1
   

Cheney criticized for Auschwitz attire

 
 
ConstitutionalGirl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 09:09 am
JLNobody wrote:
I interpret his impropriety as neo-com arrogance.
You mean Prince Harry?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 09:16 am
I believe the explanation for Prince Harry is excessive inbreeding. I am not aware of the cause of Mr Cheney's arrogance.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 09:25 am
How do you know it was arrogance. Are you clairvoyant?
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 09:35 am
Stuck at an airport I just came across this thread - 122 posts and not a single poster commenting on Vladimir Putin, ex-KGB head in Leipzig (then East Germany) getting up to address camp victims after his own country admits to killing 60 million people in its own gulag during communist rule.

"Arrogance" doesn't even begin to describe his behavior. Wearing a black coat and shoes is apparently enough to obliterate the memory of those 60 million - which number must have included millions of Soviet Jews, for those interested in classifying victims according to religion.

Walter - the original Soviet count in Auschwitz was 4 million dead, since recalculated to about 1 million comprising both jewish and non-jewish groups. I know there's a German law prohibiting recalculating these numbers, but other countries aren't so afflicted with prior restraint of their press, so I wondered if anywhere you found any revised statistics for those "6 million Jews" who are said to have been killed by Nazis in camps.

P.S. the bold letters are there because I don't know if the law covers what you, personally, might post on a US website - we don't want you arrested and sent to prison! Thanks.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 09:45 am
georgeob1 wrote:
How do you know it was arrogance. Are you clairvoyant?

clair, clear (from Latin clārus) + voyant, present participle of voir, to see (from Latin vidēre).]
so, are you asking me if i see clearly? well, you know I have this dyslexia thing but that really doesn't effect my vision. however, quite often I am myopic (isn't everyone?)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 09:52 am
HofT wrote:
I know there's a German law prohibiting recalculating these numbers, but other countries aren't so afflicted with prior restraint of their press, so I wondered if anywhere you found any revised statistics for those "6 million Jews" who are said to have been killed by Nazis in camps.

P.S. the bold letters are there because I don't know if the law covers what you, personally, might post on a US website - we don't want you arrested and sent to prison! Thanks.


I don't know about such a law, neither in the past nor today.

Could you give me a source for that (it's not nor has it been in the Criminal Code - Strafgesetzbuch).
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 09:57 am
Strafgesetzbuch does include a law prohibiting questioning how many people were actually killed in prison camps, though I will have to check the exact wording. It's probably a sub-paragraph contained in another law - will look it up this a.m. if still stuck at this airport.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 10:07 am
HofT wrote:
Strafgesetzbuch does include a law prohibiting questioning how many people were actually killed in prison camps, though I will have to check the exact wording. It's probably a sub-paragraph contained in another law - will look it up this a.m. if still stuck at this airport.


Quote:
Section 130 Agitation of the People

[...]
(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1), in a manner capable of disturbing the public piece shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.


Quote:

Section 220a Genocide
(1) Whoever, with the intent of destroying as such, in whole or in part, a national, racial or religious group or one characterized by its folk customs by:

1. killing members of the group;

2. inflicting serious physical or emotional harm, especially of the type indicated in Section 226 on members of the group;

3. placing the group in living conditions capable of leading, in whole or in part, to their physical destruction;

4. imposing measures which are intended to prevent births within the group;

5. forcibly transferring children of the group into another group,

shall be punished with imprisonment for life.

(2) In less serious cases under subsection (1), numbers 2 to 5, the punishment shall be imprisonment for not less than five years.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 10:24 am
Walter - there is an English text?! LOL - I struggled through all the German legalese to arrive at:

"Durch dieses Gesetz werden verurteilende strafgerichtliche Entscheidungen, die unter Verstoß gegen elementare Gedanken der Gerechtigkeit nach dem 30. Januar 1933 zur Durchsetzung oder Aufrechterhaltung des nationalsozialistischen Unrechtsregimes aus politischen, militärischen, rassischen, religiösen oder weltanschaulichen Gründen ergangen sind, aufgehoben. Die den Entscheidungen zugrunde liegenden Verfahren werden eingestellt.
http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bundesrecht/ns-aufhg/index.html"

Yes, following the links I got the text you quoted. 5 years in prison is of no importance to you?
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 10:32 am
Have to leave now but wish to bring to your attention that if Prince Harry had gone to a party in Germany in that outfit he would have been prosecuted under section 130.

I personally think Hitler was a criminal because of his direct orders to von Paulus in Stalingrad and should have faced a tribunal for that alone as CinC, but if I liked the guy for any reason I would be free to say so in the US or the UK though not in Germany.

At least your search proves that private communications aren't covered by the law - I think that's the meaning of the text, right?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 10:35 am
HofT wrote:
... if Prince Harry had gone to a party in Germany in that outfit he would have been prosecuted under section 130.



Well, not exactly - I think, he could have diplomatic immunity. :wink:
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 10:37 am
P.S. on section 130 "....approves of, denies or renders harmless...."

The number of the victims are included under "denied" in jurisprudence based on that law - that was the original point I was making, btw.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 10:39 am
HofT wrote:
P.S. on section 130 "....approves of, denies or renders harmless...."

The number of the victims are included under "denied" in jurisprudence based on that law - that was the original point I was making, btw.


I thought so :wink:
0 Replies
 
almach1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 01:49 pm
Ok I aint reading 14 pages about this insignificant piece of news. I don't like cheany or bush, but cmon, pease don't make liberals look bad by making a big deal about this.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 01:52 pm
I couldn't have said it better
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 02:29 pm
almach1 wrote:
Ok I aint reading 14 pages about this insignificant piece of news. I don't like cheany or bush, but cmon, pease don't make liberals look bad by making a big deal about this.


Welcome to the political forum, almach1. You're the wrong political persuasion, but I won't hold that against you. On the basis of this first post of yours (first I've seen at any rate) I like you already.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 04:20 pm
Then, Walter, if you "thought so" you should have agreed with my original statement insofar as jurisprudence is an integral part of the body of law in Germany as elsewhere - I would post the German court decisions on that subject, but most people's eyes glaze over over legalese in any language.

Truly such a body of law is a blot on Germany's and France's and all other countries' with similar laws reputations - how, HOW can you imprison and fine people for saying what is factually proven?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2024 at 07:07:47