... That's what the Nazis said... 🫣

@selzero

warrantless arrests, kidnappings, denying legal process, shooting protesters in the face, are all illegal . . . fuck ICE . . .

@selzero almost self-aware, almost! (Newsweek is a rag lol)

@selzero can’t a government goon squad just operate with total impunity as they systematically violate people’s rights, send people away to camps with no due process never to be heard from again, or shoot people in cold blood without being compared to nazis? GOSH

@selzero@syzito.xyz
At least the Nazis were better trained.

@selzero@syzito.xyz
When did murdering people become a law!?

@lemonlolita @selzero

Capital Punishment

@selzero satire is dead and I killed it

@selzero Ah. The Nuremberg defense. How original. /s

@grumpydad @selzero Actually the so-called Nuremberg defense was more like "I've made (not just obeyed) decisions whose consequences I was only partially aware as these were parts of a larger policy of I knew little about ." That's why prosecution was focused not on condemning blind obedience but on proving that one cannot make such decisions without knowing what these implied.

@grumpydad @selzero The nuance matters as it reminds us that Nuremberg wasn't the end of the usual obedience argument. Not that it's a valid argument, of course. But in this regard it's always important to remember that the victims of nazism enjoyed no "privilege" when it comes to justice. In France, the collaborators sure claimed they only did what they were asked to do. They were found guilty because it was shown that they went beyond obedience.

@selzero JD VANCE says "Nazi" should not be used as an insult, and coincidentally, he considers indigenous people to be "not fully American". Mainstream source - https://www.newsweek.com/jd-vance-says-nazi-should-not-used-insult-2134222
#indigenous #USA #Nazi

@mike @selzero
sometimes incompetence is a saving grace

@ratel @selzero So what you're saying is ICE agents are "only partially aware" that they're doing illegal things?

Excuse me if I take issue with that.

@grumpydad @selzero what I'm saying is "I was following orders" has nothing to do with Nuremberg (let's just leave Nuremberg where it is). And what I'm implying is I'm not sure "Nuremberg" can be of any help to understand (let alone foresee) ICE agents' line of defence. If some people 80 years ago where able to condemn nazism without comparing it to...well...nazism, I guess we can quite easily condemn ICE without the need for historical comparisons who basically add more confusion than clarity.

@selzero

Exactly…

@ratel @selzero I think the only one that's confused about this is you and you're trying to split hairs.

Googling "Nuremberg defense" lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders as first hit.

@grumpydad @selzero This "superior orders" line of defense only partially covers the Nazi defense. For it wasn't just about claiming one was doing as ordered. What was specific to their defense (after all, that what justifies - or not - such comparison) is that while they were the one giving the orders, they still didn't get the big picture. In other words "okay okay I've made some decisions but I was in the dark". And THAT is very specific to these trials.

@grumpydad @selzero The "superior orders" is no more specific to the Nurember Trials than the good ol' "It wasn't me" or "I wasn't even there" or "the bear was coming right for me". But people giving criminal orders (Göring, Hess, etc, these weren't simple cops or soldiers, they were the masters of the IIIrd Reich), and yet pleading innocent because they allegedly didn't know how criminal the final result would be - now THAT is what is most "remarquable", so to speak.

@ratel @selzero Still don't buy your argument. I believe you're trying to distract from what ICE is doing.

Blocking you now.

@selzero just following orders.