Nobody’s trying to look like a hero. All they’re trying to accomplish is taking away the freedom he’s enjoyed for the past 70 years.
Dresden. Tokyo. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Are we chasing down the ~100 year old perpetrators of these war crimes? Why or why not?
I think what you meant to say was “don’t lose a war”.
Are you arguing we shouldn’t prosecute any war crimes?
Again, he’s basically a 98 year old vegetable at this point. You’re taking away the “freedom” to be drooling in a bed or wheelchair in society to be drooling in a bed or wheelchair in jail. Punishment should have a point, this is just like punishing a profoundly autistic person.
The prosecution of war crimes hasn’t provided equal justice. We go after some because there is an international consensus that they are war criminals and they should be pursued and prosecuted, others who committed the same are free because that is lacking. But these are not minor crimes, there’s no reason to allow all to avoid justice just because some do. Track them down to the ends of the earth, find a way to get everyone that has committed such crimes if we can. But also make sure their trials are fair. Evidence may be missing, witnesses far less than reliable, there is the potential that evidence has been tampered with over the years, the severity of their crimes cannot reduce the standards of justice either. Find them, prosecute them and judge them by the highest legal standards, but don’t forget their crimes and their victims.
Not at all. As far as I know, this guy had nothing to do with the Holocaust, final solution, human experiments, gassing, etc. He burned a village in Poland.
However, the people who burned much larger villages like Tokyo or Dresden were awarded medals and lived full, free lives in their home country. And if they are no longer living, were buried with full military honors. We treated them as heroes.
The only reason the guy in the OP is not being treated the same is because he was on the wrong team. That might make some sense right after the war is over and emotions are hot, but this guy is a century old and has dementia, and that war ended 72 years ago. “Wrong team” is no longer an excuse. Let him die in peace.
Furthermore, the Allies made the decision early on not to prosecute war crimes they themselves took part in, such as firebombing cities and mass killing of civilians. In fact, if he had not fled to the US after the war, chances are he would not have been prosecuted at all. But while all the real evil Nazis were caught or died long ago, some 21st Century prosecutor or elected official in Poland wanted to get in on the action. So they started scraping the bottom of the barrel. But if you ask me, it’s a little late now to change the rules of the game.
I don’t agree with the equation of Allied tactics in fighting the Nazi’s and Japanese militarists with the evils those regimes practiced in forcing that terrible war on the rest of the world. It will be debated literally forever I suppose, but I just don’t agree with the POV that morally equates them. Fortunately it’s not directly relevant here.
The fair criticism of this guy’s treatment I can see is if association with the Nazi’s means a different standard of finding someone fit for trial, as in able to assist in their own defense, and a different presumption ie ‘Nazi’ so it’s assumed he’s guilty when the same assumption wouldn’t be made about an alleged participant in say Stalin’s or Mao’s crimes.
I also don’t agree with the common legalistic opinion nowadays that you must actually think somebody is innocent till a court finds them guilty even if you know there’s an overwhelming case against them. But in this case I don’t know that. Some of the people saying ‘f him’ may know that from other reading about the case, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some didn’t.
To clarify my position: I absolutely agree that the Final Solution and associated atrocities were far more sinister and evil than the cavalier disregard for civilian life the Allies showed during their (conventional and nuclear) bombing raids. But as far as I know the man in the OP had nothing to do with the former, and his actual crimes were far tamer than much of the latter.
A demented, century-old man, whose crimes of 70-something years ago were less atrocious than the crimes of people who most in the US would still call war heroes, doesn’t warrant extradition and life imprisonment, in my opinion.
You’ve only clarified I point of yours I understood the same way originally and simply don’t agree with. You’ve established a hierarchy where Holocaust is above area bombing but battlefield atrocities are equal or below area bombing. You believe that, I don’t agree. There’s no point to debate it here, because again it’s really not relevant to this guy’s case. If they have a legal basis to charge him as a criminal, that’s that as far as the basis for prosecuting him. ‘Tu quoque’ v. every other morally ambiguous situation in war is really not relevant, IMO. What’s relevant is just whether given that legally valid prosecution is he afforded the same protections (against trial if mentally unfit, procedural presumption of innocence) of somebody not ‘Nazi’.
I don’t care how old he is.
But I do care if he is mentally incapable of participating in his own defense - no matter his age. Everyone has to get a fair trial.
I’m quite disturbed at the number of people who are baying for the blood of a man who probably isn’t competent to stand trial because “Nazi!” I get it, but most of you would be up in arms if Poland wanted to try a mentally retarded person for murder.
In Poland, as in most places, the state has the burden of proof and the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence. The age of the evidence will be more of a problem for the prosecution than for him. Of course, assuming he actually hid from authorities - which isn’t clear from the OP’s link despite at least one post to the contrary - that’s his fault.
Good point. My father fire bombed Dresden. I wonder how many deaths he caused… Fortunately, he was on the winning side.
.
What is the normal protocol for handling a criminal case in which the defendant is mentally compromised? I mean, they don’t just say “oh well, let him go”, do they? Wouldn’t he be admitted to a mental facility/hospital of some sort and not be able to leave?
For the record and to clarify, this is exactly my position. IF he lacks the mental capacity to defends himself, I wouldn’t favor trying him. However that is an “if” - I have no problem with an independent assessment being required before he escapes the court room. Vincent Gigante’s exist and should be checked for.
But even if this were an utter travesty of a case, it still wouldn’t make me even a smidge more sympathetic to Nazis in general ;).
Leave the man alone; he’s a 98-year-old Alzheimer’s patient, for crying out loud. The crime happened in 1944; it’s now 2017. Give me a break.
No.
I draw the line at resurrecting dead Nazis in order to try them, but anything short of that is fair game.
That’s never actually been the idea. Having been a member of the Nazi party wasn’t even disqualifying for holding German governmental positions post-war. I’ve met an SS officer (Waffen SS; he’d commanded a Panzer Company) that was granted US citizenship and then lived the rest of his life in SW Michigan without ever hiding his wartime service. The goal always has been going after the subset of Nazis that committed war crimes.
There’s no statute of limitations on pursuing those crimes if they come to light. As long as the law is applied equally to them as those who commit other crimes when it comes to issues like mental competence, being to infirm to humanely imprison, etc it should be applied.
We don’t put people in jail very long for stealing a cookie. We put them in jail for much longer for more serious crimes like bank robbery or murder.
One of the reasons we don’t put cookie stealers in jail for 40 years is that people might make a mistake, and they might change, so we give them a chance to admit the mistake and change their habits.
The question posters in this thread should answer is: Are some crimes so serious that we can never make an allowance for mistakes early in life, and can never allow anyone to regret a decision and change their habits?
Not really.
If we drive home the message that those who engage in genocide/mass murder will be pursued to the end of their days, and it dissuades even one person from committing such acts, then acting even at this late date is worthwhile.
Stick a guard outside his hospital room, let him know his life is ending in disgrace. Fine by me.
*For those who profess outrage that a war criminal could be pursued after all this time, consider how you’d feel if your child or other loved one was murdered, the killer got away and only was caught in old age. Are you sure you’d say “meh, it was in the past, let him go”?
And read about Gerald Mason. Maybe he deserved to get away with it to the end of his days, too.