Crying after spilled milk?

[FMBI]

Link

 

I've always found these cases frustrating. Yes, at the time these men committed some of the worst crimes in all of history, yes, they became accustomed to it, yes, they should have faced trial - but when you run into the ones that chose to live in Europe or the US for 60 years afterwards, and who have done nothing wrong, what is the point of "bringing them to justice"? It accomplishes nothing except reminding people of the tragedies that occurred - which might be an honorable goal, except that you are effectively sacrificing someone who has (in many cases) done nothing wrong since that time.

 

I personally hold no sympathy for the Nazis that fled to Argentina or Brazil, but if they decided to risk living in Western Europe or America, where they stood a good chance of being prosecuted, or Eastern Europe, where the intelligence networks were likely to find and "eliminate" them, then haven't they already stated that they're willing to play by society's rules? Getting caught for even the most minor offense could turn up the past, and thus they were almost unbeatably forced to make a clean break. It's not the same as never committing the crimes in the first place, but it would seem to conjure up images of redemption and leaving the past behind - two major features of Christianity. Isn't that enough these days?

[Bak]

i hope we're not letting religion run the state?

[Hoch]

I preface my comments with a brief story.

 

As a young law student, I did some volunteer work at an

ins!@#$%^&*ute that took the accounts of victims of the Darfur

genocide. The ins!@#$%^&*ute also had an investigative arm to

find those that perpetrated these callous and heinous acts.

 

Although the Darfur genocide is quite recent in comparison

to the Holocaust, the message is still the same: to bring to

justice those that committed unthinkable crimes. Arguably,

as is the case here, being a Nazi guard 60 years ago and

spending the last 50 years in another country without inci-

dent should not, perhaps, lead to expulsion. The argument

would seem to be that the events of 1940s are so old and

that so much time has elapsed since those events that little

would be gained by prosecuting this individual.

 

This argument falls foul of a flawed premise. The lapse of

time is inconsequential. Consider the following. This partic-

ular individual entered the United States under false pretences.

He hid his iden!@#$%^&*y, his knowledge of past events, everything

about his life up until that point of entry. From the beginning

he was, quite simply, a fraud.

 

But there is something far more fundamental than the lapse

of time: upholding the rule of law. It would be a grave injustice

not to prosecute a person that committed a crime, no matter

how long ago it was. Crimes against humanity, genocide and

general war crimes do not have time limits any more than a

crime of murder. Society and Parliament through them, or the

US Congress in the case, have made the decision that certain

crimes are so grievous that statutory time limits do not apply.

 

If the state cannot prosecute an individual for a serious crime

simply because it happened long ago, then statutory limits will

have to be made on murder and these crimes here. It would

therefore seem that justice is subjugated to time. In our demo-

cratic society nothing or no-one subjugates the rule of law.

 

-Hoch

[darkhosis]

israel foudn him innocent of being this "ivan the terrible" or whatever though. shrug. havent fully read up on it.

 

from what i understand, he was extradited to israel and faced trial there, and beat this trial, and got sent back to USA. now USA is deporting him to ukraine, he is trying to stay in USA based on "threat to his life" in ukraine.

[Aceflyer]

I have to agree with Hoch. Furthermore, if one let these people "off the hook" simply because their crimes were committed long ago, it would seem to send a message to prospective criminals that committing heinous crimes is fine as long as you can manage not to be found out for a few decades or so.

[FMBI]

I didn't say he was innocent of what he did, but you have to think about this for a second. The passing of time is not inconsequential, because after a certain point you are simply reminding people who suffered (such as children who lived through the holocaust, or someone who lost their family, etc) of things that happened a long time ago, without giving them the satisfaction of seeing a beneficial result.

 

Perhaps under the rule of law, you should have the option to prosecute people, no matter how long ago something like this happened, but from a common-sense standpoint, there is no reason to do something like deport them to a hostile country, execute them, or bring them to international trial. If you need the symbolism, place them under house arrest, they're old enough it won't matter anyway - but as far as actual punishment, what's the point? I don't see a need for anti-genocide precedent, because there will never be another major-power genocide (Hitler wouldn't have gotten as far against nukes), and it's almost impossible for anyone outside of an individual small nation to bring people to justice within a reasonable amount of time (look at the trouble Rwanda has had).

 

When you don't need a precedent, when they've completely changed their lives, and when bringing this up can bring bad memories to light for people involved, I really don't see how it can be considered a good thing.

 

I see your point, but I just don't think it applies anymore, unless the US is willing to stop stalling the UN, World Court, etc, so that we actually have a reason to do this (so that the international community has the ability to intervene in nations like Sudan, for example).

[Hoch]

The live issue here is entering the United States under

false pretences. If I gave the impression that it was for

war crimes, then my apologies. Nonetheless, the linkage

between Mr Demjanjuk's past and his present situation

are inextricably linked. Therefore on that basis, the p!@#$%^&*-

age of time is inconsequential because he falls foul of

immigration laws. His past !@#$%^&*ociation would have barred

him from legally entering the United States. Axiomatically

his discovery activates the immigration laws. It follows,

that to ignore those laws, based solely on the passage of

time, is to ignore the rule of law.

 

You have my support that if a person being considered

for deportation faces torture in his home country, then he

should not be sent back. But to my knowledge, and in the

view of the US Supreme Court, no threat of torture exists.

 

More generally, after the Second World War nations came

together and decided to create a new class offences, albeit

retrospectively. To ignore the call of the international com-

munity simply because of the passage of time is to place

them above the law. This cannot be right.

 

Perhaps if you ignore the rule of law, which is one of the

pillars holding up democratic society, and instead focused

on the past would it be wrong to remind people?

 

The Holocaust was not the first instance in history of m!@#$%^&*

genocide and crimes against humanity. Yet, it galvanised

the world because of the extent of the Nazi's acts and their

meticulous way of perpetrating their crimes. In a historical

context, so many lives had been lost during the two world

wars that, quite simply, enough was enough. A line was

drawn in the sand. The resultant laws continue to shape

society today.

 

But for all these efforts heinous acts continued. Bosnia,

Rwanda, Darfur, are but just a few examples. Should we

ignore the perpetrators of crimes committed in these

nations simply because they are old? The answer is no.

If any symbolism exists it is not in exacting a punishment

but bringing them to justice because the rule of law de-

mands it.

 

Aceflyer makes a valid point, what message would we

be sending out if we ignored this? I daresay not a very

good one.

 

-Hoch

[Aileron]

The reason for the lack of statute of limitations for this crime is for the sake of justice.

 

Finland, not to be rude, but your logic clearly confuses the concept of justice with that of either closure or revenge. Justice is justice no matter what the victim's feelings on the matter are. True, the victims have probably put it behind them, so closure has been obtained. However, justice has not.