#1 Posted by thegerg (14826 posts) -

Story here

This is kind of an interesting situation, and I can see both sides of it. What say you, OT?

#2 Edited by Treflis (11466 posts) -

While I'm all for war criminals being brought to light there was a comment in the article that made me ponder.

"While justice may be delayed, perpetrators of the Holocaust will be pursued to the end, no matter how long it takes"

Can't be that much longer since most of them are either dead or probably got 4-5 years left tops.

#3 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

Oh, look, @vfibsux finally made the news.

#4 Edited by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

Always supportive of arresting and prosecuting war criminals, no matter how old they are.

#5 Posted by indzman (17189 posts) -

Always supportive of arresting and prosecuting war criminals, no matter how old they are.

#6 Posted by Open-Casket (72 posts) -

Tubular? Honestly don't know what to think.

#7 Posted by lamprey263 (23088 posts) -

It'd be interesting to go back to some of the first cases for war crimes trials for the Nazis, mainly the Nuremberg trials. The prosecutors in those cases very calculatedly did not want to treat it as a court of victor's justice. Instead, the atrocities and those that committed them were treated as a conspiracy by the Nazis to violate the constitutional government of Germany prior to the rise of the Nazi dictatorship and to wage war of aggression, and everyone who played a part was a conspirator. This approach limited the defendants abilities to claim they were simply following orders, or they were ignorant, or their part in the Nazi party didn't involve some of the most horrendous atrocities... I might remember that wrong, I watched a documentary weeks back but the prosecution was very calculated about how they wanted to handle the trial and the implications that such a trial would have.

Another thing worth bringing up, and I've seen a great older documentary about this, it was German but I can't recall the name, it was an older VHS documentary I saw on Netflix a long while back but don't remember the name, maybe 80s or 90s... anyhow, there was a persevering narrative among Germans that if their parents and/or grandparents served in the German military during WW2 that they weren't part of the main atrocities committed, that they were simply soldiers in conventional warfare, and that the most heinous acts were instead perpetrated by only by party members and members of the SS. Well, a German museum was opened to counter this claim, as many people in the country had this claim that their military family memebers didn't partake in anything awful to spare themselves the same. Well, the museum collected diaries, photographs, testimony, and found that quite the opposite was true. The SS wasn't able to do all the atrocities by themselves, and would have needed a considerable amount of cooperation from normal German soldiers, and the diaries and photographs and testimonies backed up that they were in large part very complicit in the heinous atrocities. It was a very contentious exhibit that caused a huge uproar from Germans with parents and grandparents that served in the German army during WW2. But it was an enlightening project as well.

I wish I could remember the name of that documentary, if anybody saw that same one and can remember the name please respond.

Also, it means a lot that this legal action is coming from German, not the Americans or Israelis. They aren't trying to white wash their past and sweep it under the rug, to this day they're very conscious of their country's past and mean to make right.

#8 Edited by roulettethedog (10947 posts) -

Couldn't you make the case that anyone who was in the German army between 1938-1945 was a war criminal?

#9 Posted by thegerg (14826 posts) -

Couldn't you make the case that anyone who was in the German army between 1938-1945 was a war criminal?

You could, but you'd have a hard time supporting that claim.

#10 Posted by foxhound_fox (87620 posts) -

Couldn't you make the case that anyone who was in the German army between 1938-1945 was a war criminal?

Not every German agreed with Hitler's position on the Jews. Most were just regular people fighting for their country.

Just because they killed allied soldiers in war doesn't make them war criminals.

My lord, the ignorance.

#11 Posted by wis3boi (31102 posts) -

@roulettethedog said:

Couldn't you make the case that anyone who was in the German army between 1938-1945 was a war criminal?

Not every German agreed with Hitler's position on the Jews. Most were just regular people fighting for their country.

Just because they killed allied soldiers in war doesn't make them war criminals.

My lord, the ignorance.

Mhm. And just going off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure Rommel for example wanted to end Hitler's control and actions, but maybe I'm wrong

#12 Posted by Master_Live (14162 posts) -

Sure, go for it.

#13 Posted by GeekInkINC (194 posts) -

Good

#14 Posted by plageus900 (993 posts) -

@wis3boi said:

@foxhound_fox said:
@roulettethedog said:

Couldn't you make the case that anyone who was in the German army between 1938-1945 was a war criminal?

Not every German agreed with Hitler's position on the Jews. Most were just regular people fighting for their country.

Just because they killed allied soldiers in war doesn't make them war criminals.

My lord, the ignorance.

Mhm. And just going off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure Rommel for example wanted to end Hitler's control and actions, but maybe I'm wrong

I've heard the same.

#15 Posted by vl4d_l3nin (849 posts) -

@roulettethedog: The Nazis were voted in by a desperate population. You can't blame them for making a desperate decision. Besides, being voted in was one of the only democratic things about the Nazi regime.

#16 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (15909 posts) -

@roulettethedog said:

Couldn't you make the case that anyone who was in the German army between 1938-1945 was a war criminal?

Nope. I tend to separate Germans from the hardcore Nazis. The latter are scum.

Heck, a lot of German Luftwaffe fighter aces are highly regarded and respected by their Allied counterparts. German generals such as Rommel have their admirers on the Allied side.

#17 Posted by MrGeezer (56095 posts) -

So, like, I'm a little bit confused. What did this guy do?

#18 Posted by THE_DRUGGIE (24961 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

So, like, I'm a little bit confused. What did this guy do?

Nazi stuff.

#19 Posted by playmynutz (5981 posts) -

@open-casket: tubular is exactly!

No nazi zombies next call of duty I hate nazi now

Arrest them war criminals

#20 Posted by roulettethedog (10947 posts) -

@roulettethedog said:

Couldn't you make the case that anyone who was in the German army between 1938-1945 was a war criminal?

Not every German agreed with Hitler's position on the Jews. Most were just regular people fighting for their country.

Just because they killed allied soldiers in war doesn't make them war criminals.

My lord, the ignorance.

By prolonging the war, any German fighting indirectly helped slaughter the Jews. To say most didn't agree with Hitler's Jewish position or didn't know about it is idiotic. Forcing Jews into the ghetto's, forcing Jews to wear a star,attacking/burning synagogues, and attacking/destroying Jewish business all started before WW2. PLEASE some Jewish people hide their religion and joined the German army. No I am not saying that all of the German army were war criminals and should be jailed or executed, but they did indirectly help to kill 6 million people because of their religion. AND if you can't see this then you are ignorant.

#21 Posted by foxhound_fox (87620 posts) -

@roulettethedog: Reaching much? Are all US troops at fault for the use of white phosphorus during the Gulf War? Napalm and Agent Orange during the Vietnam War?

Most Germans were CONSCRIPTED to fight. They had no idea what the fuck was going on besides Hitler telling them to fight the enemy. Are you historically inept? Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's problems. You really think if the general public had any idea he was planning mass genocide , they would have put up with it?

Adolf Hitler was a war criminal. All major SS and SA officers were war criminals. Adolf Eichmann was a war criminal. Farmer Jürgen from rural Bavaria was not. Stop being stupid.

#22 Posted by chaplainDMK (6712 posts) -

@roulettethedog: The Nazis were voted in by a desperate population. You can't blame them for making a desperate decision. Besides, being voted in was one of the only democratic things about the Nazi regime.

The way they were "voted in" wasn't very democratic either.

But yeah, chase down the scum, if he get's prosecuted on his death bed it doesn't matter.

#23 Posted by airshocker (28980 posts) -

I have a very hard time sympathizing with someone who was complicit in the murder of a couple of hundred thousand people.

#24 Edited by Celldrax (14562 posts) -

In all honesty, I just don't see the point.

There would be very few (if any) people alive with any worthwhile fucks to give.

#25 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (15909 posts) -

@roulettethedog said:

By prolonging the war, any German fighting indirectly helped slaughter the Jews. To say most didn't agree with Hitler's Jewish position or didn't know about it is idiotic. Forcing Jews into the ghetto's, forcing Jews to wear a star,attacking/burning synagogues, and attacking/destroying Jewish business all started before WW2. PLEASE some Jewish people hide their religion and joined the German army. No I am not saying that all of the German army were war criminals and should be jailed or executed, but they did indirectly help to kill 6 million people because of their religion. AND if you can't see this then you are ignorant.

The Nazis had spies in every part of German society, including the armed forces. Even when it was plain Germany had lost the war, the Nazis killed anyone who showed signs of weakness before the enemy, including German civilians who thought of surrendering at towns near the Allied advance. But, once it was clear Germans could surrender without reprisals from the Nazis in Berlin, they surrendered in droves like what happened after the Ruhr was surrounded.

#26 Posted by hippiesanta (9793 posts) -

He's only a small fry .... why bother ...... people need to get over with it.....he's old... and not dangerous ..... think of his family ...

#27 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (15909 posts) -

He's only a small fry .... why bother ...... people need to get over with it.....he's old... and not dangerous ..... think of his family ...

Not really. He was a member of the Death's Head unit which was the fanatical among the fanatical (Waffen-SS).

#28 Edited by hippiesanta (9793 posts) -

@hippiesanta said:

He's only a small fry .... why bother ...... people need to get over with it.....he's old... and not dangerous ..... think of his family ...

Not really. He was a member of the Death's Head unit which was the fanatical among the fanatical (Waffen-SS).

He may be force into the unit because everybody is afraid with Hitler at that time..... nobody dares to disobey or else feed to the dogs ... just like everyone in North Korea are in the STATE OF MIND or else wont survive under eric cartman .........

maybe he come to america to have a better life ..... and he deserve that chance

#29 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (15909 posts) -

@hippiesanta said:

@jun_aka_pekto said:
@hippiesanta said:

He's only a small fry .... why bother ...... people need to get over with it.....he's old... and not dangerous ..... think of his family ...

Not really. He was a member of the Death's Head unit which was the fanatical among the fanatical (Waffen-SS).

He may be force into the unit because everybody is afraid with Hitler at that time..... nobody dares to disobey or else feed to the dogs ... just like everyone in North Korea are in the STATE OF MIND or else wont survive under eric cartman .........

maybe he come to america to have a better life ..... and he deserve that chance

C'mon now. Nobody is forced to join the SS. You have to prove you're the purest of blood and the finest specimen of "Aryan superiority" just to be considered for the SS. The Death's Head members are the cream of the crop among them.

Being in a death camp is like a choice assignment for them (cozy living, no fighting or getting dirty). If they somehow disapproved of what's going on, they got sent to fight in the front lines.

#30 Posted by thegerg (14826 posts) -

@jun_aka_pekto said:
@hippiesanta said:

He's only a small fry .... why bother ...... people need to get over with it.....he's old... and not dangerous ..... think of his family ...

Not really. He was a member of the Death's Head unit which was the fanatical among the fanatical (Waffen-SS).

He may be force into the unit because everybody is afraid with Hitler at that time..... nobody dares to disobey or else feed to the dogs ... just like everyone in North Korea are in the STATE OF MIND or else wont survive under eric cartman .........

maybe he come to america to have a better life ..... and he deserve that chance

He had the chance for a good life, but then he joined the SS and took part in genocide.

#31 Posted by thegerg (14826 posts) -

@Celldrax said:

In all honesty, I just don't see the point.

There would be very few (if any) people alive with any worthwhile fucks to give.

The point is that he took part in genocide, and we in the civilized world tend to look down on such actions.

#32 Posted by GazaAli (22494 posts) -

I think persecuting a 89 years old for something he may have done some 65 years ago is too vindictive, specially when the world is full of unpunished sociopathic individuals who, much more recently, committed or remain persistent in committing atrocities rather openly I might say, considering how everyone has access to everything nowadays, unlike back then around the time of WWII. I mean in terms of prioritizing that's kind of strange.

But hey, that's just me.

#33 Edited by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

I think persecuting a 89 years old for something he may have done some 65 years ago is too vindictive, specially when the world is full of unpunished sociopathic individuals who, much more recently, committed or remain persistent in committing atrocities rather openly I might say, considering how everyone has access to everything nowadays, unlike back then around the time of WWII. I mean in terms of prioritizing that's kind of strange.

But hey, that's just me.

There's no statute of limitations on mass murder. The fact that there exists free people guilty of more recent crimes isn't an excuse to not prosecute this invididual.

#34 Edited by GazaAli (22494 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@GazaAli said:

I think persecuting a 89 years old for something he may have done some 65 years ago is too vindictive, specially when the world is full of unpunished sociopathic individuals who, much more recently, committed or remain persistent in committing atrocities rather openly I might say, considering how everyone has access to everything nowadays, unlike back then around the time of WWII. I mean in terms of prioritizing that's kind of strange.

But hey, that's just me.

There's no statute of limitations on mass murder. The fact that there exists free people guilty of more recent crimes isn't an excuse to not prosecute this invididual.

It is not an excuse per say, but which of the two do you think has priority of persecution and legal pursuit over the other? An old man on the verge of death who is not capable of committing any more atrocities and whose victims are virtually nonexistent anymore or a man whose victims are numerous and still suffer from his crimes, not to mention his very real ability to commit further crimes against humanity at any point in the future?

I think partial justice is in itself tantamount to more injustice. It is inimical to the concept of justice since justice is not supposed to discriminate or be subject to partialness. The moment justice discriminates it ceases to be justice and it becomes further injustice instead masquerades as justice.

#35 Posted by GazaAli (22494 posts) -

@thegerg said:

Story here

This is kind of an interesting situation, and I can see both sides of it. What say you, OT?

There is nothing all that interesting regarding the situation. The man is a powerless senile geezer who allegedly committed crimes against humanity some 65 years ago under a regime that both no longer exists and is completely irrelevant in today's world. In short he's such a convenient target for the rule of law and human rights to flex their muscles on.

#36 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@GazaAli said:

I think persecuting a 89 years old for something he may have done some 65 years ago is too vindictive, specially when the world is full of unpunished sociopathic individuals who, much more recently, committed or remain persistent in committing atrocities rather openly I might say, considering how everyone has access to everything nowadays, unlike back then around the time of WWII. I mean in terms of prioritizing that's kind of strange.

But hey, that's just me.

There's no statute of limitations on mass murder. The fact that there exists free people guilty of more recent crimes isn't an excuse to not prosecute this invididual.

It is not an excuse per say, but which of the two do you think has priority of persecution and legal pursuit over the other? An old man on the verge of death who is not capable of committing any more atrocities and whose victims are virtually nonexistent anymore or a man whose victims are numerous and still suffer from his crimes, not to mention his very real ability to commit further crimes against humanity at any point in the future?

I think partial justice is in itself tantamount to more injustice. It is inimical to the concept of justice since justice is not supposed to discriminate or be subject to partialness. The moment justice discriminates it ceases to be justice and it becomes further injustice instead masquerades as justice.

If the prosecution of this person impeded the prosecution of more recent crimes you might have a point, but it doesn't. There's no relation between the two - people aren't getting away with crime because this guy is getting his day in court.

#37 Edited by GazaAli (22494 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@GazaAli said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@GazaAli said:

I think persecuting a 89 years old for something he may have done some 65 years ago is too vindictive, specially when the world is full of unpunished sociopathic individuals who, much more recently, committed or remain persistent in committing atrocities rather openly I might say, considering how everyone has access to everything nowadays, unlike back then around the time of WWII. I mean in terms of prioritizing that's kind of strange.

But hey, that's just me.

There's no statute of limitations on mass murder. The fact that there exists free people guilty of more recent crimes isn't an excuse to not prosecute this invididual.

It is not an excuse per say, but which of the two do you think has priority of persecution and legal pursuit over the other? An old man on the verge of death who is not capable of committing any more atrocities and whose victims are virtually nonexistent anymore or a man whose victims are numerous and still suffer from his crimes, not to mention his very real ability to commit further crimes against humanity at any point in the future?

I think partial justice is in itself tantamount to more injustice. It is inimical to the concept of justice since justice is not supposed to discriminate or be subject to partialness. The moment justice discriminates it ceases to be justice and it becomes further injustice instead masquerades as justice.

If the prosecution of this person impeded the prosecution of more recent crimes you might have a point, but it doesn't. There's no relation between the two - people aren't getting away with crime because this guy is getting his day in court.

The point I was getting at is not the claim that justice is being impeded by the act of persecuting this man itself. What I was getting at instead is why this man and why not others? given the reality that there might be more pressing incentives for their persecution. Why are there people who are getting away while this man is not allowed to do so? I know I may be sounding insane, but justice cannot really exist without impartiality. A partial justice is self-defeating and I may go as far as saying that it does not qualify as justice, quite the opposite in fact. If the basis of persecuting this man right now is justice then it is a faulty basis. You either punish all perpetrators of a crime or you let them all go. Of course I do not favor the latter so in essence I'm calling for the former.

Let me be frank here, the fact that this legal issue pertains to the Holocaust and Jews has an influence on my judgement. After the end of WWII, the vast majority of developed nations and world's powers sought to end discrimination against Jews and atone for their perceived culpability in what Jews had to go through at some point in recent history, with the Holocaust being the culmination or an expression par excellence of their suffering and injustice. It eventually turned out to be at the expense of some other people. They enacted strict laws regarding antisemitism and they legally pursued Nazis who subjected Jews to genocide. The table has turned in much recent history and the Jewish people of Israel have become the perpetrators of travesties and atrocities. Strangely enough, not a single Israeli politician, IDF official or settler/Jewish militant has been made to answer for their actions. With that said, you may be able to understand how absurd claims of justice and human values may sound to me. I find it bewildering that a 89 years old man is being made to answer for what he did decades ago to some people who no longer exist and whose posterity probably no longer exists either while at the same time others who inflicted and continue to inflict great injustice and suffering on an entire people that persist to this day are allowed to roam the world free and celebrated. I find it hard to buy into justice and human rights considering that full picture. Consequently, you are, as a nation and as a political regime, free to do whatever you want and to choose who to legally pursue and who not to persecute, but let's not make wild claims of justice and noble and honorable human values as it's just unauthentic and quite stale and mundane.

#38 Posted by BranKetra (48104 posts) -

Good.

#39 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@GazaAli said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@GazaAli said:

I think persecuting a 89 years old for something he may have done some 65 years ago is too vindictive, specially when the world is full of unpunished sociopathic individuals who, much more recently, committed or remain persistent in committing atrocities rather openly I might say, considering how everyone has access to everything nowadays, unlike back then around the time of WWII. I mean in terms of prioritizing that's kind of strange.

But hey, that's just me.

There's no statute of limitations on mass murder. The fact that there exists free people guilty of more recent crimes isn't an excuse to not prosecute this invididual.

It is not an excuse per say, but which of the two do you think has priority of persecution and legal pursuit over the other? An old man on the verge of death who is not capable of committing any more atrocities and whose victims are virtually nonexistent anymore or a man whose victims are numerous and still suffer from his crimes, not to mention his very real ability to commit further crimes against humanity at any point in the future?

I think partial justice is in itself tantamount to more injustice. It is inimical to the concept of justice since justice is not supposed to discriminate or be subject to partialness. The moment justice discriminates it ceases to be justice and it becomes further injustice instead masquerades as justice.

If the prosecution of this person impeded the prosecution of more recent crimes you might have a point, but it doesn't. There's no relation between the two - people aren't getting away with crime because this guy is getting his day in court.

The point I was getting at is not the claim that justice is being impeded by the act of persecuting this man itself. What I was getting at instead is why this man and why not others? given the reality that there might be more pressing incentives for their persecution. Why are there people who are getting away while this man is not allowed to do so? I know I may be sounding insane, but justice cannot really exist without impartiality. A partial justice is self-defeating and I may go as far as saying that it does not qualify as justice, quite the opposite in fact. If the basis of persecuting this man right now is justice then it is a faulty basis. You either punish all perpetrators of a crime or you let them all go. Of course I do not favor the latter so in essence I'm calling for the former.

Let me be frank here, the fact that this legal issue pertains to the Holocaust and Jews has an influence on my judgement. After the end of WWII, the vast majority of developed nations and world's powers sought to end discrimination against Jews and atone for their perceived culpability in what Jews had to go through at some point in recent history, with the Holocaust being the culmination or an expression par excellence of their suffering and injustice. It eventually turned out to be at the expense of some other people. They enacted strict laws regarding antisemitism and they legally pursued Nazis who subjected Jews to genocide. The table has turned in much recent history and the Jewish people of Israel have become the perpetrators of travesties and atrocities. Strangely enough, not a single Israeli politician, IDF official or settler/Jewish militant has been made to answer for their actions. With that said, you may be able to understand how absurd claims of justice and human values may sound to me. I find it bewildering that a 89 years old man is being made to answer for what he did decades ago to some people who no longer exist and whose posterity probably no longer exists either while at the same time others who inflicted and continue to inflict great injustice and suffering on an entire people that persist to this day are allowed to roam the world free and celebrated. I find it hard to buy into justice and human rights considering that full picture. Consequently, you are, as a nation and as a political regime, free to do whatever you want and to choose who to legally pursue and who not to persecute, but let's not make wild claims of justice and noble and honorable human values as it's just unauthentic and quite stale and mundane.

You would've saved yourself quite a bit of time if you just said that you have a problem with because you have a negative opinion of Jews.

And it's just simply untrue to say that not a single Israeli has been made to answer for their actions. There are countless number of Israeli's who have been convicted in both military and civilian court for crimes towards Palestinians. There are legal difficulties involved with prosecuting government officials especially when they are still in power but that doesn't mean they won't be convicted in the future. In an alternate universe would you be opposed to a 95 year old Ariel Sharon getting arrested for war crimes?

#40 Posted by JohnF111 (14050 posts) -

Punishment is always worse if you think you got away with it for a long time.

#41 Posted by hippiesanta (9793 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@hippiesanta said:

@jun_aka_pekto said:
@hippiesanta said:

He's only a small fry .... why bother ...... people need to get over with it.....he's old... and not dangerous ..... think of his family ...

Not really. He was a member of the Death's Head unit which was the fanatical among the fanatical (Waffen-SS).

He may be force into the unit because everybody is afraid with Hitler at that time..... nobody dares to disobey or else feed to the dogs ... just like everyone in North Korea are in the STATE OF MIND or else wont survive under eric cartman .........

maybe he come to america to have a better life ..... and he deserve that chance

He had the chance for a good life, but then he joined the SS and took part in genocide.

But he got the chance to redeem himself far away from his nazi life ..... and it was taken away by people who is hiding behind democrasy.....

#42 Posted by thegerg (14826 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@hippiesanta said:

@jun_aka_pekto said:
@hippiesanta said:

He's only a small fry .... why bother ...... people need to get over with it.....he's old... and not dangerous ..... think of his family ...

Not really. He was a member of the Death's Head unit which was the fanatical among the fanatical (Waffen-SS).

He may be force into the unit because everybody is afraid with Hitler at that time..... nobody dares to disobey or else feed to the dogs ... just like everyone in North Korea are in the STATE OF MIND or else wont survive under eric cartman .........

maybe he come to america to have a better life ..... and he deserve that chance

He had the chance for a good life, but then he joined the SS and took part in genocide.

But he got the chance to redeem himself far away from his nazi life ..... and it was taken away by people who is hiding behind democrasy.....

Well, he clearly DIDN'T redeem himself, huh?

#43 Posted by junglist101 (5457 posts) -

I guess he should pay if he deserves it but I find it hard to believe that one could truly have a fair trial given the war was nearly 70 years ago.

I feel weird about a US citizen being extradited though...

#44 Posted by thegerg (14826 posts) -

I guess he should pay if he deserves it but I find it hard to believe that one could truly have a fair trial given the war was nearly 70 years ago.

I feel weird about a US citizen being extradited though...

"I find it hard to believe that one could truly have a fair trial given the war was nearly 70 years ago."

Why is that?

#45 Edited by Riverwolf007 (23499 posts) -

this guy was a nazi at a death camp and the last thing we (or germany) does for him is take care of him and give him all the assistance he needs and free food, board and healthcare.

i was not a nazi that tossed people into ovens and i won't get any of that.

this dudes picture needs to be in the dictionary under "beating the system".

#46 Posted by JangoWuzHere (16081 posts) -

I guess he should pay if he deserves it but I find it hard to believe that one could truly have a fair trial given the war was nearly 70 years ago.

I feel weird about a US citizen being extradited though...

Seems like it would be more fair now then 70 years ago. The trial would be one short emotional knee jerk reaction in the past. I don't think the judges and jury have the same attachment today.

#47 Posted by Sword-Demon (6960 posts) -

Any reason why they waited 70 years?

At this point, there's really no good reason to arrest him. The guy is 90 years old; He's already lived out his entire life.

If they had brought it up 50 years ago, sure, take him; but now? What's the point?

@junglist101 said:

I guess he should pay if he deserves it but I find it hard to believe that one could truly have a fair trial given the war was nearly 70 years ago.

I feel weird about a US citizen being extradited though...

Seems like it would be more fair now then 70 years ago. The trial would be one short emotional knee jerk reaction in the past. I don't think the judges and jury have the same attachment today.

On the other hand, They can't possibly have any convincing evidence against him. They know he worked at a concentration camp; beyond that, they really can't prove that he took part in any war crimes.

#48 Edited by Xeno_ghost (668 posts) -

@GazaAli: "The point I was getting at is not the claim that justice is being impeded by the act of persecuting this man itself. What I was getting at instead is why this man and why not others? given the reality that there might be more pressing incentives for their persecution. Why are there people who are getting away while this man is not allowed to do so"

That makes no sense what so ever, I'm sure those who are deserving of facing justice will do so eventually just like this guy is. And I'm sure if it was at all possible to round up everyone who was deserving of facing justice all at one time then that would happen, but as that is so far out of the realm of realism I guess we'll have to get them as and when we can.

#49 Edited by MrGeezer (56095 posts) -

So, like, can anyone tell me what this guy actually did? Or is it a case of, "he was a member of this group, so he MUST have done SOMETHING really bad"? Can anyone tie this dude to specific actions, like murdering specific people, that kind of thing?

I'm just saying...I hear it being said that he must have been guilty of war crimes, but I haven't seen any mention of him being directly tied to any SPECIFIC war crimes. So...what exactly did this guy do?

Also, that's not to say that he HASN'T been tied to any specific crime. I'm just saying that the linked article made no mention of such, and no one here has posted any such information either. If this guy is gonna be convicted of war crimes, then what were those crimes specifically? Who did he murder or torture? Can he be directly tied to any specific incident of murder or torture?