Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!nishri
From: nishri@utcs.UUCP (Alex Nishri)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: War Criminals
Message-ID: <616@utcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Apr-85 16:29:29 EST
Article-I.D.: utcs.616
Posted: Wed Apr 24 16:29:29 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Apr-85 17:33:34 EST
References: <2186@utcsstat.UUCP> <458@mnetor.UUCP>
Reply-To: nishri@utcs.UUCP (Alex Nishri)
Organization: University of Toronto - General Purpose UNIX
Lines: 58

>This is not to suggest that "War Criminals" should not be pursued.
>People like Mengele should be.  They went considerably beyond
>what was necessary for their own survival.  There are other categories, 
>though: I believe that many so-called war criminals may also be of 
>the "neutral-morality" (or "reduced mental capacity") variety of
>human being.  Their crimes (if they be called that) are more of
>a reflection of the lack of societal constraint and the active
>reenforcement of what they were doing, rather than "innate evil".

If your boss orders you to steal software from a competitor and you do
it, have you not stolen?  If all your co-workers also do this, does
this change the fact *YOU* are stealing?

If a murderer joins an organized crime group, does this lessen the
crimes?  What if she or he pleads ignorance of the law?  How about
"neutral-morality?"  "active reenforcement" by peers?

I believe there is existing law for what constitutes a "war crime."
Peer pressure doesn't seem to me to be a valid excuse for such acts.

>>
>>> 	By the way, similar crimes, (usually to a lesser degree), are
>>> committed in every war usually by both sides. -Food for thought!
>>
>>I disagree.  Don't forget, we're not talking about people who were
>>killed by enemy forces.  These victims were killed by their own
>>countrymen.
>
>Not true - what about the Poles and Russians?  Jews were not
>the only ones to be "genocided" in WW II.  Many seem to want to
>forget this fact.  
>
>Most wars do have "atrocities" of greater or lesser extent performed 
>by both sides.  For example: Cambodia, Vietnam, Iran/Iraq, South 
>America and most wars prior to the 1900's.  WW II is just an example 
>of where the balance was a lot more one-sided (but not totally so) 
>than usual.

I'm afraid I have trouble following this line of reasoning in any
direction.  Criminal acts were committed against people of many
religions and nationalities in World War II;  does this in any way
change the gravity with which I should view these acts?  There may have
been other times in history when one human being committed a horrible
criminal act against another;  if there are a lot of bank robbers
around will you feel that its ok to rob banks?

In my opinion, how often and when criminal acts are committed does not
alter the way I view such an act.  My reaction is the same whether its
committed as part of the Iran/Iraq war, World War II, or on the streets
of Toronto.


The views expressed are not necessarily those of my co-workers or my employer.

Alex Nishri
University of Toronto, N 43 38'33" W 79 23'14"
UUCP: ...utcs!nishri
BITNET: alex at utoronto