| Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under "international law" (797111) | |
|
|
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
| (797111) | |
Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under "international law" |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 20 01:16:09 2011 Ain't it great when it's not a slow news day in Germany . . . ? They've been denying reparations to former POWs (especially former Red Army ones) on this twisted pretext. And one would think that reinvoking the Munich Agreement was bad enough (but not for the neo-Chamberlains I guess) . . .
|
|
| (896206) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 6 15:18:34 2012, in response to Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under "international law", posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 20 01:16:09 2011. bump |
|
| (896216) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Jan 6 16:04:07 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 6 15:18:34 2012. If slavery is defined as compelled labor, the Geneva Conventions permit it for enlisted men who are POWs, as well as NCOs as supervisors.The Detaining Power may utilize the labour of prisoners of war who are physically fit, taking into account their age, sex, rank and physical aptitude, and with a view particularly to maintaining them in a good state of physical and mental health.. And the U.S. Constitution explicitly understands that required labor can be considered slavery, because it permits it for prisoners. Of course, many POWs detained by the Germans weren't so lucky as to have required labor. |
|
| (896219) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Jan 6 16:17:35 2012, in response to Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under "international law", posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 20 01:16:09 2011. Okay..so whats your point? |
|
| (896224) | |
Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under WANNSEE law. |
|
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Fri Jan 6 16:39:59 2012, in response to Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under "international law", posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 20 01:16:09 2011. Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under WANNSEE law.I'm sure O'log will approve of my change to his message line. Anyway, O'log,. does this mean that you think the USSR should have invaded Western Germany back in the day. Besides, the USSR did make many Germans do things like drive Trabants for 40 years. I guess there's no real answer to this one, O'log./ |
|
| (896225) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Fri Jan 6 16:40:43 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by SLRT on Fri Jan 6 16:04:07 2012. Yep, a guy who used to work for my father worked for the Americans (in the USA) when he was an Italian POW during WW2. |
|
| (896243) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under international law. |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 6 17:38:48 2012, in response to Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under WANNSEE law., posted by RockParkMan on Fri Jan 6 16:39:59 2012. I'm sure O'log will approve of my change to his message lineAre you saying that international law is equivalent to what was decided during the Wannsee conference? If so, then the subject line change would certainly make sense. The present-day courts system in Germany therefore seems to say just that, or have I misinterpreted that? Anyway, O'log,. does this mean that you think the USSR should have invaded Western Germany back in the day Konrad Adenauer and Willy Brandt would not have minded. I do not agree with their stance on that one bit. We should have gone with Patton's vision, to keep pushing the Soviets further eastward instead of allowing the Soviets to take half of the continent. I guess there's no real answer to this one There's always a real answer. Just not a popular one. |
|
| (896246) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 6 17:51:36 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by SLRT on Fri Jan 6 16:04:07 2012. Doesn't say "compel"; says "utilize". Even hired hands are "utilized". And the latter bit about "maintaining them in a good state of physical and mental health" still stands. Are you citing this as "international law"? Even if so, then the rulings of the courts here are completely misinterpreting same. |
|
| (896247) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 6 17:52:11 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by SMAZ on Fri Jan 6 16:40:43 2012. So did the Yanks do to him what the Germans did to their POWs? |
|
| (896248) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 6 17:53:22 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by Edwards! on Fri Jan 6 16:17:35 2012. My point is that they're wrong, and that their making of such rulings is dangerous insofar as their reverting to the kind of state they used to be in the 30s and 40s. |
|
| (896250) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under international law. |
|
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Fri Jan 6 17:55:38 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under international law., posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 6 17:38:48 2012. No, but legalized slavery is the kind of thing which was endorsed at Wannsee.. As for pushing the commies back home, the Greatest Generation would NOT have gone for that one. Anyway, it's 65 years too late to corrent the course of action that WAS taken. I'll say this much though, it would have been much cheaper in both blood* and treasure to have done as you say, particularly when we had the atomic monopoly.* Soviet lives wouldn't "count" here. |
|
| (896274) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Jan 6 18:42:45 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 6 17:51:36 2012. If there is "international law" the Geneva Conventions are certainly it.Doesn't say "compel"; says "utilize" Let's not be ingenuous. Utilize in this sense means compulsory. |
|
| (896281) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Jan 6 19:03:36 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 6 17:51:36 2012. Again..i fail to seethe relevance..whats is the point of this exercise...or are you gonna continue to dodge me like your buddy? |
|
| (896283) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 6 19:11:00 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by SLRT on Fri Jan 6 18:42:45 2012. Utilize in this sense means compulsoryThat can be challenged legally, if you want to go so far, especially in light of this. Unless you're really trying to justify what the German courts have herein done? |
|
| (896289) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 6 19:37:04 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 6 15:18:34 2012. Did the Soviet Union offer to pay reparations for German prisoners mistreated in the Soviet Union? |
|
| (896318) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Jan 6 20:18:47 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by SMAZ on Fri Jan 6 16:40:43 2012. My great-uncle worked in Wyoming and also in Louisiana. He was a U-boat lieutenant.your pal, Fred |
|
| (896326) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jan 6 20:33:44 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by Fred G on Fri Jan 6 20:18:47 2012. I can see Louisiana, but "up periscope" in Wyoming? :)Your pal, Otto Pilot |
|
| (896327) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Jan 6 20:51:48 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jan 6 20:33:44 2012. I dunno, they were prison camps for officers that were more like ranches. Or they were just ranches that they sent POW's too. About 40 years ago he showed me these sketches he made while there, of landscapes and the corrals and stuff.your pal, Fred |
|
| (896328) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jan 6 20:56:04 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by Fred G on Fri Jan 6 20:51:48 2012. Well I'm sure this'll piss off Olog, but good for him. That whole "Hogan's Zeroes" thing got a bit tired. Could you just imagine the stinkeroo though if today's republicans ever got wind of that? :) |
|
| (896420) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Jan 7 15:36:47 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jan 6 20:56:04 2012. Olog Troll is a pig in hu-mon skin. posturing and running is his specialty... |
|
| (896473) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 7 18:26:48 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by Edwards! on Sat Jan 7 15:36:47 2012. You're a communist. :) |
|
| (896728) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jan 8 18:15:23 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by Edwards! on Sat Jan 7 15:36:47 2012. If you were about substance, I might take you a bit seriously, you know.But I guess you're all for slavery?? |
|
| (896729) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jan 8 18:15:53 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by Fred G on Fri Jan 6 20:51:48 2012. Anecdote=fail in light of your views. |
|
| (896730) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jan 8 18:17:02 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by Edwards! on Fri Jan 6 19:03:36 2012. What are you trying to say? |
|
| (896731) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jan 8 18:18:17 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by AlM on Fri Jan 6 19:37:04 2012. You do recall that the USSR did side with us during WWII, right . . . and that they didn't start WWII? |
|
| (896736) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Sun Jan 8 18:28:08 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jan 8 18:15:23 2012. I am going to communicate with Larry Fendrick about this racist post. |
|
| (896737) | |
Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jan 8 18:30:15 2012, in response to Re: Germany's courts: Slavery *permitted* under ''international law'', posted by RockParkMan on Sun Jan 8 18:28:08 2012. What's "racist" about it? I used no epithets at all. Suggesting that someone might be for slavery is not racist. Go ahead and rat. |
|