21–30 of 150 posts
[flagged]
> Wow we sure threw that one out the window with the covid 19 vaccine didn't we? I don't consent to breathing in the virus particles of someone who increased their chances of getting infected, or increased the viral load they carried around, because they refused the vaccine. Ultimately you need some way to balance people's rights whenever they are conflicting. Your right to refuse the vaccine vs my right to not die d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wow we sure threw that one out the window with the covid 19 vaccine didn't we? No, we have not. Also, it's completely asinine to compare voluntary vaccination by an incredibly safe vaccine in the middle of a pandemic that claimed millions of lives, with forced medical experiments often resulting in deaths.
In some countries vaccination was planned to not be voluntary. This was the case in Austria, with a government stipulated mandate.[1] The situation changed rapidly, but just pointing out that vaccination against COVID was not always planned to be voluntary, especially as the OP mentioned his employer was mandating it. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60155635
[flagged]
Wow amazing how a post about Nazis on trial immediately surfaces people who had no decency to take a jab to literally help the world fight a global deadly threat.
He later helped start the Hague and dedicated his life acting as a voice for the voiceless due to war crimes and genocides.
Despite the horrors he witnessed, Ben was a beam of light for all around him. I highly recommend his works. Especially "Parting Words: 9 Lessons for a Remarkable Life"
> The IMT contributed to the definition of war crimes and the outlawing of wars of aggression.
that hints at what really happened at the tribunal. chomsky has some details:
https://chomsky.info/20070803/
The Nuremberg case is a very interesting precedent. First of all, the Nuremberg trials—of all the tribunals that have taken place, from then until today—it is, I think, the most serious by far. But, nevertheless, it was very seriously flawed. And it was recognized to be. When Telford Taylor, the chief prosecutor, wrote about it, he recognized that it was flawed, and it was so for a number of fundamental reasons. For one thing, the Nazi war criminals were being tried for crimes that had not yet been declared to be crimes. So, it was ex post facto. ‘We’re now declaring these things you did to be crimes.’ That is already questionable.
Secondly, the choice of what was considered a crime was based on a very explicit criterion, namely, denial of the principle of universality. In other words, something was called a crime at Nuremberg if they did it and we didn’t do it.
So, for example, the bombing of urban concentrations was not considered a crime. The bombings of Tokyo, Dresden, and so on—those aren’t crimes. Why? Because we did them. So, therefore, it’s not a crime. In fact, Nazi war criminals who were charged were able to escape prosecution when they could show that the Americans and the British did the same thing they did. Admiral Doenitz, a submarine commander who was involved in all kinds of war crimes, called in the defense a high official in the British admiralty and, I think, Admiral Nimitz from the United States, who testified that, ‘Yeah, that’s the kind of thing we did.’ And, therefore, they weren’t sentenced for these crimes. Doenitz was absolved. And that’s the way it ran through. Now, that’s a very serious flaw. Nevertheless, of all the tribunals, that’s the most serious one.
The Nuremberg Trials were fascinating. While I think many of the individuals leading the tribunal were trying to do a good job in the tradition of their respective nations' legal frameworks, the victorious allies could really not see eye to eye on what was a fair measure of retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, etc. So my take is that largely all legal norms were discarded or violated, and the tribunal had to reac…
Are there any good documentaries or books that dig into this without getting to academic?
The last surviving prosecutor of the Nuremberg trials passed away on April 7, 2023 at the age of 103. It was Ben Ferencz' first case after he learned of the Eastern fronts 'Nazi death squad' (Einsatzgruppen). All other tribunal prosecutors were committed to other cases when he described the atrocities to his superior, so he took the case on himself. It both validates the top comment of allies not seeing eye to eye, b…
[1] https://benferencz.org/stories/
[2] https://benferencz.org/stories/1943-1946/getting-home-as-a-s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wow we sure threw that one out the window with the covid 19 vaccine didn't we? No, we have not. Also, it's completely asinine to compare voluntary vaccination by an incredibly safe vaccine in the middle of a pandemic that claimed millions of lives, with forced medical experiments often resulting in deaths.
> an incredibly safe vaccine yeah, i'm going to need you to prove that statement by showing me the standard 10-12 year safety studies available for those "incredibly safe" mRNA vaccines.