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.


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.


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.

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 .


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...
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.
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.

@Edward Yee



Sorry to sidetrack about your sig, but this has been bothering me. Are you saying:

(a) That it's really good
(b) That it's obscenely popular
(c) That it's obscenely popular but actually shit?

When I said "under wich legal system", I meant that those people lived under a different set of laws.
Under the Brazilian legal system, is one of the basic principles of penal law that there is no crime without a law that defines such behavior as a crime. Unlike USA' s common law, our civil (or Roman) law doesn' t even allow analogies.
Therefore, for instance, a slave owner from 1850, if alive today, but no longer a slave owner since 1856, couldn' t be punished, since he didin' t commit any crime.
Need I state that since Alexander The Great was the head of his state, he followed his laws? Vlad Tepes, If I' m not wrong, was inside the law when he butchered those peasants.

And did you consider the statute of limitations? Murder, for instance, prescribes after 20 years in Brazil, if the state doesn' t prosecute the guilty party.

Also, you need to consider the matter of jursdiction. A British court can' t judge a crime commited in America, the same way, Italy can' t judge a crime that happened in the Roman Empire, for it wasn' t commited in his jurisdiction, since there wasn' t a Italy to begin with?
(The Case of the Speluncean Explorers is an interesting case to study jurisdiction, constitution and punibility.)

The practice you are trying to institute is called "Tribunais de Exceção", explicity forbidden by our constitution.

Yee's saying it's c.

---

"Lexx takes politically correct Star Trek-style sci-fi, murders its conventions, and then urinates on their graves" Darth Wong on LEXX

"Screw the Rules I Have Money" Yugioh the Abridged Series.

"But then again as a kid I wanted the planeeters to die horrible deaths when Captain Planet was on TV"-Sarevok

I want to know what the punishment will be for both the creator of auto-tune as well as boy bands.

Not nearly as heavy a question as who gets to kill the Nazi's again I'll admit.

Being forced to listen to recordings of their creations would seem appropriate.

Yes, it's true. When I talked about territoriality, I meant that each person should be trialed according to the rules of his country or the country that came into existance following the country he was born. It's amply unfair, but it's a compromise we could take to insure that the people we are reinserting into society are not a danger, by finding them innocent (fit) in the eyes of the rules they are to abide from their rescue on.

Actually, I have being thinking, and maybe rather than retrialing, we could do something along this lines:
- Right now, hell is divided between occupation zones, Abigor's new Hell, Caesar's Rome, and unexplored terrain.
- The occupation zones will eventually become countries, being these mirror countries or true countries. More will eventually emerge in the unexplored terrain.
We could rescue people and have then apply to the mirror country of the state they belonged in life. These states could accept them or not based on their own criteria, which could include being trialed for the crimes they see fit. In the case another state has an issue with the rescued one, it could be settled diplomatically.
- If they are rejected, they could apply to some other country, as they wish, until they find their place.
Problem is, if no one accepts them. In that case I don't know what to do with them.

They are exiled to the unexplored regions?

I dunno, seems to me sending potentially quite a few unpleasant people out into the wilds with nobody to keep an eye on them would be just asking for them to form into a terrorist organization or something and start causing trouble.

yep. And that's not likely to turn into another Australia either (I`m still assuming 2nd lifers are sterile).
Still, we might run out of choices. I don't presume tossing them to the fire again or selling them as livestock to baldricks is a choice either....

Does Hell or Heaven have any isolated islands with no timber?

Exile undesirables to other habitable bubble worlds lacking intelligent life. Problem is over. No one has to go to superhell and you never need to see those guys again.

---

my heart is a shell of depleted uranium

Yes it can be avoided, and WOULD be avoided by not having second lifer responsible for first life deeds.

Else you will have clusterfuck of legal issues in your hands.



And Nazis saw what they did justified under necessity. They saw the groups they acted against as one form or another threat to wellbeing of Germans and western world.

Thus, if we go by that logic, Nazis still walk free if Crusaders do.

As for heathens, Germans acted against Jews (heathens of one sort), Gypsies (thieves and whatnot) and Gays (immoral creatures!). You really should get more familiar with Germany under Nazi regime. It is not quite as black and white as you pretend it to be. They were not cackling evil creatures who ate babies "just for shits and giggles". They had their own twisted logic behind what they did, their own twisted justifications as well.
Just like Crusaders.

And if you want other examples. Are you going to burn Bomber Harris too?
Because it does not require much to see allied area bombing strategy targetting cities, and specially Dresden/Hamburg/Pforzheim firebombing, as warcrime worthy of execution.
Or their counterparts in Japan...

Certainly would have been if he had been on losing side.
As Curtis LeMay said: "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals."

And if those issues were brought to table today... There would be far more pressure to put also Allied leaders charged.



Are you aware that what you consider "unalienable rights" are not, in fact, very unalienable?

Modern world has plethora of different legal systems, laws have great deal of variety.



And as said, they did what they felt was right. And I would like to remind you again that if you open the door to charging Nazis, you have to be prepared to put Harris on stake and burn him too.

THEY knew what they were doing as well, and yet committed acts which can count as atrocities.

As for how to wage war. You forget that Geneva treaty was not signed and ratified by all parties. For example Soviets.

Western forces were, more or less, treated according to treaties.
Differences between German treatment of western allies and west allies treating germans are not all that far from one another.



No, it was NOT the standard. Because if it had been, there would not have been shock effect.




Nazis were not seeing themselves as only light, but you actually speak against your argument. If we accept Roman view of the world and necessity, we must accept Nazi one too.

Excusing someone for doing atrocity and condemning someone else for the same is not going to be accepted readily by general public at least in the West. Main point of law is that it is supposed to treat everyone equally.



And who forms the majority? Earth folks dictating terms to second lifers? (let's remember that HUGE portion of them have not even heard of Nazis but have their own axes to grind)

Oh that is going to go down well. If you ask Second lifers, response is going to be quite different.



And what laws shall that court enforce and which legal system shall it work on? Hague style ICJ? USA refuses.
US style? Rest of the world refuses.
Any other? Large part of world will still refuse.

Invasion of Hell and war for Heaven are unlikely to unite countries in a good way.
While there was chance for that, and some unity did exist, exclusive nature of Yamantau club and it's attempts to sideline UN is working against it.

Only hope I see is re-establishing position of UN fast. Else there will be serious division on Earth. There is Yamantau club and then there is "Union of everyone else". Caesar is going to want to get cushy with latter one, even though underdog they possess sufficient knowledge to help boost New Rome, and are easier to negotiate with as both NR and UEE would see Y-club as primary problem.





Mmm. But if you put Hitler in inter-dimensional court, you would have to put Staling too. His forces committed atrocities outside borders of their territories (terror attacks on villages in Finland) and treatment of POW at the camps was atrocious.



No way pulling that off. It would be just way too massive undertaking, as what we consider "normal" has been such for very short time.

And then there is issue that this group would not be exactly thrilled with thought of some wankers from future starting to judge them with their fancypants pussyfoot laws...

We also have issues of changes in laws... Punishments, laws and so forth even for existing nations have changed greatly over time.
Judging people by modern standards for things done in past, which at that time may not have been crimes, is going to be problematic.



Sure. Toss a message to me.
Or have another thread for this discussion so we get outside comments as well.

The kind of system you require would involve ridiculously advanced technology. (Which is of course the point.) I don't object to that in a SF setting, but I would call it a Clarke-level technology, i.e. magic to us, and "out of reach in due time" assumes that it is physically possible to develop this technology in our "universe", or that if it's not, that we can physically access a "universe" in which it is possible to develop it.

You seriously underestimate the difficulty of implementing a system that is undetectable (unless you want to retconn this nano-wiring structure into the human brain and say it's, for instance, the microtubule fibers in nerve cells) that is installed or installs itself automatically into each new generation, and despite its unobtrusiveness, manages to broadcast this information to the minos-gate assembler in universe C over who knows what sort of dimensional barriers.

Again, in the context of a SF story, I don't object to it or find it excessively implausible, at least given the overall levels of suspension of disbelief that the TSW series requires. But it seems that the technology necessary to do this would really make the inhabitants of Universe C almost like what we in real life consider Gods to be, rather than the pseudo-deities of Universe B.

Here's the only way I see it working:

1) Amnesty for all criminals who died prior to the message. Because (a) they've already suffered non-stop torture, the vast majority of them for years, (b) sentencing and imprisonment would be a logistical nightmare, and (c) nobody has legal authority over hell (yet).

2) Individual countries running hell by their own laws over the areas they administer. Some new sentencing structures would be needed to allow for immortality, but on the flipside, it's cheaper keeping second-lifers locked up: no need for food or medical bills.

And that's pretty much it.

I agree with Deebles. If someone has been sentenced and carried out their sentence, you can't tack on more time just because you find out the game has changed. I think most convicted Nazi war criminals would only have to sign certain oaths forswearing serving in goverment in hell and agree to some sort of monitoring. Those who escaped/eluded capture and died without being tried would be given a trial and sentenced appropriately.

Rounding up everyone who's EVER been executed of murder is (pardon the pun) overkill and we need to be very careful about second-deaths. Life in prison is pretty easy to manage when you don't need to feed a convict.

---

Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker

More or less my opinion, can't try/punish people who've already been tried/punished, it's double jeopardy and we already decided a long time ago that that's unethical, but the ones that should have been tried and got away should be caught and tried.

Which leaves us with problem of who should have been tried and got away?

On more objective and time distanced view, that tends to include whole lot of winners.

IE, Bomber Harris, guys who set up firebombings, Ol' Winny...
Indeed, LeMay and his buddy Namara. Who, by their own account, admitted that their deeds would have seen them condemned in trial if they lost.

When you start digging up shit from past, it tends to spill over.
Today there is much more pressure to actually try and convict also winners, unlike right after the WW2 etc.


But one thing I am curious of and would like to hear some opinions...

How do you see political climate shape up?
I have already given very rough estimate on what might happen on my opinion... Y-club and rest of the globe deciding to go opposite ways, latter one becomes inviting partner for Hell states to avoid chokehold which Y-club would prefer to maintain (limiting military gear etc)...

But would Yamantau-club remain unified either? Too many big boys in one team tends to lead problems when everyone assumes THEY are the top dog...

Would Y-club fracture, France and Germany seeking to get EU behind them again? Big boys trying to outdo one another in taking advantage of Hell...

so, to sum up, as judging deceased criminals of every kind is not going to be ethically possible, and logistically hard (as well as punishing them) we can call an amnesty of crimes committed prior to the message. I's ok to do that since this people had suffered their share, although I personally don't think so. Some will die anyway, since mobs don't care about procedure, but that's not possible to stop completely.
Still, I guess some vigilance is necessary, something like parole for the most dangerous ones, which include the likes of Caesar and most modern leaders.
Hell is going to be a really bad place to be when things start to settle. Lots and lots of guerrillas, small countries trying to settle, and powerful people trying to seize power of small communities. Sounds fun... from afar.

Tiwaz makes a good point about the stability of the Yamantau council. I would believe it would stay coherent for a couple of years more at least, if we don't find another bubble world.
the best way to keep an alliance is to keep the enemies coming...

Now, the underground commerce with Hell is truly going to be a problem. We have seen Caesar already buying planes from smaller companies in Canada seeking his independence from the meager supply he is allotted. And that's just the beginning.

That's another reason I would like to see the mirror countries emerge. It keeps the separation of Hell and Earth incomplete, since a mirror state is kind of a continuity of his Earth counterpart, and as such protecting each other is in each one best interest. It doesn't take out the fact that the war did left a lot of smaller countries out of the picture. We might come to see some new alliances forming, and hostilities from the outside of Yamantau. Inside the council, there's gonna be the same backstabbing that always accompany such alliances of haste, but I don't see those guys separating any time soon, not until some years from now. Too much is still unsettled.

Agreed. Consider all the things that used to be perfectly legal, and are now illegal.

1. Using cocaine and other drugs.
2. Slavery.
3. Sex with a 14 year old.
4. Killing a son/daughter who doesn't show sufficient fealty.
5. Peeing on a wall. (In the USA, this has been turned to a *sex offender* crime in some cases. A few poor bastards who couldn't make to a public toilet are now registered sex offenders for life.)

And to flip this argument on its head, what about people who were executed for activities that are either no longer illegal, or have a much less drastic penalty. For example, all of the following were once capital offenses.

1. Homosexuality.
2. Poaching a rabbit.
3. Petty theft.
4. Cutting down a tree.
5. Being in the company of Gypsies for a month.

Do we offer reparations to these 2nd lifers? To everyone held as a slave?

It's a huge mess if you start trying to apply today's morality on everyone. And what about tomorrow? You are probably doing something today that will be considered immoral or illegal in the future. Do you want to be held accountable for that?

And what about those roving "kill teams" some here have suggested? That's hardly legal. Do you plan to put the kill teams on trial after they have eliminated anyone inconvenient?

For reference, governments tend to be less concerned about legality and more concerned about practicality at times. I'm sensing some version of lettres de cachet making a comeback.

Was gonna say "legalized CYA for kill teams" may return, considering that there's already going to be paperwork, but thanks GrayAnderson for the lettres de cachet term. At least in America, I'd expect it to resemble a presidential finding (if not explicitly being one) if it's a target that modern day contemporary American morality would really be okay with offing, or otherwise preventing from returning to influence, except for those that are merely "inconvenient."

A hypothetical example (puts on thinking cap):

---

"Yee's proposal is exactly the sort of thing I would expect some Washington legal eagle to do. In fact, it could even be argued it would be unrealistic to not have a scene in the next book of, say, a Congressman Yee submit the Yee Act for consideration. " - bcoogler on this

"My crystal ball is filled with smoke, and my hovercraft is full of eels." - Bayonet

Stark: "You can't even GET to heaven. You don't even know where it is, or even if it still exists."
SirNitram: "So storm Hell." - From the legendary thread

Well in that case, let's introduce another concept: Rex solutus est a legibus or, "The King (President in our case) is released from the laws."

Why be a nation of laws? Just set the Constitution on fire and be done with it. No point in keeping that old thing around. The only rule is, the President can do no wrong.

Yep, I'll bet the founding fathers will be real proud of the end result of their experiment in democracy. We've become a people only interested in short-term expediencies.

I suggest we do what is right, instead of what is easy. Let no one be above the law.

Correction: Let no one be above the Constitution. It's already all too easy to pass laws that are clearly unconstitutional. Any law remains on the books until struck down by the SCOTUS.

They'd have a LOT of disagreements with what we made of the Constitution WELL before the Patriot Act... heck, some would probably have a shitfit if they ever met Abraham Lincoln. Just responding to this point, not using it as "well we've gone so far already."

Should I assume that you have a problem with a POTUS (even Barack Obama) having the ability to essentially order a legal hit on, say, Anwar al-Awlaki? My sample wasn't meant to justify, but me wondering "what would such an order look like on paper?" Of course, "he was Adolf Hitler in his first life" isn't a valid reason, as opposed to "he's somehow gotten away and is trying to found a neo-Nazi state in Hell... and, to be blunt, has had surprising and unfortunate success so far."

Come to think of it, the bit where I said "by means up to and including" sounds more like POTUS CYA at the kill teams' expense...

---

"Yee's proposal is exactly the sort of thing I would expect some Washington legal eagle to do. In fact, it could even be argued it would be unrealistic to not have a scene in the next book of, say, a Congressman Yee submit the Yee Act for consideration. " - bcoogler on this

"My crystal ball is filled with smoke, and my hovercraft is full of eels." - Bayonet

Stark: "You can't even GET to heaven. You don't even know where it is, or even if it still exists."
SirNitram: "So storm Hell." - From the legendary thread

Yes, I do actually, because there's nothing legal about it. If you look at various laws as written, it is clearly illegal to "order a hit" on someone in secret with no due process, no judicial review, and no opportunity to defend oneself. The closest a "hit" comes to being legal is during a time of declared war. You know, that thing Congress hasn't had the balls to do since December 8, 1941. It is supposed to be Congress' responsibility to declare war; instead, they have pissed that away, allowing the President to do pretty much whatever he wants.

That said, we know these things (hits) happen anyway, which means we have, in effect, a de facto condition of Rex solutus est a legibus. Another example of this is the Bush administration authorizing torture -- which is unquestionably illegal as well as against the military code -- and yet no one at the administration level has been held to account.

And that's true not just within the US. I see no attempt raise the issue in the world court either. World leaders cover each other's asses, because think of the can of worms it would open up if someone actually tried bring charges against former Bush admin officials in the Hague. It will never happen.

So yes, I'd like to keep this a nation of laws instead of men. It's not the easy thing to do, but it is the right thing to do.

Besides, hits on terrorist leaders is treating the symptom, not the illness. Leaders will simply be martyred and replaced, and the terrorist group carries on. Treat the underlying illness (which is usually crippling poverty), and the terrorists become irrelevant and loose their local support. That's why terrorists attack humanitarian aid workers and supplies, because they know allowing real aid to get through will undermine their power base. It's much easier to find and arrest the bastards if the people they claim to be helping want nothing more to do with them.