charter of the International Military Tribunal permitted the use of normally inadmissible "evidence". Article 19 specified that "The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence ... and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value". Article 21 of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal (IMT) Charter stipulated:



From the wiki.
But you knew that , no need to inform you.
Click to expand...
Are you sad they got convicted for the holocaust and other crimes?

Do you think they were innocent?
 
buka001 said:
Are you sad they got convicted for the holocaust and other crimes?

Do you think they were innocent?
Click to expand...
LOL nope no worries about who got what , just wanted to address the misinfo machine you started rolling out , nice attempt though.
Dont ever recoil from the truth bro , it will set you free and all that , knowledge is power , why didnt you just agree with my facts presented instead of trying and failing ?
Now everyone can see you dont like facts.......
 
Jabulani22 said:
LOL nope no worries about who got what , just wanted to address the misinfo machine you started rolling out , nice attempt though.
Dont ever recoil from the truth bro , it will set you free and all that , knowledge is power , why didnt you just agree with my facts presented instead of trying and failing ?
Now everyone can see you dont like facts.......
Click to expand...
Thanks, but you are misconstruing the following from your link -

The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof.
Click to expand...

They did not need proof that Auschwitz was built by the Nazis, as it was common knowledge.

They did not need proof of the fact the the Nazis invade Poland etc.

This is what that concept dealt with. Strange how I always see this tactic used by holocaust denialists.

Evidence for more complex subjects was used. When the case of Doenitz was examined they examined his briefings, they looked at international laws surrounding naval conflict. They used testimony from various sources. Doenitz lawyer cross examined these witnesses.

The UK government maintained a vault with all the documentary evidence used in the trial.

Lawyers for the defendant struck many of this evidence from the trial, for example if it was not original, not dated or if the signatures were not legible.
 
buka001 said:
Thanks, but you are misconstruing the following from your link -



They did not need proof that Auschwitz was built by the Nazis, as it was common knowledge.

They did not need proof of the fact the the Nazis invade Poland etc.

This is what that concept dealt with. Strange how I always see this tactic used by holocaust denialists.

Evidence for more complex subjects was used. When the case of Doenitz was examined they examined his briefings, they looked at international laws surrounding naval conflict. They used testimony from various sources. Doenitz lawyer cross examined these witnesses.

The UK government maintained a vault with all the documentary evidence used in the trial.

Lawyers for the defendant struck many of this evidence from the trial, for example if it was not original, not dated or if the signatures were not legible.
Click to expand...
Should i repost it again so you can read it in its entirety ?
Wouldnt matter if i included the many accounts of judges/lawyers/etc who called it a sham based on the rules would it ?
They are on the wiki.
But you knew that.
 
Jabulani22 said:
Should i repost it again so you can read it in its entirety ?
Wouldnt matter if i included the many accounts of judges/lawyers/etc who called it a sham based on the rules would it ?
They are on the wiki.
But you knew that.
Click to expand...
The loudest voices who called it a sham were the Nazis and their lawyers.

No surprise there.

If evidence was not ruled on, then how is it that not everyone was convicted or sentenced to death?
 
buka001 said:
The loudest voices who called it a sham were the Nazis and their lawyers.

No surprise there.

If evidence was not ruled on, then how is it that not everyone was convicted or sentenced to death?
Click to expand...
Literally linked to facts showing the evidence was not to be bound by actual rules of evidence.
Buka continues on the crusade............
Nobody said it was right , justice was served in a lot of cases ,the allies picked the lesser of two evils.
But lets not act like it was done in accordance with how most think it went.

Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud.[77] "(Chief U.S. prosecutor) Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg, ... I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas", Stone wrote.[77]

Did you just call this man a nazi sympathiser ?
 
Jabulani22 said:
Literally linked to facts showing the evidence was not to be bound by actual rules of evidence.
Buka continues on the crusade............
Nobody said it was right , justice was served in a lot of cases ,the allies picked the lesser of two evils.
But lets not act like it was done in accordance with how most think it went.

Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud.[77] "(Chief U.S. prosecutor) Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg, ... I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas", Stone wrote.[77]

Did you just call this man a nazi sympathiser ?
Click to expand...

He called it a fraud because his rival was picked over him.

There is half a chapter about this in the book the Nuremberg Trial by John and Ann Tusa.

Of course there was criticism.

Countries like the Netherlands and Denmark felt that the 4 Allies overlooked their hardships.

So they were critical.

It was not perfect, but it delivered critical justice where it was deserved.
 
buka001 said:
He called it a fraud because his rival was picked over him.

There is half a chapter about this in the book the Nuremberg Trial by John and Ann Tusa.

Of course there was criticism.

Countries like the Netherlands and Denmark felt that the 4 Allies overlooked their hardships.

So they were critical.

It was not perfect, but it delivered critical justice where it was deserved.
Click to expand...
No no he states why he called it a fraud and as his own statement that is golden , more so than other interpretations.
Justice was served but not entirely im sure.
And yes , lesser of two evils , prosecute under the conditions and face critics or dont prosecute.
It is obvious why one would prosecute them , its not obvious why other nations escaped the same treatment as many (if not all)were guilty of warcrimes.
 
Jabulani22 said:
No no he states why he called it a fraud and as his own statement that is golden , more so than other interpretations.
Justice was served but not entirely im sure.
And yes , lesser of two evils , prosecute under the conditions and face critics or dont prosecute.
It is obvious why one would prosecute them , its not obvious why other nations escaped the same treatment as many (if not all)were guilty of warcrimes.
Click to expand...

The Nuremburg trials were a fraud just for one reason in my mind.

Stalin and his henchmen were not prosecuted alongside the Nazis even though they caused more internal deaths within Russia than the Nazis caused in the war yet the Soviets were conveniently given immunity for their crimes which were nothing short of genocide in their own way just because they were part of the "allies".

AFK only a few soviets were prosecuted but nowhere near the extend of the Nazi focus. Also lets not forget, why were USA immune to prosecution after the atom bomb drop. You would think that it would rank quite high on the scale of war crimes if there were in fact a fair justice system overseeing these tribunals.

Nuremburg trials basically just showed everyone that as long as you are the winner and even considered the good guys among everyone involved, you get to decide what is justice even though it is by any definition of justice plain horsesh!t.
 
John Tempus said:
The Nuremburg trials were a fraud just for one reason in my mind.

Stalin and his henchmen were not prosecuted alongside the Nazis even though they caused more internal deaths within Russia than the Nazis caused in the war yet the Soviets were conveniently given immunity for their crimes which were nothing short of genocide in their own way just because they were part of the "allies".

Nuremburg trials basically just showed everyone that as long as you are the winner and even considered the good guys among everyone involved, you get to decide what is justice even thought it is by any definition of justice plain horsesh!t.
Click to expand...
Spot on , France got a pass too amongst others.
It is a very very dangerous precedent to set , which is was my point that buka missed while rampaging about holocaust denier boogeymen , as is usual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X