Originally posted by Vasilis Azoth
That's right, the guards are all innocent.
Then why were the Nazi guards of the camps tried as war criminals at Nuremberg?
Vas
Hmm.. odd I didn't realize we were talking about Germany and WWII.
Besides, your comment is off base. The guards who were tried at Nuremberg were tried for crimes they comitted against prisoners IN the prisons. My
comment was pointing out that the guards have no say on who gets sent to the prison, nor do they have a say on who is innocent or guilty.
|
reply to post by Vasilis Azoth
Im glad you asked that question and ill give you the answer
They were party to mass murder and helped if you note that not all guards were tried but were brought in as witnesses to the horrors of the death
camps.
and I would like to add that the united states does not run or operate and forced labor or death camps.
|
reply to post by rogerstigers
Indeed and very true my job is custody and control of inmates we insure that inmates don't escape. I am not here to judge what they did in fact I
don't want nor care what they did to get here all I care about is providing and atmosphere conducive to rehabilitation and safety of inmates and
guards.
|
Hey I've got a question. Would Walmart provide an adequate holding facility or is the building structure flawed if it were to hold prisoners? I mean,
they have over 50 cameras per building (supercenter) and thats on the outside. Do you think that in an emergency most of the goods in the store could
be replaced with detainees? Not really the possiblity of this happening, but more of a comparison to actual holding cells.
|
Listen, and listen carefully.
You college dormitory activists and aged hippies need to come down off your sophomoric soapboxes and stop with the horseapples about nazis,
concentration camps and due process for captured insurgents. Take some instruction, buttercups...The primary reasons follow:
1) They were captured while actively engaged in attempting to subvert a Congressionally sanctioned U. S. Military action. They are not afforded the
same legal rights as a U. S. citizen charged with a crime. It is not the role of the U. S. armed forces to act as law enforcement officers, where
they must establish probable cause, collect supporting evidence, conduct an arraignment, convene a jury of peers, and allow a weighing of evidence and
a lengthy appeals process. Any one who believes this should happen is living in a fantasy land and should probably lay off the 4:20 until their
brains heal, or at least until they get out of high school.
2) Arguably, these particular 'prisoners of war' are the best treated in the history of warfare.
To wit, in modern, post-Geneva accord warfare, guerilla insurgents and soldiers captured out of uniform have been subject to summary execution -
read: they got a bullet to the back of the head if they were captured. Numerous autobiographies have documented this fact -- Col. Charles Askins'
"Unrepentant Sinner" (Paladin Press, 1991) specifically documented the ordered killings of uniformed Wehrmacht and SS troops who had been captured
in battle. Until the VietNam era, there was precedent for it, and executions of POWs on an active battlefield was an accepted and encouraged
practice.
I bring this up to punctuate the difference in the way the POWs from the Persian campaign are treated. They are well-fed, get meals consistent with
their religion, are well-treated, are allowed to freely practice their religion, receive better medical care than any of us do, and have been spared
the fate that many could effectively argue that they should have gotten.
3. Those of us who have been there know the truth. You aged hippies and campus activists, on the other hand, are nowhere near as smart, reasoned and
as well informed as you think you are. Stop trying to live an image just because you think it's the "cool" thing to do. Grow up.
To the OP, thanks for being willing to share.
End of message
|
reply to post by shinjiikari2839
in theory yes a wal-mart could but any other building like that IE Costco could just as easily be transformed in to one the cost to do this would be
very high. in my opinion and this is just me and not army or military doctrine. I don't think that the military would use these places for detainment
camps.
I would use a stadium here is why fence is cheap and so are tents it would be far easier in my mind to use such a place to house a mass of people.
and to the last poster thank you for your support!
|
Originally posted by shinjiikari2839
Hey I've got a question. Would Walmart provide an adequate holding facility or is the building structure flawed if it were to hold prisoners? I mean,
they have over 50 cameras per building (supercenter) and thats on the outside. Do you think that in an emergency most of the goods in the store could
be replaced with detainees? Not really the possiblity of this happening, but more of a comparison to actual holding cells.
We used a SAM's Club leased by the Department of Homeland Security to hold 3000 people during hurricane evacuation operations. I was part of the
perimeter security detail at the site. People of course were free to come and go though. It wasn't really a detention facility.
If it had been we would of needed alot more personnel, dogs, and whole lot of nonlethal weapons, but it could probably be done.
|
