Nazi trial

[drivin_me_nuts]

I am interested to know that others think about this trial.

I have heard many different viewpoints recently ranging from

Is it worth the cost?
Is he too old?
So what, it was a long long time ago - what's the point?

to

no matter what age there is a need for jsutice to be served for those who died.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8388334.st...

This is probably the last of the trials and there is unlikely to be another. Is it 'worth' persuing a man who has a terminal illness and is one or two steps away from dying to account for his crimes?

What do they do with him if he's found guilty? Hang him, withdraw his treatment, let him die in prison?

[Kermit power]

I'm inclined to think there's a lot of politics coming to play somewhere in this, but I'm not sure to what end.

Certainly "I was only following orders" shouldn't be a defence, but from what I've read, this bloke seems to have been the very bottom of the command ladder, so I'm not sure what else exactly he was supposed to have done? Even assuming he did what he is being accused of, if he hadn't, he'd have been next into the chambers himself.

It is interesting also that even the prosecution only claim he was a low-ranking guard, and more senior Germans assigned to the same camp have already been tried and acquitted.

it just all seems very strange to me.

[Eric Mc]

Does justice time expire?

[Kermit power]

Eric Mc said:

Does justice time expire?

An interesting question.

This guy has already been tried once by Israel, who found him guilty of murder, but then admitted that it wasn't him at all but someone completely different, and quashed the conviction.

This time round, once again he claims he wasn't there, and there is nobody left to actually testify first hand against him. All the evidence is hearsay and circumstantial.

If he did help to commit genocide, then I'd like to think he would be punished, but I'm not convinced that there is any way that this can be established fairly and beyond doubt?

[ludo]

Eric Mc said:

Does justice time expire?

no, but the chance of a fair trial might do though; if the defendant is so old his memory of the events is hazy is he in a position to defend himself adequately?

[Digga]

It's too easy to see the Nazi issue from the British perspective.

I had grandparents and great uncles who fought in both wars and WW2 in particular and I know I'd find it very tough were I on the 'other side', knowing that rightly or wrongly, innocently or with malice, my relatives for for Nazism.

IMHO the German's have done a commendable job of facing up to their responsibilities, and attempting to move on. (There never seems any attempt to cover the issue up.) Part of this process is allowing them to serve justive, as they see fit and in a way that, hopefully, makes Germans feel they have eventually done the right thing.

[Kermit power]

Digga said:

It's too easy to see the Nazi issue from the British perspective.

I had grandparents and great uncles who fought in both wars and WW2 in particular and I know I'd find it very tough were I on the 'other side', knowing that rightly or wrongly, innocently or with malice, my relatives for for Nazism.

IMHO the German's have done a commendable job of facing up to their responsibilities, and attempting to move on. (There never seems any attempt to cover the issue up.) Part of this process is allowing them to serve justive, as they see fit and in a way that, hopefully, makes Germans feel they have eventually done the right thing.

I agree with your sentiment in principle, but I don't think it survives analysis, given that they are now trying a very low-ranking Ukrainian when they have already acquitted more senior Germans from the same camp.

[AndrewW-G]

Given the age of any eye witness, will anybody be able to recount a true statement of the events?

I'm not saying he shouldnt be tried, merely that the process may now be flawed by the sands of time.

It's also a strong statement from the Germans that law and order will be upheld, if this had been happening in the UK he'd have been granted some sort of discharge some time before it came to court.

[Kermit power]

AndrewW-G said:

Given the age of any eye witness, will anybody be able to recount a true statement of the events?

That's part of the controversy. There are no surviving witnesses.

[AndrewW-G]

Kermit power said:

AndrewW-G said:

Given the age of any eye witness, will anybody be able to recount a true statement of the events?

That's part of the controversy. There are no surviving witnesses.

Sorry assumed there would be as I just caught a bit on the TV this morning and they had a pic of a bod with a tattoo. No witness should mean no trial, unless there's film footage or some other firm evidence of the accused at the camp.

[tank slapper]

Kermit power said:

Eric Mc said:

Does justice time expire?

An interesting question.

This guy has already been tried once by Israel, who found him guilty of murder, but then admitted that it wasn't him at all but someone completely different, and quashed the conviction.

This time round, once again he claims he wasn't there, and there is nobody left to actually testify first hand against him. All the evidence is hearsay and circumstantial.

If he did help to commit genocide, then I'd like to think he would be punished, but I'm not convinced that there is any way that this can be established fairly and beyond doubt?

I would agree with this. An accusation for war crimes of this nature should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt, just as with any other crime. That it is 60 years on, and there are no contemporary witnesses remaining means that this will be incredibly difficult to do.

[nonegreen]

AndrewW-G said:

Kermit power said:

AndrewW-G said:

Given the age of any eye witness, will anybody be able to recount a true statement of the events?

That's part of the controversy. There are no surviving witnesses.

Sorry assumed there would be as I just caught a bit on the TV this morning and they had a pic of a bod with a tattoo. No witness should mean no trial, unless there's film footage or some other firm evidence of the accused at the camp.

I think the mans actions are well documented. There may be no eye witnesses now but this case has been going on for at least 10 years if IRC. There certainly were a couple of women who identifies this guy as Ivan from the gas chambers. The question is really what purpose is served by the case being tried? It will do nothing for the Jewish cause as it appears vindictive. It does send out a message that humanity will not tollerate genocide. So far nothing has happened that has offended me so maybe they balance is right.

[MX7]

Kermit power said:

This guy has already been tried once by Israel, who found him guilty of murder, but then admitted that it wasn't him at all but someone completely different, and quashed the conviction.

Without wanting to sound pedantic, I don't think he was completely exonerated, just that there were some doubts about the case.


"We clear the defendant John Ivan Demjanjuk because of reasonable doubt," Chief Justice Shamgar told a crowded courtroom"



I'm in two minds about this, but at the core, it's up to Germany to do as they see fit.

Edited by MX7 on Tuesday 1st December 17:26

[AndrewW-G]

nonegreen said:

AndrewW-G said:

Kermit power said:

AndrewW-G said:

Given the age of any eye witness, will anybody be able to recount a true statement of the events?

That's part of the controversy. There are no surviving witnesses.

Sorry assumed there would be as I just caught a bit on the TV this morning and they had a pic of a bod with a tattoo. No witness should mean no trial, unless there's film footage or some other firm evidence of the accused at the camp.

I think the mans actions are well documented. There may be no eye witnesses now but this case has been going on for at least 10 years if IRC. There certainly were a couple of women who identifies this guy as Ivan from the gas chambers. The question is really what purpose is served by the case being tried? It will do nothing for the Jewish cause as it appears vindictive. It does send out a message that humanity will not tollerate genocide. So far nothing has happened that has offended me so maybe they balance is right.

But wouldnt his identification as "Ivan" make it difficult for him to also be the person this trial claims?

[FourWheelDrift]

AndrewW-G said:

Kermit power said:

AndrewW-G said:

Given the age of any eye witness, will anybody be able to recount a true statement of the events?

That's part of the controversy. There are no surviving witnesses.

Sorry assumed there would be as I just caught a bit on the TV this morning and they had a pic of a bod with a tattoo. No witness should mean no trial, unless there's film footage or some other firm evidence of the accused at the camp.

There is one survivor of the camp however he has now been suspected of assisting in the murdering of 434,000 people at Belzec concentration camp.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4845266,00.ht...

So Demjanjuk's trial won't be the last one.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

I find the whole concept of 'War Crimes' a little hard to grasp. Afterall, in a 'War' your's and your country's livelihood is at stake, you're going to do anything and everything to surivive. It's not a sport, so why are their 'rules'?

Also, if this guy is a soldier in this war, and he is following 'orders' given to him, then can he really be held accountable for his actions?


Don't get me wrong, What took place was horrendous and justice should be dealt to those that deserve it (if such people still remain alive), but as this guy was following orders, and faced possible death himself if he was to disobey these orders, then how can we honestly say he should be punished for his actions?


I do not know the specifics of this case or this man on trial, so if he was responsible for more than 'just following orders', then with no doubt he should be punished, but if; then I question the necessity & morality of this trial.

[Jasandjules]

Eric Mc said:

Does justice time expire?

No. IF he was a murderer and killed thousands, then he deserves his fate, regardless of how long ago those acts took place. IF it were your parents/grandparents who died in the camp, would you want to see him get away with it?

[tank slapper]

Jasandjules said:

Eric Mc said:

Does justice time expire?

No. IF he was a murderer and killed thousands, then he deserves his fate, regardless of how long ago those acts took place. IF it were your parents/grandparents who died in the camp, would you want to see him get away with it?

I would prefer to see him get away with it than be convicted on less than robust evidence. If the evidence is available then that is one thing, but it would be wholly wrong to convict on inadequate evidence just because there is political pressure to do so.

[elster]

What does it matter?

If he lives he will be living in a state funded hospice until he dies. That is if he is found guilty or not guilty.

[Ayahuasca]

Try him, lock him up and make him suffer.