07-16-12, 08:34 PM #21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomon_Morel this is probably one of the worst.
and the response to exatradition one of the most interesting in being told that the statute of limitation on war crimes ran out
most of these are hard to find out about do to them being from or committing there crimes for soviet republics. most lived an allied states
07-16-12, 09:19 PM #22
07-16-12, 10:11 PM #23
He helped kill over 15,500 people.
He is being shown more kindness by being tried than he showed his victims when he murdered them. It isn't about victory. It is about justice for the victims of one of the worst crimes in human history.
07-16-12, 10:23 PM #24
There is no statute of limitations on murder. And if only the lawyers profit then at least half of them work at the Simon Wiesenthal Centre. So what's the prob, Bob?
07-17-12, 12:49 AM #25
Basically he was punished for his refusal to join the SS. I can imagine anyone who was "offered" the position was given certain "incentives". They had very good reason to believe their own lives and the lives of their family were at risk if they failed to comply. I tend to think anyone that has survived in hiding this long still fears for their life now as they probably did then. I can't imagine that a lifetime on the run, in hiding, denying who you really are, living with the shame and guild over acts left unchecked, can be a sweet ride by any means.
Still I find it difficult to feel for this guy. I have never been in his shoes so should not judge, but I think I would be more merciful if he had turned himself in decades ago and devoted his life to educating people about what happened and promoting charities to improve the lives of the ww2 victims. Maybe I ask too much. Maybe that would have put him at risk of murder by the hands of other outstanding criminals. I don't know. I don't really feel like I have any right to judge even though it is a task I find easy to do.
Definitely makes me question myself.
07-17-12, 12:15 PM #26
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if you're offered a choice between being killed yourself, or murdering a 5-digit number of innocent people, you're ethically obligated to choose your own death.
07-17-12, 12:45 PM #27
07-17-12, 06:59 PM #28
I've posted this in another discussion and some of you may have read it, but it's quite relevant here. When I was in Yugoslavia in 1973 (some of you kids probably never heard of Yugoslavia) my friend took me downtown to the main park in Ni, one of the largest cities in Serbia. There were three monuments in the shape of weeping humans. He explained that the large one represented the Jews, who suffered most under the Nazis. The second one was for the Serbs, because it's their country after all and they suffered too. The small one was for the Gypsies. I thought I misunderstood his word in Esperanto. "Gypsies? You guys hate Gypsies. Why did you build a monument to them?"
He said, "Because even the Gypsies didn't deserve that. Nobody did."
We have a Holocaust Museum here in Washington. (I haven't been there, places like that make me cry so badly that I can't see anything.) They have one exhibit that is just a pile of luggage that people brought with them to the camps. They carefully wrote their names and addresses on the various cases. They assumed that when the war was over, they'd be going home. And don't get me started on the baby shoes. Honestly, I don't know half of the exhibits they have because just reading about that stuff makes me cry.
Some neo-Nazi scumbag walked in the door one day with a shotgun hidden under his raincoat, and killed one of the guards. An Afro-American guard! That was just too poignant.
For one thing, antisemitism was one of the defining motifs of European Christendom for more than a millennium. Many people raised their children to believe that the Jews were determined to destroy their way of life and make them all their slaves--or at least their clerks. Even people who weren't raised that way lived among people who were. They were excoriated for being wealthy, even though that wealth was due to a Christian misinterpretation of a line in the Bible, assuming that any lending of money for interest was equivalent to usury and therefore a sin. Since it was only a sin to lend but not to borrow, they were happy to borrow from the Jews, who naturally became bankers. Duh?
Anyway, once you've murdered dozens or hundreds or thousands of innocent people, you absolutely have to spend the rest of your life believing that you were right. Who could live with that memory if they realized they were wrong?I don't really feel like I have any right to judge even though it is a task I find easy to do.
Civilization has a legal system that appoints people to do the judging properly: accumulating all the evidence, weighing it, arguing it, listening to all the witnesses, consulting with experts in the law, and finally making a dispassionate ruling on behalf of all of us. You and I are not supposed to judge others, unless we're called upon to be jurors and do it right.Definitely makes me question myself.I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if you're offered a choice between being killed yourself, or murdering a 5-digit number of innocent people, you're ethically obligated to choose your own death.
It's an instinct in our species. We're pack-social, which means that we watch each other's kids. But more than that, our children have the longest maturation of any mammal. (Elephants grow up in five years, whales in two.) That means that we have to be on our toes and keep an eye on everybody's kids for a decade and a half, because their parents have a lot of other important things they have to do in addition to being parents.
I mean geeze, that is one of the defining characteristics of human beings: to be kind to children.
It is not even a slight exaggeration to say that anyone who can kill children casually is not human.
07-18-12, 07:42 PM #29
Now instead of crying about the age, I think senility is more important. If the guy is full senile, he is not going to get the punishment, so that would be a valid reason not to prosecute him....
Just let's not change his diapers...
07-18-12, 09:03 PM #30
As any crime goes, it requires proof and substantial proof for such claims. And an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence...what sounds of children of survivors from the concentration camp will come forward to talk about his crimes? obviously no. If he is to be tried and live to face any sort of reprimands for his past actions, than the accusation must be less severe to reflect only evidence that will put him behind bars as fast as possible. So as much as everyone "loves" the guy and wants him to be the right shoulder of Hitler, if you want him to face punishment, follow up only on evidence that can get him jailed or handed swift justice...rather than making him into a scapegoat of all war crimes of that time.
07-18-12, 09:14 PM #31
Only one thing (and this is specifically aimed at bells but everyone as well) how do you know he's guilty? The person they allege him to be was tried sure but if he hasn't been tried how do you know it's him? Also the idea of absentia trials leaves my blood cold, it's too easy for them to be a complete frame up
07-18-12, 09:31 PM #32
07-18-12, 09:41 PM #33
07-19-12, 08:48 AM #34
07-19-12, 08:50 AM #35
07-19-12, 09:38 AM #36
Unfortunately, running away does make a lot of people assume one is guilty. Yet our newspapers are bursting with accounts of people who were wrongly accused, and even more sadly, people who were wrongly convicted and were only exonerated (usually by DNA analysis but there are many other reasons) after 20 years in prison, and sometimes only posthumously.
Running away from the police, on the other hand, is generally regarded with great suspicion. We are all legally required to submit to questioning and to arrest. We're supposed to trust our own attorneys and the legal system itself to sort the guilty from the innocent. (See above for my opinion on that trust.) So leaving town, or emigrating, when you know the authorities are looking for you, is legal. But running away when they've found you, and a police officer tells you to stop, is not. In fact that, in itself, is a crime that can be prosecuted.
07-19-12, 09:58 AM #37
07-19-12, 09:59 AM #38
The way I see it, they know it's him...Hell, they've had decades to track him.
Once guilty, always guilty. His age means nothing. I would offer him no quarter. You reap what you sow. Fuck him.
07-19-12, 03:20 PM #39
A Fair Trial Should Suffice
While I certainly have no problem arguing mercy for elderly pot smokers, and such, I just don't see the rationale for a statute of limitations on crimes against humanity.
To the other, I also support Truth and Reconciliation Commissions insofar as I will accept that lower-level participants in atrocities did so for perception of having no choice, and it is more important to get the truth from them than take vengeance.
It's too late for a Holocaust TRC. If they have the right guy, then he should be brought to trial.
A fair trial.
Though I think executing him, if found guilty, would be a bit extraneous.
If he survives the pressures of so heavy a trial, why not let him live out his final days or years in shame, knowing that he failed hide long enough?
07-19-12, 08:35 PM #40
Tiassa The stress of a trial is the only issue with his age, I mean lets say he's innocent and has to face a trial at 94 it would probably kill him and when he's dead hes just going to be labeled as guilty even though he hasnt been convicted.
If he is guilty I dont paticually care but I worry that he could be someone with a similar name or looks like him or was in the same area or whatnot that 70 years latter is getting the blame for what someone else did.
On a side issue though, I seem to remember someone charged over the Bosnian massacre not being tried due to I'll health though I could be wrong about that