"Kay" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:DAJJa.66$Hs2.100650@news.uswest.net...
> In article <RzIJa.3305$Hj6.2905@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, USA@aol.com
> says...
> >
> >
> >"Austin P. So (Hae Jin)" <haejin@netinfo.ubc.ca> wrote in message
> >news:bd7gtu$34l$3@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> >> "USA" <USA@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:nkDIa.2357$k22.539@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> >>
> >> > Here's one I'll throw at you....is Adolph Hitler a War Criminal?
> >> > I'm sure we all agree that he is...but do we ever call him one?
> >> > Why not?
> >>
> >> Ah...I see...
> >>
> >> You understand and agree that Hitler was a war criminal despite that f
> >act
> >> that he was not tried under court and therefore under legal terms "gui
> >lty"
> >> of war crimes.
> >>
> >> By that argument, you also seem to agree that Hirohito may have been a
> > war
> >> criminal, only that because he didn't face a tribunal, didn't face any
> >> charges, and therefore not guilty of war crimes in any legal sense.
> >>
> >> In other words, you actually agree with Kay.
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >> Austin
> >>
> >
> >You seem to have missed the point Austin. Or deliberately walked around
> >it.
> >The fact is we DON'T call or label Adolph Hitler a War Criminal.
> >Why don't you take a wild guess why we don't.
> >Same applies for Benito Mussolini.
>
> What difference does it make whether he
> was tred or not?
>

Because it has everything to do with the legal
title of War Criminal being hung around someone's neck.
That's all. Nothing else.

> Hitler was responsible to start the war.
> Hitler was responsible for the genocide.
> How can you say he is not a war criminal
> while you call his generals and ministers
> who were found guilty at Nurenberg war crimianls?
>
Yes, many people feel that way.
But that doesn't change the fact that he was never tried and convicted as
one.
This has nothing to do with the way that you, I or millions of people may
"feel".
His generals and ministers were tried, convicted and sentenced as War
Criminals
so I have no qualms about calling them that at all.

> It's like cronic arguments of the right wing
> Americans who say Clinton is a liar because he
> lied under oath but Bush is not because he
> lied but not under oath.  Lie is a lie is a lie
> in my book.  If the evidence proves that they
> lied, they are both liars.

I don't disagree with you that both are lies. But there is a difference.
One has legal implications and can lead to impeachment
while the other can only piss people off.
If you can not see the difference in your own example, then you will not see
the point concerning the label of War Criminal being applied.