Of course, shooting people in covert ops is not a long term solution. And sure, the first trial is going to drag others behind. A natural consequence that must be addressed, but can't be avoided.Tiwaz wrote: And who is going to prevent this? Hmm?
Point with killteams would be to use them very sparingly, but in reality Earth governments are unlikely to be able to agree on who to kill and who not to. So each would want to run their own team.
Naturally, this would most likely be limited to unpacified regions of Hell. Pulling assassinations in areas with established order would be too risky (just like in Earth), at least in any great numbers.
Teams would prowl the uncharted territories trying to locate and eliminate unwanted people before they are recovered by actual recovery effort.
Point I wanted to drive home is that starting to pull off public trials for whomever you want to punish is going to open door for EVERYONE being scrutinized. Do you think it would take long after Himmler or Hitler is put to trial for someone to ask about properly prosecuting guilty parties of My Lai? Or french activities in their domains?
Of course you were going to get into crusades and Inquisition, and Spanish Conquest, for that matter. Still, even at the time, those actions were justified under necessity, not liking. Nazis could say the same, but when Nazis came, all that was the past. Seen, done, judged. I seem to recall that the Catholic Church even issued an apology for the Inquisition thing... a few centuries late, though. Besides, those were actions against heathens, Germany took action against everyone. Not sure the crusades are a good analogy. Well, only if we substitute the religion for the racial thing.Read about crusades. Those guys considered themselves good christians and they waged war in every bit as brutally as Nazis.
Acre and Jerusalem to mention couple massacres.
2700 prisoners slaughtered in Acre, perhaps 10 000 muslims in Jerusalem in their mosque and unknown number of jews burned alive in their synagogue.
Yes, this is true. So no one holds the absolute truth (Not even God, as we saw ). But there are basic rights of humanity, which shouldn't be violated. And said rights are agreed upon by majority. There is no absolute truth, but we can take the truth of a large part of the population to hold as truth for the purposes of establishing something to measure others against. It's called democracy, I believe. Not the best system, but as good as they get.So YOU say. But they did not see eye to eye with you. You must again choose, either personal perception of accused matter or they do not.
If they do, then Nazis must walk free just like Mongols, Crusaders, Muslims, Conquistadors and whatnot.
If not, all must be put to sword.
See, the problem with the Nazis is that they weren't a past civilization or something. There were modern, civilized, Westerners, Christians, etc., etc. That kind of puts them in a club that had some rules agreed upon about how to wage war, how to treat civilian population, some human rights of sorts, etc. They violated all that nonchalantly. They knew what they were doing, they knew it was against all that was thought or should have been thought to them, (Nazism in Germany didn't last long to shape enough generations from the cradle into their thinking), and they didn't care. They wasn't even regretful about it.
Crusaders present an interesting point of debate, too.
No, you are missing my point. The strategy of scaring people into surrender is very old, and is still in effect, actually. The point is being so cruel in victory that people rather surrender and bargain than stand and fight. That's not what I'm saying. What I say is that in that moment of time, those techniques could be used openly and they weren't bad practice or whatever. Everyone was expected to use them. It was standard. Go tell the US Army to sever a few hundred Muslim heads and spread them in Irak, see if they can pull it off with good publicity. Don't think so. For the Mongols, the same would just be a matter of logistics. In their name, their own people wouldn't care, and the defeated ones would hate them, but accepted it as a consequence of war. That's the point, they were out of what was considered expected in their time. You can see the Romans, they did some pretty heavy stuff too. and they were the height of civilization at the time. Their problem was that they saw themselves as the only light of civilization in a barbaric world. Kind of Nazis themselves .Mongols had an empire. They weren't unwashed barbarians just riding on their horses. Remember Kublai Khan who met Marco Polo?
Guess where that "Khan" part came from...
Mongols had strategy to be so over the top brutal and barbaric against every city which resisted them that others would simply submit.
What they did was essentially attempt to scare cities to surrender. For this purpose they did things which would be horrible by standards of that time.
No infinite wisdom. there comes a time when you need to establish some ground rules, have everyone or a majority agree to play by them, and have everyone else forcefully get into play or separated completely. It's kind of what we had done in history until now. Of course this is inherently unjust, but again, as fair as it gets...And who would have the infinite wisdom to determine these things?
And who could be said to have actual authority to make such decisions?
Very good point. they should be a supreme Court somewhere, specially design to take this stuff into consideration.
The invasion of Hell is probably be a catalyst to achieve greater union of countries, the likes of which we have not seen yet, at least when it comes to world level organizations. kind of a Second World War on steroids .
Yes, Americans do tend to do that.Again, who is the one to run the trial? Which laws will be applied?
I have distinct feeling that Americans presume that it is given that they are put to US style court, but today most of the world does not have US style court.
Nor does huge majority of the world sport laws similar to American ones.
what I said earlier was that it would depend on the crimes. Charles Manson, judged by Americans. Stalin, judged by Russians. Hitler, judged by inter-dimensional court. And so forth. It would depend of the scale of the crime committed.
Of course there is the issue of the evolution of law systems. Alexander would probably not understand why he's being judged by the same things he held to be natural to his station. that is to be taken into consideration, but modern day rules are to be applied. We are talking about a tool to allow us to measure the danger of reinsertion of a certain individual into society, not a mere punishment. As was pointed out earlier, we have jumped the shark regarding punishment already. I'm concerned with the stability of society while accepting a crowd of individuals so different from us now. For that, we need to measure them against modern laws, see which they broke, why (taking their moment in history into consideration) and issue the appropriate corrective sentences. Or death, it would depend.
I think we are drifting a little here. We could carry this on by private messaging if you are interested, perhaps.