Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:55:57 -0700
Irony-an event or result marked by incongruity.
US widow deported over Nazi past
An elderly German woman who kept secret her role as a Nazi concentration camp guard for more than 60 years has been deported from the US, it has emerged. Elfriede Rinkel, who was married to a Jewish man, was described as a "nice, sweet lady" by those who knew her. Mrs Rinkel, 84, never revealed the grim details of her past during the 47 years she lived in San Francisco. But earlier this month US officials uncovered her role as a guard during WWII, and deported her back to Germany. Mrs Rinkel's husband Fred was a German Jew who arrived in the US after escaping the Holocaust. He died in 2004, never learning of his wife's secret.
'Horrific mistreatment' According to the US Department of Justice, Mrs Rinkel served as a guard at the Ravensbruck women's labour camp in Germany from June 1944 until April 1945, when it was abandoned by the Nazis. There she worked with an SS-trained attack dog, but was not a member of the Nazi party. Attack dogs were used to march malnourished inmates back and forth from slave labour sites each day, the department added. An estimated 90,000 people died at the camp during WWII.
"She was... such a nice, sweet lady who seemed to have a very loving relationship with her husband..." Gene Kaufman.
"Concentration camp guards such as Elfriede Rinkel played a vital role in the Nazi regime's horrific mistreatment of innocent victims," Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher said.
Let us now move into the future, say September 2068.
News item: An elderly American soldier who kept secret his role as an Abu Gruib guard for more than 60 years has be extradited to Iraq. He had served as a guard at the infamous Iraqi prison in 2004-2006 where he worked with a trained attack dog, but was not a member of the now long outlawed Republican party. An estimated 90,000 peopled died as a result of the US attack during the early 2000's. "Prison guards such as this man played a vital role in the Bush regime's horrific mistreatment of innocent Iraqi victims" says the Assistant Attorney General.
Which is to say, what goes around comes around.
Well of course I found this quite distasteful, but right in line with common liberal Bush hate. The fever swamp is full of rhetoric like this. However, as this particular barb originated from a lib with a brain, a response was necessary, and here is what I sent.
Irony? I would say you are seriously screwed in the head. But we already knew that. Abu was for bad guys and suspected bad guys. But you can't see that. Nazi death camps were of a different nature obviously. So stupid you libs are. Liberal guilt and Bush hatred combined into one seriously screwed up view of the world. Heard that Pres Mahmoud in a interview with his own media say "Kofi called me and said not to worry about the resolution and sanctions, nothing will come of it." How is that? And the French, signing the resolution, now throw it out the window. Ah the UN, fertilizer of evil, bastion of Dictators and Socialists.
Its funny that you want the Republican party to be the Nazis. Yet your own party holds up true fascists and dictators as glorious role models. Very odd.
As you would expect, with such glorious rhetoric, we got a rapid response defending the nutters view. As you can guess, the overriding theme is one of Bush hate coupled to blame America first. Not very original, but we need to be reminded (maybe):
a. Iran is not a D vs R issue. It's a US/west policy issue. Notice how everybody who is against Iran getting a bomb, if that's really what they are up to, already have the bomb. And the US made sure that India, Israel and Pakistan (Pakistan!!!) have the bomb. The US also supported Iraq under Saddam in the 80's when he was working on a bomb because we thought he'd use it on Iran. Is there a little bias here! Yes, there is. And Iran can't help but notice, as do all third world countries, that the US will do nothing against a country that HAS the bomb, for example North Korea. The bomb is a deterrent, and Iran may feel that they need a deterrent (though of course I can't see why......).
b. The issue about the guards isn't who the victims were. From your point of view it's bad to use torture and mass murder if the victims are innocent Jews, but it's ok if they are innocent Iraqis. Either torture and mass murder is wrong, period, or it's not. Which is it oh Christian conservative? Where does Jesus stand on the issue of torture and mass murder? (as an aside, u might recall that the Nazis said the Jews were 'bad guys' too. I mean, they did 'stab the Fatherland in the back in 1918, they are responsible for the Communist Red Terror in Bavaria, and they burned the Reichstag building, right.)
c. Do you really think that the residents of the Nazi death camps and the residents of Abu Gruib would see a big difference between the two while they are being tortured? Is not the behavior that took (takes) place in such places wrong on its face, regardless of who the victims are and regardless of who is committing the crime? Evil is evil.
d. Have seen nil on any such phone call. Gimme a citation? In any event, I find it odd that the US who always says that sanctions don't work (like in Iraq, South Africa, Guatemala, Zimbabwe etc etc) suddenly thinks they will. Anyhow, just what sanctions u got in mind? Russia is right next door and will be glad to sell whatever Iran needs in exchange for oil and influence in the region. The world needs to buy Iranian oil, so I doubt sanctions would work at all. As a strategy sanctions would have the same effect in Iran as they had in Iraq, simply united the people of the country against the outsiders; the complete marginalization of moderates in the country as all rally round the flag.
e. Exactly what dictators in the UN did you have in mind. Remember we went thru the list of UN members a month or so ago and came up with very few on the list of 192 member states; unless, of course you want to count traditional American allies like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Egypt, and Qatar as shining examples of 'democracy'.
f. this last one really tickles me. What party put in power and/or supported with billions of taxpayer dollars: The Generals in Vietnam, Burma, Guatemala, Panama, Nicaragua, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, South Africa, Cuba (before Castro), Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq........the list goes on and on. Well, it wasn't us socialists jack. It was the R's and the D's. Git a grip bub. As long as we're about it, who sold munitions to Japan and loaned Nazi Germany money? Who went over and kissed and made up with Commie China? Who's made up with Libya and signed trade agreements with the Col.? Gee, the socialists? Not hardly. The US will do ANYTHING for money.
I didn't spend much time covering all points in my reply, but you can guess what the central theme was. Unless you have no sense of reality.
Yes, again, its the mote in your eye. On topic a, your theme remains consistent, its all our fault. So point a is no point at all. Point b, you again equate the mass extinction of ethnic groups with possible combatants in a war. Its is a "Holy Treaty" of your religion that all those Iraqis were poor innocent bystanders, and if they weren't, well we drove them to do whatever it was they did to get incarcerated. Your very dishonest with yourself if you actually believe this liberal crack, and if you don't then you equally duplicitous for being a mouthpiece of such inanity. Its seems radical liberalism has removed that gift of critical thinking.
Where is the mass murder?
Where is the systematic torture?
Crickets are chirping. If you mean the tactics we used on the 14 pigs that were moved to Guantanamo, go for it. Pull there fingers off. Boil them in oil. I think most of society is actually in support of radical treatment of radicals. If you are trying to pull the fever swamp line that we have murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis, then you are either a fever swamp parrot or quite on the far side. So, was the firebombing of Dresden murder? Your nutter position is just a personal redefinition of warfare to suit your political needs, not very enlightening.
Are you freaking nuts? Lets see, starved, beat, forced labor, then you get shot, torched or gassed. En masse. The pleasant Nazi experience. And on the other side, free food, medical aide, access to the Red Cross. Oh, and most are simply released after being picked up. Yes, there were a few that were humiliated, so what. And a few died. So what. Your comparison is so revealing of how sick the left has become, that it saddens me. Anyhow, on to point e, which is irrelevant. They love to loath the US, have done so for as long as we have been successful. The UN has become a parody of a joke. When a confirmed state sponsor of terrorism gets a ovation, it doesn't matter what the label on the governmental system is of the gathered nations, they are not our friends.
For the last point, you again descend into the blame the US first mental defense. Its kinda weak. And your socialists have such a great track record, yea, the perfect foil. Right.
So of course we will get a reply to that. Here is where the waters get muddy. To defend the indefensible, arguments are crafted that do not address the root of the current conflict. Furthermore, you can smell the idiotic premise of "lets all talk and just get along" underlying many statements.
Our fault? Who's 'our'? I'm happy to start with WW1 policies of the UK and France. (The Crusades might be a bit tooooo far back.) So, during WW1 the Brits et all divie up the middle east with France. They need oil for their fleets and industry, and the Brits want to protect passage via Suez to India. So they make up countries as they go along. Basic history of the Middle East it seems to me. The US role doesn't come until WW2 and after as the Brit and French empires crumble and we step into the power vacuum in competition with Russia during the Cold War. Remember the Truman Doctrine as it relates to Iran. Essentially, the above three powers supported (and support) any government that will protect our economic (now exclusively oil) interests in the region, and claim to be anti-commie (like Nasser) Remember the Brits and French reaction when Egypt nationalized the Suez canal. Remember the US reaction when Iran voted in an government that wanted to nationalize Iranian oil. The same story in any number of places. So, yes, the West's suppression of legitimate democratic aspirations and nationalist governments in the Middle East actually PRODUCED the flowering of the Islamist extremist movement; we caused it by 80 years of stupid policy in the area. There is no reason to believe that there would now be ANY significant Islamist movement EXCEPT in reaction to those policies.
It matters not a wit WHO the people are; we should not pursue a policy of torture UNDER ANY CONDITIONS WHATSOEVER, PERIOD. That is not what the US stands for, that is not our way of dealing with enemies in time of war, it is a counterproductive policy in many ways, and it costs us whatever moral high ground there is. It IS NOT RIGHT, and that alone is sufficient reason not to torture, period.
regarding next statement... Bull pucky. I said no such thing. You talk like Artmitage and Scooter. If there is a case to be made for criminal prosecutions then go ahead and make it. Go to some kind of judicial situation, produce the evidence and proceed. The US isn't doing that because: a. most of the people picked up in Afghanistan and Iraq can't be shown to have done a damn thing. b. In an open court they would recount their mistreatment and torture, the case would get thrown out and the US would look bad. Sure there are some guilty people in the herd..... they should have been sorted out early and brought to trial. Now they can't be.
As for the moral issue of torture and mass murder: ah, u don't like the words mass murder. OK, lets get technical. Crimes against humanity, violations of the rules of war, genocide, crimes against peace......read the treaties. There are literally thousands of such incidents that have occurred in Iraq that qualify.
Where is the mass murder? see above
Where is the systematic torture? well, to start with it's in the policy statements issued in the commander in chiefs name from DOD which approved those practices which the US Supreme court found to be in violation of the Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions. Now lets add in the rendition process, CIA secret prisons, sending captives to countries for torture----all widely practiced and such obvious violations of US and international law they don't deserve comment.
regarding next statement... Yes, I see true Christian values coming thru now. Torture for Jesus.....welcome to the 14th century. Well. First, most of the US does not approve of torture. Second, even if they did it is neither legal nor moral. If you become a barbarian to fight barbarians you have lost. What is the justification for the use of torture? The experts tell us that the information you get is unreliable. Ask those victims of the Inquisition who had to admit that they consorted with the 'devil'. Sure usable confessions there. The experts also tell us that the way to get cooperation with a prisoner is quite different. You befriend them. You use a system of rewards. You get their confidence. You undermine their belief structure. Good grief people, learn a little psychology! I also note that you ASSUME that the fourteen new addees to Gitmo ARE GUILTY. How nice. But suppose you are WRONG, and some of them have really DONE NOTHING. Now you have tortured an innocent person, probably even gotten them to confess to terrible things......then what? Are you really willing to take the position that it is OK to torture the innocent? I don't recall learning that in Sunday School or my highschool civics classes.....at least outside of medieval Spain. Suppose you get a confession. You can't use it in court. If you get a confession in some kangaroo military court are you really willing to execute somebody JUST on the basis of that confession extracted under torture? Wow.
Now about Dresden. Of course it was murder. Question is, under the SAME rules the Allied Commission applied to the Germans, was it a war crime. Well, lemme tell you about one of those cases. Karl Donitz, grand-admiril of the submarine fleet, was going to be put on trial for crimes against humanity and waging aggressive war because of his use of 'unrestricted submarine warfare'. His defense council contacted one Chester W. Nimitz, whose name should ring a bell. Adm. Nimitz PERSONALLY wrote a friend of the court brief in which he advocated NOT proceeding with case. Why? Because the very first command issued to the Pacific fleet on December 7, 1941 was to the sub fleet, and it said COMMENCE UNRESTRICTED SUBMARINE WARFARE AGAINST JAPAN. Which is to say, if Donitz was a war criminal, why so were the Americans. Needless to say, that part of the case was dropped.
regarding next statement... Well, there are two levels of problem here. First, what did \do American forces themselves do; second what have/do the Iraqi government FOR WHICH WE ARE LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE do. On the first level, there is good evidence (as current criminal prosecutions show) that US troops and CIA torturers systematically abused thousands of Iraqi prisoners. This isn't sexual humiliation at Abu G, it's beating with electric cables, waterboarding, genital electrical shocks and the like. It is likely that hundreds died as a result, thousands deformed and crippled.
on the second level, whether you like it or not, the current Iraqi government is responsible to the US for it's illegal behavior. We are the de facto occupying power and have responsibility for what occurs. On a higher moral level, the US is responsible in that none of this would have happened absent the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. As several people told the Bushits at the time, you break it, you buy it. Now George is stuck to that tarbaby, with no visible way out.
regarding next statement... Gee, hope ur not claiming that the US didn't do all that......are my history books wrong? I don't recall the socialists ever having been in power in this country? When was that?
We must address the last section in that its a total fabrication. We are not legally responsible for the Iraqi government, they exist on their own now. Stupid liberal tricks, go try again. Then the claims of torture... No proof of systematic torture at all. In fact, there is such little real evidence of any real torture one wonders if we are aggressively pursuing the nasty death lovers hard enough. All jest aside, this is another "Holy Truth" of the church of liberalism. "Likely" hundreds died. I could find evidence of one. All the rest are claims without proof. "Thousands" deformed and crippled... Again, not much evidence of any American involvement in such. Notice that we are responsible as the "de facto" occupying power, and hence culpable for any abuses made by Iraqi forces. To summarize, we are responsible for 'illegally' invading Iraq. We created the terrorists. We are responsible for those stopping the terrorists. We a responsible for not doing enough to stop the violence. We are responsible for being to violent stopping the violence. Oh, how does the liberal sleep at night.
Can you believe this? Seriously, the nutters really believe. Confused they are, very (Yoda). But the philosophical point that seems to be raised is interesting. Everywhere falling back on some legality compelling us to prosecute this modern conflict according to the liberals view. Clearly the fever swamp does not recognize the threat Islamofascism poses to the west. More than that, the liberal's struggle is against Americans, not our enemies. Do they clamor for Mahmoud's arrest for violating the Geneva conventions by calling for the genocide? Do they want to hold real criminals to task like Hamas or Hezbollah? Do they care when US armed forces get their throats cut? Tortured and dragged through the street, yet not much about bringing the perps to justice from the left. No, its all about how we created this problem, we are making it worse, we are responsible for creating all these problems. What idiots. Attitudes like this tend to make me more nationalistic just to rub their noses. This is the greatest country on earth. We are the beacon of freedom. Millions are trying to emigrate here every year. Socialist wankers around the world loath us. What more proof do you need that we are on the right path? American, proud to be I am (Yoda).