Still they go on and on and on...

**Paul in NZ** · 13th May 2011, 08:39

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/4998203...mjanjuk-freed/

Ooops - looks like he might not actually be Ivan the Terrible... Oh dear...

Poor bastard, get conscripted into the Red Army (pretty damn traumatic event right there), caputured by the Germans (most of them were shot on the spot) and gets an offer to become a prison camp guard which I would think was a once in a lifetime offer (ie, refuse and we shoot you or starve you to death)

I mean I'm sure he was brutal but he was in a brutal situation and lots of Jews were dobbed in by fellow Jews... Christ, over 3 times as many Russians died as did people in concentration camps and in often far worse conditions - is it any wonder he took up the guard job? Lots of Jews did too....

I'm all for them chasing legit targets but this one always seemed a bit wiffy. Its time to get over this, this poor bastard should never have been subjected to this mess, its not really a great look IMHO.

**trustme** · 13th May 2011, 08:44

So you are suggesting a statute of limitations on murder. How long should it be, 50 years, 30,10,5, it's a slippery slope to start down.
There was a case to answer.

**Paul in NZ** · 13th May 2011, 08:51

Originally Posted by trustme

So you are suggesting a statute of limitations on murder. How long should it be, 50 years, 30,10,5, it's a slippery slope to start down.
There was a case to answer.

Then you would need to try every combatant. It also depends on you definition of murder. The seal team that took out Osama could well be accused of murder

**Scuba_Steve** · 13th May 2011, 08:52

Originally Posted by trustme

So you are suggesting a statute of limitations on murder. How long should it be, 50 years, 30,10,5, it's a slippery slope to start down.
There was a case to answer.

When is Bush & Cheney answering theirs???

**avgas** · 13th May 2011, 08:55

Originally Posted by trustme

So you are suggesting a statute of limitations on murder. How long should it be, 50 years, 30,10,5, it's a slippery slope to start down.
There was a case to answer.

So let me get this straight. If you (and 1000's of others) catch something from a bottle of milk - you would then sentence the milkman to death......or fonterra.

War sucks, but REVENGE is supposedly worse.

**yod** · 13th May 2011, 08:55

Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve

When is Bush & Cheney answering theirs???

That's different, they're American and they have god on their side (the right god, of course)

**oneofsix** · 13th May 2011, 09:06

Originally Posted by trustme

So you are suggesting a statute of limitations on murder. How long should it be, 50 years, 30,10,5, it's a slippery slope to start down.
There was a case to answer.

accessory to mass murder, war crimes or murder; different things. He had already been tried before for murder but found not guilty as it was a case of mistaken identity.
He wasn't convicted and discharged either more a case of time served.

**Scuba_Steve** · 13th May 2011, 09:11

Originally Posted by yod

That's different, they're American and they have god on their side (the right god, of course)

America, fuck yeah! So lick my butt and suck on my balls!

**Maki** · 13th May 2011, 09:13

Originally Posted by Paul in NZ

Then you would need to try every combatant. It also depends on you definition of murder. The seal team that took out Osama could well be accused of murder

Let me get that right? Are you saying that a highly trained military who shoots an old unarmed man could well be accused of murder? It seems a bit more clear cut to me. He is a murderer, the same as any other assassin.

**oneofsix** · 13th May 2011, 09:17

Originally Posted by yod

That's different, they're American and they have god on their side (the right god, of course)

tut tut their god is the one with the capital g. But God has nothing to do with it, the victor gets to write the history, at least initially, and set up the war crimes trials and they, rightly or wrongly, have been allowed to consider themselves the victors.

**huff3r** · 13th May 2011, 09:24

Originally Posted by Paul in NZ

Then you would need to try every combatant. It also depends on you definition of murder. The seal team that took out Osama could well be accused of murder

Not true. As part of an armed force of a nation, one is allowed to kill, at any time, and without warning, any other member of another armed force of another nation without it constituting murder. It is a legal get-around in the Defence Act.

It is written into near every countries laws, so the only ones you could try for murder are those who kill: civilians, terrorists (as long as the terrorists do not attack first, cos then its self defence), or any other non-uniformed personnel.

So yeah, the seal team committed murder. As did many involved in the concentration camps, but to say all combatants is a bit of a far stretch.

**oneofsix** · 13th May 2011, 09:30

Originally Posted by huff3r

Not true. As part of an armed force of a nation, one is allowed to kill, at any time, and without warning, any other member of another armed force of another nation without it constituting murder. It is a legal get-around in the Defence Act.

It is written into near every countries laws, so the only ones you could try for murder are those who kill: civilians, terrorists (as long as the terrorists do not attack first, cos then its self defence), or any other non-uniformed personnel.

So yeah, the seal team committed murder. As did many involved in the concentration camps, but to say all combatants is a bit of a far stretch.

If correct that needs a rewrite. How do you define armed forces, from the quoted post it appears to be by uniform but what defines a uniform, are black pjs a uniform? Waht about the hat all the Taliban wear, other than that there doesn't seem to be much of a uniform. Terrorists need to be redefined as armed forces, personally I would allow for surrender for armed forces but not terrorists.

**huff3r** · 13th May 2011, 09:38

Originally Posted by oneofsix

If correct that needs a rewrite. How do you define armed forces, from the quoted post it appears to be by uniform but what defines a uniform, are black pjs a uniform? Waht about the hat all the Taliban wear, other than that there doesn't seem to be much of a uniform. Terrorists need to be redefined as armed forces, personally I would allow for surrender for armed forces but not terrorists.

The definition of armed forces is also laid out in the Defence Act. It is the NATIONAL armed force of a country, hence why terrorists are not included, and may only be shot in self defence. Yes its a bit short-sighted, but it is part of the wider international set of laws set out in the Geneva conventions. And the uniformed part refers to wether they are a real soldier, or just a civvy working for the armed force. Eg. Airforce personnel: mechanics can be shot, librarians can't.

The Defence Act was written in order to legally define New Zealands armed forces, and to legally allow us to have an armed force. Most countries have a similar act, which lays out the identity, rights and responsibilities of their armed forces.

**yod** · 13th May 2011, 09:43

Originally Posted by oneofsix

tut tut their god is the one with the capital g. But God has nothing to do with it, the victor gets to write the history, at least initially, and set up the war crimes trials and they, rightly or wrongly, have been allowed to consider themselves the victors.

tut tut? sorry?

Ask them if their imaginary friend/god has nothing to do with it and see what they say.

**avgas** · 13th May 2011, 09:51

Originally Posted by Maki

Let me get that right? Are you saying that a highly trained military who shoots an old unarmed man could well be accused of murder? It seems a bit more clear cut to me. He is a murderer, the same as any other assassin.

Last time I checked - you went after the country of origin, rather than the assassin.
In the case of contract killers - who issued the contract.