Yeah really. He won. Sometimes the bad guys win. He had 73 years of freedom. He lived a much longer life of freedom than most of us will. Putting a guard outside of his room while he dies without any knowledge of what is happening is nothing more than a symbolic gesture. Maybe the symbol will make you feel better but it doesn’t take away the fact that he got away with it.
Jimmy Snuka walked out the door when he was found to be not competent to stand trial.
And what about this guy? Say we’re having this discussion ten years ago. Is he included in your “worst of the worst”? Why or why not?
First, this assumes he’s so far gone as to have no knowledge of what’s happening, of which I’m dubious (other crooks have tried the senility defense, including at least one Mafia boss. And even if this guy lacks awareness, the world at large does not, including potential killers, who are being told they will be hunted till the end of their days.
Fine by me.
For those who profess outrage that a criminal could not be pursued after all this time, consider how you’d feel if your mother or other loved one, now elderly and suffering from dementia, was prosecuted for a crime she supposedly commited 70 years ago, even though the accusers aren’t very sure if it’s her or someone else going by the same name, or if she ever had been anywhere close to the place where the crime was commited.
Are you sure you would say “Of course, she should stand trial and be agressively prosecuted. She won’t understand what’s going on nor probably be able to remember what happened 70 years ago, or present any serious defense because it was so long ago, but I’ve no issue at all with her going through that. After all, there are some evidences that mom might be an awful criminal, and it would be terrible if she didn’t pay dearly for this hypothetical crime, let’s put her into the grinder”?
No. My examples were all purposeful examples of mass murder on an enormous scale in the 20th century. The dropping of the atomic bomb saved millions of lives.
From a sheer legal perspective, it appears that time and the Alzheimer’s works to the prosecution’s advantage. The prosecution has, no doubt, amassed lots of evidence over the decades. Even if the defendant keeps his mouth shut, he’d probably just seal his fate.
And when was the last time a Nazi defendant was acquitted?
It’s very hard to fake brain scans. Alzheimer’s isn’t like depression where your largely reliant on the patient to accurately describe their symptoms. There are physical changes to the brain and there are markers that become evident.
So the guy who killed 166,000 civilians is a hero, and the guy who killed 44 is a monster deserving of life imprisonment? What makes the killing of 166,000 civilians not mass murder? But 44 is?
One was a purposeful act of revenge and murder. The other was an experiment with an untested weapon whose purpose was to end a world war?
They both look like purposeful acts of revenge and murder to me. The difference is one guy’s side lost. We didn’t prosecute those kinds of crimes at Nuremberg, because the Allies knew they were just as guilty. 73 years later is no time to change the rules just so some young attorneys in Poland can entrap senile old men to further their careers.
Ftr, this book Rising '44 https://www.amazon.com/Rising-44-Battle-Norman-Davies/dp/0143035401 argues that the Soviets were complicit in the destruction of Warsaw because they intentionally halted their offensive to allow the Germans to destroy a large part of the Polish resistance. This made it easier for them to subjegate Poland.
And what if he’s genuinely senile, as many people his age are? My mom is 91, and neither senile nor suffering from Alzheimer. Despite this, her intellectual capacity are significantly impaired, especially when she’s stressed or tired. She might have ideas only teneously related with reality, or fail to understand the most obvious things at times. Trying her for whatever crime would be a farce at this point, though she would firmly insist that she remembers perfectly what she did in 1945. And also that she remembers perfectly that the guy who helped her getting off the traina couple years ago was the same who commited the terrorist attack against Charlie hebdo.
My aunt, about the same age, has Alzheimer. She’s unaware that her own husband has been dead for a couple years, and asking her what she was doing in 1945 would be utterly ridiculous. She might answer something, but don’t expect it will have any relationship with what she really did, or for that matter that she has any clue about when “1945” was.
My ex’s father is also 91. He usually appears (and is) intellectually sound, most of the time. Except when he too forget that his wife has been dead for 20 years and search for her all over the house. Or call the police in the middle of the night because he can’t find an €20 bill in his pocket, and is certain that his neighbour broke into the house to steal the € 20. He too can recount events from 1945. The fact that some of these events in reality happened to other people he used to know is a detail. Like my mom, he wouldn’t qualify as “senile”. Like my mom, putting him on trial, especially with the stress and fatigue, would nevertheless be a farce.
People this age who are fully capable of standing a major criminal trial are the exception, not the norm. If this former SS has been found unfit for a trial already, it’s very, very likely that he is really unfit for trial. If only because a lot of people his age are.
If this guy lacks awareness, he can’t properly defend himself, hence can’t receive a fair trial. Full stop. You could also deny him a lawyer, while you’re at it, to send a message to other potential killers. Or just hang him up without a trial to send the same strong message. No essential difference.
You only perceive the situation from the worst case scenario : that he is actually guilty, that he is faking, etc… and as a result want the worst for him. What about trying to see the situation from a more neutral point of view. For all you know, he’s an actually senile old man, innocent of those crimes.
How would the destruction of a Polish village hasten the end of the war? Remember also that no one really knew how the bomb would work.
Maybe he didn’t know how it would hasten the end of the war? :rolleyes:
(And everyone knew atomic bombs were going to level cities. It wasn’t like “oh, this might hurt a couple people… well, let’s try it anyway”. Killing a hundred thousand civilians was the entire point of building the thing.)
No, they didn’t…except perhaps the scientists. The average Joe pilot wouldn’t have had any conception of the power and destructive capacity of the atomic bomb. Your argument would be more powerful had you mentioned FDR or Truman who would have known much more of its potential.
He got off lightly no matter what they do to him now. Hopefully it’s not a win because he had to spend all that time worrying about being found and prosecuted. That’s one of the points of never giving up the pursuit, they should spend their lives in fear. Hopefully that will happen to those War Criminals not being actively pursued and prosecuted now, they should be worried that their time may come someday. I don’t suppose this has any great deterrent effect on the kind of people who end committing such horrendous crimes, but it may deter those who too easily aid them by just following or giving the orders.
You are wrong. You don’t drop one bomb from 35,000 feet in conventional aerial bombardment. When he took off, the runway was illuminated by floodlights, and he waved to the all the cameras. Col. Tibbets was awarded the distinguished service cross as he stepped off the plane. From long before the bombing run, the whole crew knew it wasn’t a normal bombing mission.
The people back home might have been in the dark, but the men doing the dirty work knew exactly what they were doing. There might have been a question of whether it would kill 100 thousand or 200 thousand, or whether it would work at all, but everyone knew the goal was to level a large city full of civilians.
I disagree. Again, you would have a more powerful argument had you mentioned the fire bombing of Tokyo. No average person had any idea of the power of the atomic bomb. And Tibbets had little choice about carrying out his mission anyway.
“Just following orders” is no excuse. And stop insulting the man by pretending he was completely clueless. From Wiki:
Bolding mine. Those aren’t the words of someone who was duped into committing murder. He went into that mission with open eyes.
And speaking of firebombing Tokyo, should we have charged those guys with war crimes?
The point is, all sides in WWII participated in the mass murder of civilians. That’s why they didn’t prosecute those types of war crimes. Why is this one guy who killed 44 people worse than the thousands who killed many more and got promotions, medals and military funerals in return? The only difference is which side he was on.