John Demjanjuk

[canveyshrimper]

89 year old John Demjanjuk has gone on trial accused of helping to murder nearly 28,000 Jews at Nazi concentration camp Sobibor, Poland during WWII. This trial is expected to be the last from WWII, however is it right to put on trial a sick 89 year old, and secondly if other alleged Nazi war criminals are found should they go on trial for their crimes?

 

[shrimpfan]

89 year old John Demjanjuk has gone on trial accused of helping to murder nearly 28,000 Jews at Nazi concentration camp Sobibor, Poland during WWII. This trial is expected to be the last from WWII, however is it right to put on trial a sick 89 year old, and secondly if other alleged Nazi war criminals are found should they go on trial for their crimes?

I think rusty is the best one to answer this.....

 

[MK Shrimper]

89 year old John Demjanjuk has gone on trial accused of helping to murder nearly 28,000 Jews at Nazi concentration camp Sobibor, Poland during WWII. This trial is expected to be the last from WWII, however is it right to put on trial a sick 89 year old, and secondly if other alleged Nazi war criminals are found should they go on trial for their crimes?

Without a shadow of a doubt.

IF he is guilty, the only tragedy is that he's lived 54+ years as a free man.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Without a shadow of a doubt.

IF he is guilty, the only tragedy is that he's lived 54+ years as a free man.

Would you have argued with Hitler? He has probably tortured himself mentally for the crimes he committed. That said, he still deserves to be tried for his crimes.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

89 year old John Demjanjuk has gone on trial accused of helping to murder nearly 28,000 Jews at Nazi concentration camp Sobibor, Poland during WWII. This trial is expected to be the last from WWII, however is it right to put on trial a sick 89 year old, and secondly if other alleged Nazi war criminals are found should they go on trial for their crimes?

Yes.Next question?:)

 

[pickledseal]

Would you have argued with Hitler?

Yes. I'd rather die than have 28,000 deaths on my conscience.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Yes. I'd rather die than have 28,000 deaths on my conscience.

That was kinda my point...the guy probably did as he was told and has spent the rest of his life regretting it

 

[MK Shrimper]

That was kinda my point...the guy probably did as he was told and has spent the rest of his life regretting it

Doesn't mean his many, many victims deserve justice though.

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

Doesn't mean his many, many victims deserve justice though.

There is a very fine line between justice and revenge though. I've no issue with someone being tried at 89 for crimes committed over 60 years ago, especially crimes as severe as those stated, however if he's found guilty, will his sentence be based on how compliant he was with the murders, or how much the world wants to find a scapegoat for the results of their not reacting sooner to the Nazi threat?

As I understand it, he was a guard. He may, or may not, have been directly responsible for pushing people to their deaths, but being of a relatively low rank it's doubtful that any stand he'd have made would've saved any lives (more likely have cost his, and possibly those of his family) It'll be interesting to see what the court comes up with on this one

 

[Firestorm]

I don't think there is an issue with trying someone for a crime they committed whatever the length of tome it has taken to catch then etc.

The question for me is whether he will get a fair trial and if he is responsible for the deaths by law.

Would you expect all employees of Union Carbide in India to be tried for corporate mansluaghter over the Bhopal incident for example ?

 

[number11]

89 year old John Demjanjuk has gone on trial accused of helping to murder nearly 28,000 Jews at Nazi concentration camp Sobibor, Poland during WWII. This trial is expected to be the last from WWII, however is it right to put on trial a sick 89 year old, and secondly if other alleged Nazi war criminals are found should they go on trial for their crimes?

In answer to your specific questions - a) Should a sick 89 year old go on trial - I'd say yes without a doubt. If there is enough evidence to prosecute for horrendous crimes then their current condition should have no relevence.

b) Should other war criminals go on trial if found - again, clearly yes.

Generally, there is debate about whether Demjanjuk is in as bad a health as his defence team say. He was assessed for fitness to stand trial and apparently surveilance alledgedy has him walking unaided, talking ok etc. I read one quote from his neighbour saying he has never seen him in a wheelchair. It wouldnt be the first time a defence team has told the accused to appear as weak and frail as possible.

What I don't fully understand is the nature of his alleged war crimes. I presumed those carrying out orders (under threat of death) were less culpable then those ordering the atrocities, yet all the reports seem to just accuse him of being a low ranking guard.

 

[londonblue]

That was kinda my point...the guy probably did as he was told and has spent the rest of his life regretting it

Two points:

Given that he denies the charges I doubt he has it on his conscience. Either he's simply not guilty so has nothing to have on his conscience, or he's lying, in which case he has no conscience.

The argument about following orders is simply rubbish. There is documented evidence (don't ask me to dig it out) of soldiers objecting to working in the death camps, and being redeployed. If he was there, he was there willingly.

 

[londonblue]

I don't think there is an issue with trying someone for a crime they committed whatever the length of tome it has taken to catch then etc.

The question for me is whether he will get a fair trial and if he is responsible for the deaths by law.

Would you expect all employees of Union Carbide in India to be tried for corporate mansluaghter over the Bhopal incident for example ?

In relation to a fair trial. He got exactly that when we was on trial in Israel, being accused of being "Ivan the Terrible". He was acquitted on appeal. From what I remember the issue surrounded a forged identity document sent to the prosecutors by some Russian government agency.

If the Israelis can give him a fair trial i'm pretty sure the Germans can.

 

[please delete my account]

I saw this dude on the telly last night. His lawyers are saying he's too ill for trial and everyone else saying he's fine.

I have to admit, seeing the bloke lying back with his eyes shut and looking a bit smug made me want to punch him in the face for some reason.

There's a simple way to find out if he is ill - drop either a) a brick or b) something scalding hot onto his knackers. If he continues to lay there and not move then he's probably ill, if he gets up and jumps about in pain, then he's ok and should stand trial.

Kind Regards

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I think rusty is the best one to answer this.....

Thanks fella.

I say try him then fry him.

 

[Lord Football]

Thanks fella.

I say try him then fry him.

Put this in your diary as "this is the day I agreed with Lord Football on a political point".