Capco Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: define wide scale, define purge, and let me know what you think i meant by well-intentioned people. i'll be happy to reply. I'm really not trying to play that kind of "put words in your mouth" game with the question. Honestly. As wide as you like, with punishments that you see fit. It's your dough to play with. I wasn't really referring to "well-intentioned" people in any event and intention is subjective by nature so I have no idea what you actually meant. If I had to guess I would assume you referred to people who followed their conscience or moral/inner compass.
Deranged Rhino Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 18 minutes ago, Capco said: Where would you draw the line (or like the line to be drawn) with respect to treason specifically? What kind of acts amount to treason? If entire organizations are to blame for treason, at what point in their hierarchy do the punishments in this purge stop falling downhill? Is "I was just doing my job" going to be a good enough defense for a basic intel analyst, for example? How did the Nuremberg trials go again? Exactly. We live in a nation of LAWS, not MEN. If people break the law, regardless of their position or status, they should face the same legal consequences as anyone else would. We live in a country whose leaders have been stealing from us, poisoning our food and water, spying on us, and draining our natural and financial resources for their own gain for our entire lives. They've been allowed to continue their operations because they're "above the law". No more. 4
Capco Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: How did the Nuremberg trials go again? I wrote that to be similar to "I was just following orders" on purpose. But I'm not 100% clear on your answer to that part of my question. In Nuremberg, the defense "I was just following orders/doing my job" wasn't a legitimate defense. At the same time, not every single war criminal who participated in actual war crimes was present at Nuremberg. A guard at Auschwitz might have been on the same rung in the hierarchy as the "basic intel analyst" from my example above. None of the run-of-the-mill guards guilty of war crimes at Auschwitz were present at Nuremberg, yet they each played a part in these crimes against humanity. Only key members of leadership were charged with crimes during these trials. So are you just referring to the notion of illegitimate defense? Or are you also saying that a basic intel analyst from the organization guilty of treason ought to be held to account in the same way that organization's leadership would be held to account as they were at the Nuremberg trials? That's what I was looking for when I asked "where would you draw the line?" Edited February 8, 2020 by Capco
Deranged Rhino Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 1 minute ago, Capco said: I wrote that to be similar to "I was just following orders" on purpose. But I'm not 100% clear on your answer to that part of my question. In Nuremberg, the defense "I was just following orders/doing my job" wasn't a legitimate defense. At the same time, not every single war criminal who participated in actual war crimes was present at Nuremberg. A guard at Auschwitz might have been on the same rung in the hierarchy as the "basic intel analyst" from my example above. None of the run-of-the-mill guards guilty of war crimes at Auschwitz were present at Nuremberg, yet they each played a part in these crimes against humanity. Only key members of leadership were charged with crimes during these trials. So are you just referring to the notion of illegitimate defense? Or are you also saying that a basic intel analyst from the organization guilty of treason ought to be held to account in the same way that organization's leadership would be held to account as they were at the Nuremberg trials? My reference was to the fact that it wasn't just the big wigs and leaders who were tried. They were tried first, but then after them we had trials for the judges, the guards, lawyers and cops who were "just following orders". Some were found innocent, some found guilty, but all faced judgement (but for the ones the US and Soviets kept hidden -- but that's a different topic). That's how we got the Nuremberg principles, which the UN made into law in case ordinary government jobs became criminal again. We're long overdue for a reckoning of that level within our federal/state/local bureaucracies. 2
Capco Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Some were found innocent, some found guilty, but all faced judgement (but for the ones the US and Soviets kept hidden -- but that's a different topic). So, this factually incorrect. Continuing from the Auschwitz example, overall, only 789 individuals of the approximately 8,200 surviving SS personnel who served at Auschwitz and its sub-camps were ever tried, of whom 750 received sentences. http://auschwitz.org/en/museum/news/personal-details-of-ss-men-from-kl-auschwitz-garrison-accessible-to-the-public,1239.html And further, the Nuremburg trials (the famous first one under the international tribunal and the subsequent 12 others under military tribunal) only consisted of charges being brought against a total of 209 defendants. The Nuremberg process initiated 3,887 cases of which about 3,400 were dropped. 489 cases went to trial, involving 1,672 defendants. 1,416 of them were found guilty; less than 200 were executed, and another 279 defendants were sent to life in prison. By the 1950s almost all of them had been released. But thank you for answering that part of the question at least. It helps me understand you better.
Keukasmallies Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: Backed by evidence w due process, yup. Such that it have no relation to the "...evidence w due process..." touted during the impeachment cartoon.
Capco Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 37 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: We live in a nation of LAWS, not MEN. If people break the law, regardless of their position or status, they should face the same legal consequences as anyone else would. We live in a country whose leaders have been stealing from us, poisoning our food and water, spying on us, and draining our natural and financial resources for their own gain for our entire lives. They've been allowed to continue their operations because they're "above the law". No more. This doesn't really answer the first part of my question. This is all very vague and general. Could you be a little more specific?
Deranged Rhino Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 10 minutes ago, Capco said: So, this factually incorrect. It is correct -- hence my parenthetical.
Capco Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: It is correct -- hence my parenthetical. The US and the Soviets kept over 7,000 SS personnel from Auschwitz "hidden"?
Deranged Rhino Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 3 minutes ago, Capco said: This doesn't really answer the first part of my question. This is all very vague and general. Could you be a little more specific? It does indeed answer it. If laws are broken, they should be treated the same as you or I would be if we were to have done the same. No one is talking about a "purge" without evidence or due process, that's not in our best interest as a republic. But what we also are not talking about is letting people slide on criminal offenses simply due to the position they hold in government.
Keukasmallies Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 22 hours ago, Gavin in Va Beach said: You gotta wonder why the Dems let this idiot go on TV. Every time she speaks they must lose a handful of voters. Imagine the people who elected her....
Deranged Rhino Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 Just now, Capco said: The US and the Soviets kept over 7,000 SS personnel from Auschwitz "hidden"? The US kept thousands of Nazis hidden. Yes. The Soviets did not hide them, they executed them. We used them for our own intelligence purposes and scientific purposes (and denied doing so until the late 1990s). It's called Project Paperclip. If you want to understand what's actually happening in this country today, and the ongoing war, you have to understand Paperclip.
Capco Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: The US kept thousands of Nazis hidden. Yes. The Soviets did not hide them, they executed them. We used them for our own intelligence purposes and scientific purposes (and denied doing so until the late 1990s). It's called Project Paperclip. I'm sorry my dude, I know about Paperclip but there's absolutely no intelligence or scientific reason to keep 7,000+ SS personnel who contributed to the mass murder of millions from meeting legal justice. And that's just one small example. There were tens of thousands of personnel directly complicit in the Final Solution and who knows how many more were indirectly complicit. The fact that you think every single perpetrator ("all" in your words) either met some form of legal justice or were absolved of it is absurd and false. Patently false. The whole point of me asking that was to see how far down this road some of you want to go. You want to take the purging of the Deep State in our government above and beyond the level of justice that was exacted upon Nazi Germany after WWII by your own admission.
Deranged Rhino Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 Just now, Capco said: I'm sorry my dude, I know about Paperclip but there's absolutely no intelligence or scientific reason to keep 7,000+ SS personnel who contributed to the mass murder of millions from meeting legal justice. I agree there's no valid reason for it, but they did it anyway. This isn't opinion, it's a fact. The question you should ask is what happened to all those Nazis who were injected into our intelligence community, our defense community, our contracting community... 1 minute ago, Capco said: There were tens of thousands of personnel directly complicit in the Final Solution and who knows how many more were indirectly complicit. The fact that you think every single perpetrator ("all" in your words) either met some form of legal justice or were absolved of it is absurd and false. Patently false. I didn't say that. I added the parenthetical for a reason. 2 minutes ago, Capco said: The whole point of me asking that was to see how far down this road some of you want to go. You want to take the purging of the Deep State in our government above and beyond the level of justice that was exacted upon Nazi Germany after WWII by your own admission. My words aren't controversial, or shouldn't be. If people are shown to have broken the law, with evidence and after they are afforded due process, they should be held accountable. The real question to ask, is why you find that proposition so extreme? Do you believe that if you work in the government you're not subject to the constitution or the law itself?
Capco Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I didn't say that. I added the parenthetical for a reason. For the second time, your parenthetical doesn't account for every single person involved in war crimes in Nazi Germany. There were criminals not part of Paperclip, not killed by the Russians, not hunted down by the Israelis after the war, and not part of any trial or military tribunal, who died peacefully in their own beds... because at some point, a line was drawn by the Western Allies when it came to measuring out justice. The reason you should take pause about what you are saying is because you are suggesting that we cross that line and take the purge of the Deep State to the level of the Reign of Terror in France or the Great Purge in the USSR. Remember what I asked about treason and treasonous government organizations? Remember how you said that the run-of-the-mill people working for organizations infected by the Deep State, who were just doing their jobs, ought to meet that same level of justice as the leadership of the Deep State? Tell me Rhino, what is the ultimate punishment for treason?
Deranged Rhino Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 1 minute ago, Capco said: For the second time, your parenthetical doesn't account for every single person involved in war crimes in Nazi Germany. You began this conversation asking where the line should be drawn in terms of purging the government of bad actors. I offered, and explained, Nuremberg as an example of how it went beyond leadership to the government drones. That is the point. 3 minutes ago, Capco said: The reason you should take pause about what you are saying is because you are suggesting that we cross that line and take the purge of the Deep State to the level of the Reign of Terror in France or the Great Purge in the USSR. I'm not suggesting that. You're trying to spin what I said into that because you are uncomfortable (for some reason) with what I actually said. What I actually said is that if there is evidence to support it, and the accused are given due process, then those who break the law should face the same legal consequences as the rest of us. Why are you resisting that so much? It's not controversial. It's not extreme -- yet you're trying to twist it into the extreme. Why? Do you not think that those who break the law should face punishment, regardless of their positions within the government? Or are you advocating what we've had for the past 70+ years -- a system where the political elite can rape, pillage, and plunder without consequence? 5 minutes ago, Capco said: Remember what I asked about treason and treasonous government organizations? Remember how you said that the run-of-the-mill people working for organizations infected by the Deep State, who were just doing their jobs, ought to meet that same level of justice as the leadership of the Deep State? Tell me Rhino, what is the ultimate punishment for treason? "Just doing their jobs" when they know "doing their jobs" is violating the constitution is not an excuse. They should face the same punishment as the rest. This isn't complex. I'm aware of what the punishment for treason is. It's the same as it was when half the media (and yourself) were accusing Trump of treason without evidence to support it.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 1 hour ago, Capco said: I'm really not trying to play that kind of "put words in your mouth" game with the question. Honestly. As wide as you like, with punishments that you see fit. It's your dough to play with. I wasn't really referring to "well-intentioned" people in any event and intention is subjective by nature so I have no idea what you actually meant. If I had to guess I would assume you referred to people who followed their conscience or moral/inner compass. I wasn't sure if by "purge", you meant the Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao or Marie Antoinnette 'off with their heads' version or the other kind. Now that I know you meant the friendly, 'It's not you, it's me' with the Dunkin Donuts gift card on the way out, I follow.? In a nutshell, I would support the removal of any individual acting against the administration in a hostile capacity, using their position of power abusively, to undermine the President. I would also support the removal/dismissal of those in positions of power that work at the will of the President who may act appropriately and without malice, yet against the interests of the President consistent with the rules of the game. In Vindmann's case, he's gone, he was expendable and it makes perfect sense that Trump canned him. Same with Sonderland. 1
Capco Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You began this conversation asking where the line should be drawn in terms of purging the government of bad actors. I offered, and explained, Nuremberg as an example of how it went beyond leadership to the government drones. That is the point. I'll take this as your admission of being wrong about the facts of how justice was measured against Nazi Germany after WWII. You can't know everything DR. After all, the only thing we both know is that you know nothing at all, amirite? 16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I'm not suggesting that. You're trying to spin what I said into that because you are uncomfortable (for some reason) with what I actually said. What I actually said is that if there is evidence to support it, and the accused are given due process, then those who break the law should face the same legal consequences as the rest of us. Oh by all means, the floor is yours on this one. Since you have admitted that you want justice measured out against the Deep State above and beyond that which was exacted against Nazi Germany in WWII, but refuse to acknowledge the similarity in scope to something like the Reign of Terror or the Great Purge, then please by all means provide an intermediate example that doesn't go too far. I don't want to put words in your mouth. 16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Why are you resisting that so much? It's not controversial. It's not extreme -- yet you're trying to twist it into the extreme. Why? Do you not think that those who break the law should face punishment, regardless of their positions within the government? Or are you advocating what we've had for the past 70+ years -- a system where the political elite can rape, pillage, and plunder without consequence? I think this is where your confusion lies. On the surface, what you are advocating certainly looks like justice. And who doesn't like justice, right? But don't you think Maximilian Robespierre and his supporters thought they were dispensing justice when they were going down their list of criminals against the state? And I'm sure Stalin felt like he was completely justified when he was exacting his punishments on the undesirables of his governments' institutions. You are talking about retribution with no bounds (unless you'd like to provide an intermediate example with bounds, like I requested above) on charges that carry the penalty of death. Be careful about the road you want to go down. 8 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I wasn't sure if by "purge", you meant the Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao or Marie Antoinnette 'off with their heads' version or the other kind. Now that I know you meant the friendly, 'It's not you, it's me' with the Dunkin Donuts gift card on the way out, I follow.? In a nutshell, I would support the removal of any individual acting against the administration in a hostile capacity, using their position of power abusively, to undermine the President. I would also support the removal/dismissal of those in positions of power that work at the will of the President who may act appropriately and without malice, yet against the interests of the President consistent with the rules of the game. In Vindmann's case, he's gone, he was expendable and it makes perfect sense that Trump canned him. Same with Sonderland. Thank you. This is so much more measured and fair than what I'm afraid Rhino is trying to say. I hope he proves me wrong though. Edited February 8, 2020 by Capco
Deranged Rhino Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 2 minutes ago, Capco said: I'll take this as your admission of being wrong about the facts of how justice was measured against Nazi Germany after WWII. You can't know everything DR. After all, the only thing we both know is that you know nothing at all, amirite? It's not wrong. But carry on. 2 minutes ago, Capco said: Oh by all means, the floor is yours on this one. Since you have admitted that you want justice measured out against the Deep State above and beyond that which was exacted against Nazi Germany in WWII, but refuse to acknowledge the similarity in scope to something like the Reign of Terror or the Great Purge, then please by all means provide an intermediate example that doesn't go too far. I don't want to put words in your mouth. And yet, you are putting words in my mouth, and omitting key qualifiers. (Because you're dishonest and can't argue what I actually said) 3 minutes ago, Capco said: I think this is where your confusion lies. So, rather than take what I said as my opinion, you wish to intuit what you think I really mean? And you consider this an honest way to have a conversation? Please note, while you're doing all this work to stretch my words to the extreme you have refused to answer the very simple question put to you: namely, are people who serve in government above the law or not? If you don't think they are, then we're on the same page. 5 minutes ago, Capco said: On the surface, what you are advocating certainly looks like justice. And who doesn't like justice, right? But don't you think Maximilian Robespierre and his supporters thought they were dispensing justice when they were going down their list of criminals against the state? And I'm sure Stalin felt like he was completely justified when he was exacting his punishments on the undesirables of his governments' institutions. My position is that we are a nation of laws, not men. Full stop. I've called for due process for the accused, that's not what Stalin nor Robespierre wanted or pushed for. You're inventing my position, because you can't argue the facts. Because you're being dishonest. 6 minutes ago, Capco said: You are talking about retribution with no bounds (unless you'd like to provide an intermediate example with bounds, like I requested above) on charges that carry the penalty of death. Be careful about the road you want to go down. I'm talking about justice, not retribution. No one, but you, has said everyone would be tried for treason. There are numerous other offenses and crimes which they can/should be tried for that are not capital offenses. Your dishonesty is showing again.
Recommended Posts