NationStates Jolt Archive

In the U.S.A., John Demjanjuk, age 89, has been accused of being a prison guard where some 29,000 or so prisoners were killed during WWII. During the war years, he would have been between 18 and 24 years old. Young and stupid.

Demjanjuk (a native Ukranian) is fighting extradition from the U.S. One of his lawyers' arguments on his behalf is that his medical/health issues, the separation from his family into an environment where he doesn't know the language, the rigors of a trial, all amount to TORTURE.

So, if it amounts to torture, should the U.S.A. allow the extradition to go forward?

Why are we charging all of these guards when it most likely they weren't the people who pulled the trigger or lever or whatever?

No no no. Auschwitz was torture. Dachau was torture. Buchenwald was torture. Being brought to trial for your crimes, no matter how long ago they occurred? That's justice.

Why are we charging all of these guards when it most likely they weren't the people who pulled the trigger or lever or whatever?

This guy is accused of running an engine for the SS. Specifically the one that fed carbon Monoxide to gas chambers.

I have never heard the argument that extradition = torture.

Leave it to the Nazis to say such.

This guy is accused of running an engine for the SS. Specifically the one that fed carbon Monoxide to gas chambers.

Ahh, ok, then yea, extradite the old bastard.

In the U.S.A., John Demjanjuk, age 89, has been accused of being a prison guard where some 29,000 or so prisoners were killed during WWII. During the war years, he would have been between 18 and 24 years old. Young and stupid.

Demjanjuk (a native Ukranian) is fighting extradition from the U.S. One of his lawyers' arguments on his behalf is that his medical/health issues, the separation from his family into an environment where he doesn't know the language, the rigors of a trial, all amount to TORTURE.

So, if it amounts to torture, should the U.S.A. allow the extradition to go forward?

I don't think it does. The only compelling obstacle to extradition you listed was medical/health issues - and those I can imagine there are solutions for.

Separation from his family and environment, rigors of a trial? Not at all compelling. Trials are not meant to be fun and comfortable, and they generally aren't either for anyone.

I have never heard the argument that extradition = torture.

Leave it to the Nazis to say such.

the argument is used due to his age.
And he isn't a Nazi, because he is Ukrainian not German.
Had to be a pure German Aryan to be a Nazi.

Ahh, ok, then yea, extradite the old bastard.

old "alleged" bastard, my friend. We know he's old, but as to his status of being a bastard that will have to be proven in his trial.

I have never heard the argument that extradition = torture.

Leave it to the Nazis to say such.

This is one of those "1984/Room 101" moments. Would it be wrong to say the "worst thing in the world" for Demjanjuk is extradition, away from his current healthcare providers and people who speak language he understands? The guy's in bad health. If he were your frail old gran-dad, or some equivalent, in spite of justice being served, would you want him tortured?

I'm a big "law and order" supporter, but since so many at this forum are so violently opposed to torture, I have to ask the question about this case.

This is one of those "1984/Room 101" moments. Would it be wrong to say the "worst thing in the world" for Demjanjuk is extradition, away from his current healthcare providers and people who speak language he understands? The guy's in bad health. If he were your frail old gran-dad, or some equivalent, in spite of justice being served, would you want him tortured?

I'm a big "law and order" supporter, but since so many at this forum are so violently opposed to torture, I have to ask the question about this case.

I am quite sure that he can be provided the best healthcare we can give him. I would not be surprised if doctors and translators from this nation were asked to go with him, something I am perfectly fine with.

No no no. Auschwitz was torture. Dachau was torture. Buchenwald was torture. Being brought to trial for your crimes, no matter how long ago they occurred? That's justice.

Agreed.

18 -24, young and stupid?

No. No no and no.

His nationality doesn't matter, it doesn't make him less of a monster than anyone else who allowed these atrocities to occur. When it comes to overseeing the deaths of others, yes, you have a choice. Better to die yourself, than be a part of that kind of suffering.

What the fuck is the point of the gendered poll?

Agreed.

18 -24, young and stupid?

No. No no and no.

His nationality doesn't matter, it doesn't make him less of a monster than anyone else who allowed these atrocities to occur. When it comes to overseeing the deaths of others, yes, you have a choice. Better to die yourself, than be a part of that kind of suffering.

^this.

old "alleged" bastard, my friend. We know he's old, but as to his status of being a bastard that will have to be proven in his trial.

Then it would be in his best interest to go through trial.

What the fuck is the point of the gendered poll?

I was wondering that myself.

I suspect that You-Gi-Owe is just doing a statistics project for school but wants to do it the lazy way.

What the fuck is the point of the gendered poll?

'Cuz I like to know how men and women think.

'Cuz I like to know how men and women think.

Proves it. He's either doing a stats project or psych project.

'Cuz I like to know how men and women think.

This will not end well for you young one.

*gets popcorn and beer*

Proves it. He's either doing a stats project or psych project.

...or adding options to a poll. This isn't proof of anything, and although it would fit within that theory (among others) it is also ultimately irrelevant to the subject at hand.

...or adding options to a poll. This isn't proof of anything, and although it would fit within that theory (among others) it is also ultimately irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Fair enough. But I want to see if the null hypothesis is rejected.

(Sorry, I'm just in math mode as tomorrow I take my IB Math Studies SL Paper 1)

'Cuz I like to know how men and women think.

What possible bearing does that have on the OP?

I was wondering that myself.

I suspect that You-Gi-Owe is just doing a statistics project for school but wants to do it the lazy way.

Dear God, I wish I hadn't provided the gender option. I went to edit, after the original post, but maybe I don't know how to change it?

That said, I don't see a lot of voting in comparison to the number of folk who have come to this topic. What's up, Doc?

No no no. Auschwitz was torture. Dachau was torture. Buchenwald was torture. Being brought to trial for your crimes, no matter how long ago they occurred? That's justice.

And what crimes ?
Allegedly he ran an engine that provided carbon monoxide to kill people.
However execution by poison gas is not a crime when conducted by the state. This man is allegedly nothing more then fill the role of an executioner which in of itself is not a war crime. If an executioner is told a certain person or persons are criminal and have had their execution ordered then that is what he does.
While it is a crime that these people were killed the criminality does not rest with their executioner, the criminality rest with those who deprived these victims of justice. Whether that be in Kangaroo courts, or signers of the writs of execution. The executioner is himself not responsible for investigating the guilt or innocence of a party, and if he were to be so it would undermine the rights of the courts the world over to be the final decider of punishment for those convicted.

In the U.S.A., John Demjanjuk, age 89, has been accused of being a prison guard where some 29,000 or so prisoners were killed during WWII. During the war years, he would have been between 18 and 24 years old. Young and stupid.

He wasn't just "a prison guard", likely.

wikipedia: demjanjuk

Born in the Ukrainian SSR (several years before the USSR was established), Demjanjuk migrated to the United States in 1951. He was deported to Israel in 1986 and later sentenced to death there in 1988 for war crimes, based on his identification by Israeli Holocaust survivors as "Ivan the Terrible," a notorious SS guard at the Treblinka extermination camp during the period 1942–1943 who committed murder and acts of extraordinarily savage violence against camp prisoners. His conviction for crimes against humanity was later overturned by Israel's highest court in 1993 due to a finding of a reasonable doubt as to whether Demjanjuk really was "Ivan the Terrible," and he was returned to the United States.

...

On November 10, 2008, German federal prosecutor Kurt Schrimm directed prosecutors to file in Munich for extradition, since Demjanjuk once lived there. On December 9, 2008, a German federal court declared that Demjanjuk could be tried for his alleged role in the Holocaust.[21] Some three months later, on March 11, 2009, Demjanjuk was charged with more than 29,000 counts of accessory to murder of Jewish prisoners at the Sobibor extermination camp.[22]

The German foreign ministry announced on 2 April 2009 that Demjanjuk would be transferred to Germany the following week, and will face trial later in the year



So, if it amounts to torture, should the U.S.A. allow the extradition to go forward?

Since extradition alone DOESN'T amount to torture by any international standards, the US courts cannot deny it.
And I don't think that the USA claim that the Federal Republic of Germany tortures alleged criminals.

In the U.S.A., John Demjanjuk, age 89, has been accused of being a prison guard where some 29,000 or so prisoners were killed during WWII. During the war years, he would have been between 18 and 24 years old. Young and stupid.

Demjanjuk (a native Ukranian) is fighting extradition from the U.S. One of his lawyers' arguments on his behalf is that his medical/health issues, the separation from his family into an environment where he doesn't know the language, the rigors of a trial, all amount to TORTURE.

So, if it amounts to torture, should the U.S.A. allow the extradition to go forward?

No option for me on the poll, I'm afraid.
I'm female, and I don't think it amounts to torture. I don't buy his "I'm in contstant pain" for one second, sorry.

Dear God, I wish I hadn't provided the gender option. I went to edit, after the original post, but maybe I don't know how to change it?

That said, I don't see a lot of voting in comparison to the number of folk who have come to this topic. What's up, Doc?

The fact that there is no option on the poll for "I don't think it's torture" or "It's not torture if reasonable precautions are taken".

If, and I have not doubt they will, provide health care and translators then frankly no, it's not torture, it's not even mistreatment. Even if they didn't I would classify it more as maltreatment or prisoner abuse, not torture. Just because torture has been in the news and generated a lot of outrage recently (for good reasons), it doesn't mean that it can be applied to every action that may cause a bit of discomfort. To do so is to undermine the very term and do great injustice to those people who were victims of actual torture.

What possible bearing does that have on the OP?

Umm perhaps he wants to see if women are more nurturing and careing? Or men more spitefull and filled with vengance?

One of his lawyers' arguments on his behalf is that his medical/health issues, the separation from his family into an environment where he doesn't know the language, the rigors of a trial, all amount to TORTURE.
Um, can we see a link showing this, or are we just going by what the OP says?

I'm pretty sure an interpreter (sp?) would be made available to him at the trial...

So what if he is old, should there really be a statute of limitations on genocide?

No option for me on the poll, I'm afraid.
I'm female, and I don't think it amounts to torture. I don't buy his "I'm in contstant pain" for one second, sorry.

What about double jeopardy? Isn't he being tried for the same thing the courts cleared him of earlier?

What about double jeopardy? Isn't he being tried for the same thing the courts cleared him of earlier?

Not sure... they said they reversed their decision due to lack of evidence to convince him "beyond reasonable doubt". If that evidence is there now, wouldn't that mean the trial has to be opened again?

Not sure... they said they reversed their decision due to lack of evidence to convince him "beyond reasonable doubt". If that evidence is there now, wouldn't that mean the trial has to be opened again?

I think the wording was evidence of reasonable doubt not lack of evidence that he was. We'd probably have to look up the original documents to be sure I think.

So what if he is old, should there really be a statute of limitations on genocide?

No, there should not.

What about double jeopardy? Isn't he being tried for the same thing the courts cleared him of earlier?

Well, originally he was tried in Israel, by an Israeli court.

Now, it's a German court.

Two different governments, two different court systems, two different sets of laws, no double jeopardy.

Um, can we see a link showing this, or are we just going by what the OP says?

Lots of stuff to Google.... Here's a link http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMy-Ec99rk_3jCtsHVd1qJZoKGwgD9811JE80 ... Dang... This link didn't work for some reason.

It seems that a number of people who have been adamant about not EVER inflicting torture, for any reason, are either refusing to post on the poll or stumbling over themselves to justify deporting this guy. The poll question is not, "IS IT TORTURE?", the question is, "IF IT AMOUNTS TO TORTURE".

Lots of stuff to Google.... Here's a link http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMy-Ec99rk_3jCtsHVd1qJZoKGwgD9811JE80
It seems that a number of people who have been adamant about not EVER inflicting torture, for any reason, are either refusing to post on the poll or stumbling over themselves to justify deporting this guy. The poll question is not, "IS IT TORTURE?", the question is, "IF IT AMOUNTS TO TORTURE".

But it doesn't amount to torture so what is the point of the poll

This poll is made of phail.

But it doesn't amount to torture so what is the point of the poll
You're injecting a personal opinion, which isn't part of the question.

he should face the penalities of his crimes. if he avoided that for 70 years he should not be rewarded by getting to avoid it for his last few.

You're injecting a personal opinion, which isn't part of the question.

The idea that extradition is torture is pretty much just your personal opinion.

The idea that extradition is torture is pretty much just your personal opinion.

No, it's part of Demjanjuk's lawyer's legal challenges to the extradition.

Lots of stuff to Google.... Here's a link http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMy-Ec99rk_3jCtsHVd1qJZoKGwgD9811JE80 ... Dang... This link didn't work for some reason.

It seems that a number of people who have been adamant about not EVER inflicting torture, for any reason, are either refusing to post on the poll or stumbling over themselves to justify deporting this guy. The poll question is not, "IS IT TORTURE?", the question is, "IF IT AMOUNTS TO TORTURE".

The article requested is not available.

I'd like to see a link where the lawyer says it amounts to torture. As it's your thread, the onus remains with you.

No, it's part of Demjanjuk's lawyer's legal challenges to the extradition.

You have not shown that to be the case in this thread. You have made it sound as though if I send my grandmother on holiday to Mexico I am guilty of torturing her.

You have not shown that to be the case in this thread. You have made it sound as though if I send my grandmother on holiday to Mexico I am guilty of torturing her.

Well, it is Mexico.

Well, it is Mexico.

Intentionally exposing someone to swine flu. There's no way that's legal.

I'd like to see a link where the lawyer says it amounts to torture. As it's your thread, the onus remains with you.

The following link is not as full a story as I'd like, but it's Israeli, so I think that I can safely say that they are interested in getting the story right. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/163616

"[Torture] is any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."[1]

-United Nations Convention Against Torture

Where the fuck is the option: "This is not torture, he should go"?

Where the fuck is the option: "This is not torture, he should go"?

I really don't want to have to point out the obvious to you. This poll was never really about Demjanjuk. This poll was about seeing if the forum participants who are so up in arms about torture of terror suspects would lift an eyebrow to think that it might be torturous for an old man accused of being a Nazi to be forcibly removed from the land where he raised a family.

I really don't want to have to point out the obvious to you. This poll was never really about Demjanjuk. This poll was about seeing if the forum participants who are so up in arms about torture of terror suspects would lift an eyebrow to think that it might be torturous for an old man accused of being a Nazi to be forcibly removed from the land where he raised a family.

You honestly have this much trouble with definitions? Been fucking Monica Lewinsky, lately, have we?

Missed the whole point... again.

Missed the whole point... again.

Your screwed-up definition of torture does not justify real torture. You seem to be missing this point.

Your screwed-up definition of torture does not justify real torture. You seem to be missing this point.

I'm going to borrow from a previous post of mine in this topic. Have you ever read the book by George Orwell, "1984"? The main character, Winston Smith, has been caught by the Ministry of Love (the Secret Police). The last thing that they torture him with, the last thing they do to break him TOTALLY, is "Room 101". What is in Room 101? It's the worst thing in the world. But the worst thing in the world is different for different people.

But, as I stated before, the entire purpose of the discussion thread was to see how forum posters would react to the word "torture" as it related to the deportaion of an old man.

I'm going to borrow from a previous post of mine in this topic. Have you ever read the book by George Orwell, "1984"? The main character, Winston Smith, has been caught by the Ministry of Love (the Secret Police). The last thing that they torture him with, the last thing they do to break him TOTALLY, is "Room 101". What is in Room 101? It's the worst thing in the world. But the worst thing in the world is different for different people.

It ain't extradition.

But, as I stated before, the entire purpose of the discussion thread was to see how forum posters would react to the word "torture" as it related to the deportaion of an old man.

It does not, and your poll implied that it has to be torture. Torture's purpose is to cause pain.

It ain't extradition.



It does not, and your poll implied that it has to be torture. Torture's purpose is to cause pain.

Torture as an end unto itself is to cause pain. Torture is also a tool and is use to either acquire information or modify behavior.

Imagine that you have met John Demjanjuk. Imagine that YOU BELIEVE that he is in mortal terror about being taken away from his family. That he fears that he will be mistreated, because the Israelis once mistook him for a different person who was a Nazi war criminal (he was cleared by their courts after five years in prison). Imagine that his family provides him with good healthcare and that he believes healthcare in the U.S.A. is better than healthcare anywhere else in the world. Imagine that he believes he will die hated and alone with no one near him, if he is extradited. Didn't your definition of torture also include mental torture?

This may be part of a nation's ability to enforce legal sactions, but then, the lawyers who aided President Bush in drafting the interrogation techniques could also be said to be working "sanctions". So, IF it amounts to torture in Demjanjuk's mind, then, for him, it's torture. Not what you or I can fear, but what he fears.

His nationality doesn't matter, it doesn't make him less of a monster than anyone else who allowed these atrocities to occur. When it comes to overseeing the deaths of others, yes, you have a choice. Better to die yourself, than be a part of that kind of suffering.
Will you stop these deaths by dying yourself?

If no, then you don't have a choice. "A choice to die" is not a choice, otherwise we'll have to admit that race and sexuality are matters of choice too - you don't have to be black or gay, you can always kill yourself.

Better to die yourself, than be a part of that kind of suffering.

Are you prepared to live, or to be more exact, die, for just exactly that?

The poll has insufficient options to properly express my conclusions.

Torture as an end unto itself is to cause pain. Torture is also a tool and is use to either acquire information or modify behavior.

Imagine that you have met John Demjanjuk. Imagine that YOU BELIEVE that he is in mortal terror about being taken away from his family. That he fears that he will be mistreated, because the Israelis once mistook him for a different person who was a Nazi war criminal (he was cleared by their courts after five years in prison). Imagine that his family provides him with good healthcare and that he believes healthcare in the U.S.A. is better than healthcare anywhere else in the world. Imagine that he believes he will die hated and alone with no one near him, if he is extradited. Didn't your definition of torture also include mental torture?

This may be part of a nation's ability to enforce legal sactions, but then, the lawyers who aided President Bush in drafting the interrogation techniques could also be said to be working "sanctions". So, IF it amounts to torture in Demjanjuk's mind, then, for him, it's torture. Not what you or I can fear, but what he fears.

If extradition is torture, then prison is cruel and unusual punishment.

If it was determined that he would go through psychological trauma, I would change my mind. Homesickness is not psychological trauma.

Based on the information I've read, it seems like they want to get him for something.

The Israelis dismissed him for the Treblinka thing, so they're gonna try him for every other camp, considering how many "Ivan the Terrible"'s there are.

I have never heard the argument that extradition = torture.

Leave it to the Nazis to say such.

Except it isn't a NAZI saying this it is a lawyer.

Which is what you would expect to come out of a lawyer's mouth.

He wasn't just "a prison guard", likely.

wikipedia: demjanjuk
snip.
you forgot to bold the part that said:
His conviction for crimes against humanity was later overturned by Israel's highest court in 1993 due to a finding of a reasonable doubt as to whether Demjanjuk really was "Ivan the Terrible,"

If an Israeli court found in his favour, why then is he being tried again in the US?

Based on the information I've read, it seems like they want to get him for something.

The Israelis dismissed him for the Treblinka thing, so they're gonna try him for every other camp, considering how many "Ivan the Terrible"'s there are.

this si really jsut Germany trying to show the world they deserve to be holocaust guilt free.
The guy isn't worth going after. All he was at most was an executioner. The people they should go after should be the ones who sent them to the executioner.

you forgot to bold the part that said:
His conviction for crimes against humanity was later overturned by Israel's highest court in 1993 due to a finding of a reasonable doubt as to whether Demjanjuk really was "Ivan the Terrible,"

If an Israeli court found in his favour, why then is he being tried again in the US?

he is not being tried here. He is being sent to Germany.

you forgot to bold the part that said:
His conviction for crimes against humanity was later overturned by Israel's highest court in 1993 due to a finding of a reasonable doubt as to whether Demjanjuk really was "Ivan the Terrible,"

If an Israeli court found in his favour, why then is he being tried again in the US?

He isn't. He's going to be tried in Germany.
Last news I read, a Supreme Court judge in the US has decided that traveling would not constitute any sort of torture for him.

this si really jsut Germany trying to show the world they deserve to be holocaust guilt free.
The guy isn't worth going after. All he was at most was an executioner. The people they should go after should be the ones who sent them to the executioner.

They've already gone after all of those. The ones they could find, that is.

They've already gone after all of those. The ones they could find, that is.

Then there is no need to bother this man.

Then there is no need to bother this man.

There is. It's called justice.

You can't excuse yourself from murder charges by saying "someone told me to do it".

There is. It's called justice.

You can't excuse yourself from murder charges by saying "someone told me to do it".

No but as an executioner its not a matter of being told to do it.
The state had declared people criminal by what ever means they had set up for that.
The executioner is not charged with second guessing the state, investigating crimes, or overruling judges. To set up such a precedent in international law would make the conduction of capital punishment impractical.

No but as an executioner its not a matter of being told to do it.
The state had declared people criminal by what ever means they had set up for that.
The executioner is not charged with second guessing the state, investigating crimes, or overruling judges. To set up such a precedent in international law would make the conduction of capital punishment impractical.

Guess what? There is plenty of precedent for this all over the world.
Serbian executioners were and are being prosecuted, for example. And the same goes for Nazi executioners... and I use the term in its loosest possible sense here.
To execute someone normally involves a trial before the execution, for example.

What happened in the concentration camps were not executions, it was murder. And torture. And people who participated have to be hold responsible.

Last news I read, a Supreme Court judge in the US has decided that traveling would not constitute any sort of torture for him.

Yeah. We're pretty hardcore that way. Prolly waterboard him first for you if you ask nice.

Yeah. We're pretty hardcore that way. Prolly waterboard him first for you if you ask nice.

No thanks. I trust the German prosecution to have gathered enough evidence in the usual way.. you know, without torture?

No thanks. I trust the German prosecution to have gathered enough evidence in the usual way.. you know, without torture?

Are you suggesting there is something wrong with our judicial system?

Anyway, if you all mess this one up and he gets off I think you should keep him. It would be embarrassing to make him a citizen for the third time.

Guess what? There is plenty of precedent for this all over the world.
Serbian executioners were and are being prosecuted, for example. And the same goes for Nazi executioners... and I use the term in its loosest possible sense here.
To execute someone normally involves a trial before the execution, for example.

Most of the Serbians convicted were those who engineered it.
Also the Serbian murders involved dragging people from their homes and shooting them, and I haven't read a single account of a trigger man standing trial for that yet, though do link if you got one. This involves a prison facility(regardless of how illegitimate) if he as a prisons execution is told that they were convicted and to be executed in accordance with the laws his culpability is limited.
Poison gas is an accepted means for humane execution even by today standards

What happened in the concentration camps were not executions, it was murder. And torture. And people who participated have to be hold responsible.

It is not the executioners job to supervise the justice system.
He was already acquitted of being the guard who beat and tortured people. They are executions as they were done by the state. As the suspect is only being accused of gassing the condemned, which is regarded as a humane means to conduct an execution both then and today(or at least as late as 1999). There was none of the making them dig their own graves, or any other of the nasty bits.

Missed the whole point... again.

So what is the point? Something to do with gender? Taking people from Afghanistan to Cuba is torture by itself, even without a bit of waterboarding? Holidays abroad are cruel and unusual? It is okay to torture people unless they were nazis? If you cannot articulate a decent argument, present some evidence to back it up, and put together a poll that actually has some relevance to what you are arguing, then don't be surprised if people don't get whatever it is you think you are saying.

Are you suggesting there is something wrong with our judicial system?

Anyway, if you all mess this one up and he gets off I think you should keep him. It would be embarrassing to make him a citizen for the third time.

As I understand it, his citizenship has been revoked. Once he'll have left the US, he won't be allowed to return at all.

As I understand it, his citizenship has been revoked. Once he'll have left the US, he won't be allowed to return at all.

Yeah. That's what they said last time. They were going to hang him and everything. And guess what? A few years later he turns up back here and gets his citizenship back and everything.

It would just be embarrassing to have that happen again. So he's yours now.

Most of the Serbians convicted were those who engineered it.
Also the Serbian murders involved dragging people from their homes and shooting them, and I haven't read a single account of a trigger man standing trial for that yet, though do link if you got one. This involves a prison facility(regardless of how illegitimate) if he as a prisons execution is told that they were convicted and to be executed in accordance with the laws his culpability is limited.
Poison gas is an accepted means for humane execution even by today standards


It is not the executioners job to supervise the justice system.
He was already acquitted of being the guard who beat and tortured people. They are executions as they were done by the state. As the suspect is only being accused of gassing the condemned, which is regarded as a humane means to conduct an execution both then and today(or at least as late as 1999). There was none of the making them dig their own graves, or any other of the nasty bits.

So by that logic, people should get off free, no matter what artrocities they committed, as long as somebody else told them to?
I'm sorry, but no. That excuse just won't hold up, regardless if the accussed killed Jews in a Nazi camp, Cambodians for the Khmer Rouge or Kurds for Saddam's regime. In all those cases there were and are trials and if convicted punishment.

Yeah. That's what they said last time. They were going to hang him and everything. And guess what? A few years later he turns up back here and gets his citizenship back and everything.

It would just be embarrassing to have that happen again. So he's yours now.

Mine? What would I do with him in Ireland? Let the German courts deal with him.

Mine? What would I do with him in Ireland? Let the German courts deal with him.

It's all the EU now.

I really don't want to have to point out the obvious to you. This poll was never really about Demjanjuk. This poll was about seeing if the forum participants who are so up in arms about torture of terror suspects would lift an eyebrow to think that it might be torturous for an old man accused of being a Nazi to be forcibly removed from the land where he raised a family.

If you wanted to determine if those up in arms about torture are hypocrites who only do so when it's muslim terrorists not nazis (reading between the lines here at what you are getting at) then a better example would be if they were trying to extradite him to a country known for it's maltreatment and torture happy treatment of prisoners (pick one, there's enough of them in the world).

In which case I would say no, you can't extradite him to be tortured. This however is not extradition to be tortured, it's extradition to a western country which is good on human rights and has as good health care and appropriate access to translators. And it appears an abundance of straw men.

he is not being tried here. He is being sent to Germany.

Which is has a delicious taste of irony, hasn't it. A former Nazi camp guard scared at the idea of being sent to Germany.

Mine? What would I do with him in Ireland? Let the German courts deal with him.

mh.
He was born in Ukrainian SSR.
Ukrainian SSR was succeeded by USSR.
USSR was succeeded solely by Russia about international relationships, iirc.
Give him to Putin. The Russians would appreciate a gift for the May 9th parade.

Wow, what a dumb poll...
Well, originally he was tried in Israel, by an Israeli court.

Now, it's a German court.

Two different governments, two different court systems, two different sets of laws, no double jeopardy.
Double jeopardy doesn't apply because he's not being tried for "Ivan the Terrrible's" crimes.

I'm highly doubtful of the "pain" Demjanjuk is going through. He got carted off to court in a wheelchair, moaning and all miserable. Eight days earlier, he was healthy enough to walk and drive on his very own.

Poll fucking sucks, and he should be deported. If I was him, and I was not guilty, I'd want it to be proven.

So by that logic, people should get off free, no matter what artrocities they committed, as long as somebody else told them to?

He was in a job (executioner) that involved killing. Therefore killing in of itself is not a crime against humanity. The crime was that those who were killed were denied trial. However it is not the executioner's job ascertain that subject had trial. Nor would he have the legal training necessary to ascertain that fact. So long as it can be shown the manner of execution was humane by the standards of the time(it is by today's), the prosecution must show he had reason to doubt proper legal procedure was being fallowed in the cases of the victims


I'm sorry, but no. That excuse just won't hold up, regardless if the accussed killed Jews in a Nazi camp, Cambodians for the Khmer Rouge or Kurds for Saddam's regime. In all those cases there were and are trials and if convicted punishment.

To my knowledge the Khmer Rouge, and Saddams regime have only had leadership targeted.
I have yet to hear of one incidence where the trigger man, especially one who is solely in the role of executioner(not dragging people out of their houses in the middle of the night) has be charged.

Nice to see the gaggle of posters throwing 'innocent till proven guilty' to the wind.

Also, is justice really achieved by imprisoning ex-SS members and the like? It seems so... paltry.

I really don't want to have to point out the obvious to you. This poll was never really about Demjanjuk. This poll was about seeing if the forum participants who are so up in arms about torture of terror suspects would lift an eyebrow to think that it might be torturous for an old man accused of being a Nazi to be forcibly removed from the land where he raised a family.

We do not "lift an eyebrow" to consider if this might be torture for the same reason we do not do so to consider claims that milk comes from rocks, a BMW is a kind of fish, or that four sides make a triangle. Things that are patently and obviously untrue do not need any further consideration before making the claim that they are patently and obviously untrue.

This man has been accused of a crime for which there is sufficient evidence to substantiate that accusation. As such the interests of justice demand he be brought to trial so that his guilt (or lack thereof) may be established. I'm sure it will be inconvenient, distressing, and possibly painful for him to endure this, but then trials rarely are a pleasant thing. To call this torture is an insult to actual victims of actual torture, of which this man is not.

If you really wanted to gauge our reactions to see if we'd defend a nazi against torture, you would actually have to find a situation in which that was actually happening. You didn't. In fact you missed the mark by a mile. And since you so utterly failed to do what you were apparently intending to do, any failure for the rest of us to understand and somehow intuit that this was what you were trying to do, in spite of your spectacular failure to do so, is your fault, and yours alone.

And, frankly, the only thing this whole post demonstrates is further proof of the proposition that when someone acting too smart by half tries to make a post to "expose our biases" or "make us reconsider our positions", most often the only thing that happens is that the poster gets outsmarted by his own poll.

Nice to see the gaggle of posters throwing 'innocent till proven guilty' to the wind.

Not at all. Nobody, from what I have seen, has advocated he be imprisoned without a fair and balanced trial created for the purpose of determining if he is guilty. What we HAVE advocated is that this trial actually take place. I do not claim him to be certainly guilty. I do state that there is sufficient evidence of guilt to warrant a trial. So there should be one.

Also, is justice really achieved by imprisoning ex-SS members and the like? It seems so... paltry.

Justice is a fair and unbiased determination of guilt followed by punishment for ones crimes. The interests of justice should never be stymied because those crimes happened "a long time ago"

If I was inncoent and being asscused of being a Nazi Guard. I would like my name clear before I died. That is if I didn't have something to hide.

And Greed of Death. It been proven in international court that just following orders isn't a good defense for not trying to stop or not be involed with a genciode. Any other claims is BS and if this guy is guilty I hope he gets the worst setence possible. If he didn't do it, I have enough faith in the German legal system to find a not guilty verdict.

If I was inncoent and being asscused of being a Nazi Guard. I would like my name clear before I died. That is if I didn't have something to hide.

Yeah, but how many times would you have to clear it before you start feeling harassed?

Yeah, but how many times would you have to clear it before you start feeling harassed?Not really relevant since we know he was a camp guard and he knows he was a camp guard. The Israeli court that overturned his death sentence only stated that it wasn't proven he was Ivan the Terrible, and expressly stated that he was indeed a guard. What remains to be determined is which camp guard he was, and consequently which crimes he committed.

From what I've read about the guy, he was a Ukrainian who was captured by the Nazis and forced to work as slave labor in the death camps.

And Greed of Death. It been proven in international court that just following orders isn't a good defense for not trying to stop or not be involed with a genciode. Any other claims is BS and if this guy is guilty I hope he gets the worst setence possible. If he didn't do it, I have enough faith in the German legal system to find a not guilty verdict.

If his job is an executioner then killing people in of itself is not grounds not grounds for a crime against humanity as that what is entailed by the job. Just like a lawyer can keep attorney client privilege, it is a requirement of the job. Provided, he had no reason to suspect the people he was putting to sleep were denied justice or he did it in a inhumane matter. It has nothing to do with he was told to do.

The only crime this man seems guilty of is Trusting the German legal system in the early 1940's.

The guy isn't worth going after. All he was at most was an executioner.
Wild speculation on your part. How do you know that "at most" he was an executioner? Do you know what evidence the German prosecutor has, or are you a keeper of an objective truth about his actions? I'm not saying he did this, but can a guard who kills prisoners in an extermination camp for fun be called an official executioner? I doubt it.

No but as an executioner its not a matter of being told to do it.
The state had declared people criminal by what ever means they had set up for that.
The executioner is not charged with second guessing the state, investigating crimes, or overruling judges. To set up such a precedent in international law would make the conduction of capital punishment impractical.
Not at all. There is worldwide precedent for just such a thing. In cases such as this one, where you clearly see crimes against humanity and genocide being comitted, you have a duty and a responsibility to "second guess" and not participate.

Do you really fail to see the difference between "second guessing" in one isolated case (compared to 29,000 during a year and a half) where someone is executed for a specific criminal act (not simply because they're of a certain race, for example) and where you can expect the rule of law to be followed (i.e. the person(s) being executed having been granted an actual trial before they're executed), and this case?

Most of the Serbians convicted were those who engineered it.
Also the Serbian murders involved dragging people from their homes and shooting them, and I haven't read a single account of a trigger man standing trial for that yet, though do link if you got one.
Radomir Kovač (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radomir_Kova%C4%8D), on the basis of individual criminal responsibility with:

- Violations of the laws or customs of war (Article 3 - rape; outrages upon personal dignity), and
- Crimes against humanity (Article 5 - enslavement; rape).
Sentence: 20 years' imprisonment. (Credit for time served since 2 August 1999)

Nice guy (http://www.un.org/icty/kunarac/trialc2/judgement/kun-tj010222e-5.htm#VC), not a soldier, still took part in an attack against muslim villagers. Raped a 12-year old repeatedly, among other things.

Zoran Žigić (http://www.un.org/icty/kvocka/trialc/judgement/index.htm). He worked for a short period of time in the Keraterm camp delivering supplies; he was also allowed to enter Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje camps regularly as a civilian. He was not instrumental in establishing the camps or determining official policies practiced on detainees therein.
In sum, the Trial Chamber finds Zigic guilty of the following crimes:

(a) Persecution (count 1) for the crimes committed in the Omarska camp generally and in particular against Becir Medunjanin, Asef Kapetanovic, Witnesses AK, AJ, T, Abdulah Brkic and Emir Beganovic and for crimes committed in the Keraterm camp against Fajzo Mujkanovic, Witness AE, Redzep Grabic, Jasmin Ramadonovic, Witness V, Edin Ganic, Emsud Bahonjic, Drago Tokmadzic, and Sead Jusufagic.

(b) Murder (count 7) with respect to crimes committed in the Omarska camp generally and against Becir Medunjanin in particular. In the Keraterm camp, murder (count 7) with respect to Drago Tokmadzic, Sead Jusufagic and Emsud Bahonjic.

(c) Torture (count 12), with respect to crimes committed in the Omarska camp generally and against Abdulah Brkic, Witness T, Witness AK, AJ, Asef Kapetanovic, in particular and to crimes committed in the Keraterm camp against Fajzo Mujkanovic, Witness AE , Redzep Grabic, and Jasmin Ramadanovic.

(d) Cruel treatment (count 13) with respect to crimes committed against Emir Beganovic in the Omarska camp and Hasan Karabasic in the Trnopolje camp.
Sentence: 25 years' imprisonment.

Mitar Vasiljević (http://www.un.org/icty/vasiljevic/trialc/judgement/index.htm), organized a paramilitary unit.
# The Accused has been found individually criminally responsible pursuant to Article 7(1) for:

a) Count 3, persecution as a crime against humanity pursuant to Article 5(h) of the Statute;

b) Count 4, murder as a crime against humanity pursuant to Article 5(a) of the Statute ;

c) Count 5, murder as a violation of the laws or customs of war pursuant to Article 3 of the Statute;

d) Count 6, inhumane acts as a crime against humanity pursuant to Article 5(i) of the Statute;

Sentence: 15 years' imprisonment.

Do you want more? How about Dragan Zelenović, a Bosnian Serb police officer? Or
Darko Mrđa, a Bosnian Serb police unit commander sentenced to 17 years?
Predrag Banović, a Bosnian Serb prison guard, sentenced to 8 years for murder, torture and persecution?
Duško Sikirica, a Bosnian Serb prison commander sentenced to 16 years?
Zoran Vuković, a Bosnian Serb soldier convicted of two counts of war crimes, sentenced to twelve years in prison?
Or an Army commander (http://www.un.org/icty/blagojevic/trialc/judgement/index.htm)? Or an Army general? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radislav_Krsti%C4%87)

It's amazing what some simple research can turn up. As you can see, people all through the chain of command - not just those who "engineered it", but civilians, paramilitaries, police, guards, soldiers, officers and generals - have been convicted and punished.

Go learn. (http://www.icty.org/)

This involves a prison facility(regardless of how illegitimate)
Debatable. It held prisoners, yes, but it's more accurate to describe it as an extermination camp. Because that's what the purpose of the camp was.

if he as a prisons execution is told that they were convicted and to be executed in accordance with the laws his culpability is limited.
And where did you conjure this up from? Not only concerning his culpability, but that he at some point supposedly have been told that the people have been convicted of anything?

Poison gas is an accepted means for
humane execution even by today standards
Really?
In short, we hold that the district court's extensive factual findings
concerning the level of pain suffered by an inmate during execution by
lethal gas are not clearly erroneous. The district court's findings of
extreme pain, the length of time this extreme pain lasts, and the
substantial risk that inmates will suffer this extreme pain for several
minutes require the conclusion that execution by lethal gas is cruel and
unusual. Accordingly, we conclude that execution by lethal gas under the
California protocol is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual and violates
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court's permanent
injunction against defendants is AFFIRMED.

Fierro, Ruiz, Harris v. Gomez - 9th circuit court (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cas73.htm)


It is not the executioners job to supervise the justice system.
It is his responsibility not to take part in genocide and crimes against humanity, however. When between 200,000 and 250,000 people are killed in your camp during 1,5 years, I find it impossible to accept the argument that "I was only an executioner, and I believed that all of these people had gotten a fair trial - women and children alike." Especially when they're led into what they're told are showers to be gassed.
There SS Scharfuehrer Herman Mitchell in a quiet, convincing voice, welcomed the Jews. He sympathetically apologized for the inconvenience of the trip and the difficulty in extending them a roof and a bed to relax in right away. First he explained, because of strict sanitary conditions, they must shower and be disinfected. Later, he assured them the able-bodied would work, get paid and live with their families until the war was won. The soothing speech of the well-mannered SS man had its effect.
http://www.sobibor.info/murder.html

He was already acquitted of being the guard who beat and tortured people.
In another camp.

They are executions as they were done by the state. As the suspect is only being accused of gassing the condemned,
Wrong.

He's accused of being "accessory to 29,000 murders (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,623665,00.html)". That he was merely an executioner and only being accused of gassing the condemned seems to be your own construction.

which is regarded as a humane means to conduct an execution both then and today(or at least as late as 1999). There was none of the making them dig their own graves, or any other of the nasty bits.
Gassing them in over-crowded "showers" isn't nasty enough? Does that mean that you thing Auschwitz (Birkenau) lacked "Nasty bits"? Most of the million people who died there were gassed, after all, and didn't have to dig their own graves or whatever.

So what about:The proceedings of the extermination followed two scripts: for Polish Jews already aware of Sobibor's true function, their treatment from arrival to their death in the gas chambers was cruel, accompanied by shots, killing on the spot for the slightest resistance, beating and terror.
Elderly people, the sick and invalids were told they would receive medical treatment. They were put in carts (later railway tippers were used) which were pushed by slave workers or pulled by a horse directly to the pits in Camp III, where these deportees were shot.
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.net/ar/sobibor.html
Guess that's not "nasty" enough either... Do you have any idea what happened in these camps? I'm seriously starting to doubt it.

He was in a job (executioner) that involved killing. Therefore killing in of itself is not a crime against humanity. The crime was that those who were killed were denied trial.
Wrong.

As an individual, you can have individual responsibility for your part in a crime against humanity. Being an "executioner" doesn't grant you any immunity against such types of crimes, crimes you should have understood were going on.

However it is not the executioner's job ascertain that subject had trial. Nor would he have the legal training necessary to ascertain that fact.
You wouldn't need to. In cases such as this it is obvious for anyone willing to understand that something is wrong. And it was no secret that most of the people who were killed were killed simply because they were jews. It's improbable that an executioner would fail to understand this. And thus he should be held accountable for his actions. See the ICTY judgements above.

So long as it can be shown the manner of execution was humane by the standards of the time(it is by today's), the prosecution must show he had reason to doubt proper legal procedure was being fallowed in the cases of the victims
And you're just making this standard up as you go?

If his job is an executioner then killing people in of itself is not grounds not grounds for a crime against humanity as that what is entailed by the job.
(c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp
Seems to me that being an executioner of several thousand people for simply being jewish fits this article.


Just like a lawyer can keep attorney client privilege, it is a requirement of the job.
You're confusing the individual case with the sheer volume of killings seen in this camp again. Also, you forget the whole point of the camp. Further, even attorney client privilege has reasonable limitations, especially if the planning of criminal acts are involved.

The only crime this man seems guilty of is Trusting the German legal system in the early 1940's.
Nonsense. And it's nonsense that you're making up too. Not even Demjanjuk himself is claiming what you are.

Oh, and as for the OP:
It doesn't amount to torture, but if it had, an extradition shouldn't happen.

Not at all. Nobody, from what I have seen, has advocated he be imprisoned without a fair and balanced trial created for the purpose of determining if he is guilty.
No, but some folks seem to view the man as a monster already; see your and Nesskia's exchange on the first page. Perhaps I'm being unfair, though.

Justice is a fair and unbiased determination of guilt followed by punishment for ones crimes. The interests of justice should never be stymied because those crimes happened "a long time ago"
It's not the length of time since the alleged crime, it's the magnitude of the crime.

If he's found guilty of the murder of 29,000 people (the figure I seem to remember from the OP's article; may be inaccurate), then a prison sentence, most probably only lasting a few years considering his age, seems... so distant from the crimes.

I can perhaps understand a retributivist argument for his alleged crimes, and I sympathise with the view that 'justice should prevail', I suppose it's just hard, and rather odd, dealing with an atrocity on that magnitude.

Israel held this guy for all those years. They thought he was Ivan the Terrible. When they found out he wasn't they let him go. Seems like Israel would have known if was a Nazi war criminal by any name. Sounds like sombody is just trying to grab a headline.

Wild speculation on your part. How do you know that "at most" he was an executioner? Do you know what evidence the German prosecutor has, or are you a keeper of an objective truth about his actions? I'm not saying he did this, but can a guard who kills prisoners in an extermination camp for fun be called an official executioner? I doubt it.

That's all the news reports have mentioned that he was a Ukrainian who operated the diesel engines that fed the gas chamber. anything more then that is just speculation on that point. As he is the defendant it would the burden of proof on those accusing him of doing any such thing.
[/quote]
Not at all. There is worldwide precedent for just such a thing. In cases such as this one, where you clearly see crimes against humanity and genocide being comitted, you have a duty and a responsibility to "second guess" and not participate.

Name me one person in this worldwide precedent who's sole duty was execution. Who more over carried out this execution in a recognized humane matter.

Do you really fail to see the difference between "second guessing" in one isolated case (compared to 29,000 during a year and a half) where someone is executed for a specific criminal act (not simply because they're of a certain race, for example) and where you can expect the rule of law to be followed (i.e. the person(s) being executed having been granted an actual trial before they're executed), and this case?
[/quote]
So the difference is only numbers ? So if we were to consolidate all executions in the US to be cared out by one person would he be a war criminal ? what is the magic number that you cease to be an executioner and become perpetrator of genocide ?

Radomir Kovač (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radomir_Kova%C4%8D), on the basis of individual criminal responsibility with:

- Violations of the laws or customs of war (Article 3 - rape; outrages upon personal dignity), and
- Crimes against humanity (Article 5 - enslavement; rape).
Sentence: 20 years' imprisonment. (Credit for time served since 2 August 1999)
The defendant in this case is not being charged with Rape.

Nice guy (http://www.un.org/icty/kunarac/trialc2/judgement/kun-tj010222e-5.htm#VC), not a soldier, still took part in an attack against muslim villagers. Raped a 12-year old repeatedly, among other things.

the defendant in the case at hand is not charged with raping a 12 year old

Zoran Žigić (http://www.un.org/icty/kvocka/trialc/judgement/index.htm). He worked for a short period of time in the Keraterm camp delivering supplies; he was also allowed to enter Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje camps regularly as a civilian. He was not instrumental in establishing the camps or determining official policies practiced on detainees therein.
In sum, the Trial Chamber finds Zigic guilty of the following crimes:

(a) Persecution (count 1) for the crimes committed in the Omarska camp generally and in particular against Becir Medunjanin, Asef Kapetanovic, Witnesses AK, AJ, T, Abdulah Brkic and Emir Beganovic and for crimes committed in the Keraterm camp against Fajzo Mujkanovic, Witness AE, Redzep Grabic, Jasmin Ramadonovic, Witness V, Edin Ganic, Emsud Bahonjic, Drago Tokmadzic, and Sead Jusufagic.

(b) Murder (count 7) with respect to crimes committed in the Omarska camp generally and against Becir Medunjanin in particular. In the Keraterm camp, murder (count 7) with respect to Drago Tokmadzic, Sead Jusufagic and Emsud Bahonjic.

(c) Torture (count 12), with respect to crimes committed in the Omarska camp generally and against Abdulah Brkic, Witness T, Witness AK, AJ, Asef Kapetanovic, in particular and to crimes committed in the Keraterm camp against Fajzo Mujkanovic, Witness AE , Redzep Grabic, and Jasmin Ramadanovic.

(d) Cruel treatment (count 13) with respect to crimes committed against Emir Beganovic in the Omarska camp and Hasan Karabasic in the Trnopolje camp.
Sentence: 25 years' imprisonment.

The only one relevant is B the defendant has otherwise not be charged with anything else. And that depends how the "murders" were carried out. Executions are different from murders both in the manner they are carried out and the intent of the actor.

Mitar Vasiljević (http://www.un.org/icty/vasiljevic/trialc/judgement/index.htm), organized a paramilitary unit.
# The Accused has been found individually criminally responsible pursuant to Article 7(1) for:

a) Count 3, persecution as a crime against humanity pursuant to Article 5(h) of the Statute;

b) Count 4, murder as a crime against humanity pursuant to Article 5(a) of the Statute ;

c) Count 5, murder as a violation of the laws or customs of war pursuant to Article 3 of the Statute;

d) Count 6, inhumane acts as a crime against humanity pursuant to Article 5(i) of the Statute;

Sentence: 15 years' imprisonment.

His murders did not take place in an execution environment. But during events like the Drina River incident. There is a significant diffrence between dragging people out of their homes and shooting them, and walking them to a gas chamber after a term of imprisonment.
[quote]
Do you want more? How about Dragan Zelenović, a Bosnian Serb police officer? Or
Darko Mrđa, a Bosnian Serb police unit commander sentenced to 17 years?
Predrag Banović, a Bosnian Serb prison guard, sentenced to 8 years for murder, torture and persecution?
Duško Sikirica, a Bosnian Serb prison commander sentenced to 16 years?
Zoran Vuković, a Bosnian Serb soldier convicted of two counts of war crimes, sentenced to twelve years in prison?
Or an Army commander (http://www.un.org/icty/blagojevic/trialc/judgement/index.htm)? Or an Army general? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radislav_Krsti%C4%87)

It's amazing what some simple research can turn up. As you can see, people all through the chain of command - not just those who "engineered it", but civilians, paramilitaries, police, guards, soldiers, officers and generals - have been convicted and punished.

Not a single one of them showing a person solely in an executioner's role.
If he committed torture, rape, and murder (outside of the standards of execution at the time ) then the prosecution either needs to adjust their indictment or drop the charges.

Go learn. (http://www.icty.org/)


Debatable. It held prisoners, yes, but it's more accurate to describe it as an extermination camp. Because that's what the purpose of the camp was.

We could also say the same of whats called the Walls unit in Huntsville Texas.
This Prison unit only houses death row inmates in Texas.

And where did you conjure this up from? Not only concerning his culpability, but that he at some point supposedly have been told that the people have been convicted of anything?

He is the defendant who show he was not issued writs of execution, until then he is innocent until proven guilty. The Nazis like most collapsing regimes destroyed their records.

Really?

Fierro, Ruiz, Harris v. Gomez - 9th circuit court (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cas73.htm)

yes, really.
TERRY STEWART, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al. v. WALTER LAGRAND 1999
And from Scotus not a circuit court.
[quote]
It is his responsibility not to take part in genocide and crimes against humanity, however. When between 200,000 and 250,000 people are killed in your camp during 1,5 years, I find it impossible to accept the argument that "I was only an executioner, and I believed that all of these people had gotten a fair trial - women and children alike." Especially when they're led into what they're told are showers to be gassed.

proof that he knowingly gassed children ?
And why bring up women ?? Are not equally capable of being charged with a capital crime?
http://www.sobibor.info/murder.html

But not all prisoners were gassed right off the train were they ?
If so things like the Sobibor uprising would not have been possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobibor_extermination_camp#cite_note-5
So proof he gassed those straight off the train ?


Wrong.

He's accused of being "accessory to 29,000 murders (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,623665,00.html)". That he was merely an executioner and only being accused of gassing the condemned seems to be your own construction.

Is there one reference to him killing anyone outside of the gas chamber ? I do not see it, the issue then is not means but circumstance. There has been no proof he was involved with killings of those in circumstances that would be criminal until their is I will defend him.

Gassing them in over-crowded "showers" isn't nasty enough? Does that mean that you thing Auschwitz (Birkenau) lacked "Nasty bits"? Most of the million people who died there were gassed, after all, and didn't have to dig their own graves or whatever.

So what about:

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.net/ar/sobibor.html
Guess that's not "nasty" enough either... Do you have any idea what happened in these camps? I'm seriously starting to doubt it.

Proof that the accused was involved in that ?

Wrong.

As an individual, you can have individual responsibility for your part in a crime against humanity. Being an "executioner" doesn't grant you any immunity against such types of crimes, crimes you should have understood were going on.


You wouldn't need to. In cases such as this it is obvious for anyone willing to understand that something is wrong. And it was no secret that most of the people who were killed were killed simply because they were jews. It's improbable that an executioner would fail to understand this. And thus he should be held accountable for his actions. See the ICTY judgements above.
[quote]
He was a Ukrainian who spoke only a little German (or at least now he does not speak German). This would cut him off from massive amounts of back chatter and lead certain assumptions in his duties.
[quote]
And you're just making this standard up as you go?
Gas is humane as a means of execution, as ruled in 1999 by Scotus.



http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp
Seems to me that being an executioner of several thousand people for simply being jewish fits this article.

Not all were Jewish, several Russians and gypsies.
Moreover Jews could not be proven by looks alone.
So prove that he knew they were all Jewish ?

You're confusing the individual case with the sheer volume of killings seen in this camp again. Also, you forget the whole point of the camp. Further, even attorney client privilege has reasonable limitations, especially if the planning of criminal acts are involved.

the issue is not about the camp or the Holocaust. It is about one man. Just because bad things went on at a camp does not mean is was a part of them. who specifically did he execute? did he even see them ? was he working under the assumption that these were condemned people ?


Nonsense. And it's nonsense that you're making up too. Not even Demjanjuk himself is claiming what you are.


Indeed he is claiming not to have been at the camp at all or a guard at any camp. I am working on the assumption that if he was at the camp the state has not shown that his actions amount to crimes against humanity.
this more and attempt by Germany to wash the blood off their hands by blaming foreigners in a Macbeth style manner.

The only crime this man seems guilty of is Trusting the German legal system in the early 1940's.

Iirc the German legal system in the early 1940's supported the use of trials before sending a person to the gallows. The extermination was illegal even by the laws of Nazi Germany.

Also, Nuremberg defence isn't exactly a valid defence.

Iirc the German legal system in the early 1940's supported the use of trials before sending a person to the gallows. The extermination was illegal even by the laws of Nazi Germany.

Also, Nuremberg defence isn't exactly a valid defence.

Proof that the defendant had no idea these people were not given trial ?
And proof that he was not shown writs of execution ?

From what I've read about the guy, he was a Ukrainian who was captured by the Nazis and forced to work as slave labor in the death camps.The guards usually weren't doing slave labor. Slave labor was used primarily as a cheap replacement for German industrial workers that had been drafted. To call guard duty at a death camp slave labor is insulting to anyone that's been through real slave labor.
If he's found guilty of the murder of 29,000 people (the figure I seem to remember from the OP's article; may be inaccurate), then a prison sentence, most probably only lasting a few years considering his age, seems... so distant from the crimes.May or may not happen. Unfortunately, there's precedent for letting high profile criminals run due to health issues (see Erich Honecker). Likewise, even if he gets convicted, they're likely to commute the sentence due to his age (the conviction being a symbolic gesture that the guilty have been found). Even so, Germany doesn't stack prison sentences like the US does. The worst he can expect is life in prison, which is 15 years unless he poses a threat to society.

Israel held this guy for all those years. They thought he was Ivan the Terrible. When they found out he wasn't they let him go. Seems like Israel would have known if was a Nazi war criminal by any name. Sounds like sombody is just trying to grab a headline.Israel let him go for not being Ivan the Terrible. The court that acquitted him from the charges was convinced that he was indeed a concentration camp guard. He wasn't on trial for being "a" guard in Israel, though, so they had to let him go.

And he isn't a Nazi, because he is Ukrainian not German.
Had to be a pure German Aryan to be a Nazi.
You have much to learn.
And I don't think that the USA claim that the Federal Republic of Germany tortures alleged criminals.
Actually, we don't torture. Our government doesn't even have to say "We don't torture."
But ve haff vays to make you talk none-ze-less!

Actually, we don't torture. Our government doesn't even have to say "We don't torture."In fact, you're in trouble if you so much as threaten torture.

In fact, you're in trouble if you so much as threaten torture.Unless you've friends with the christian-democrats, of course.

Hessen Hitler ftw.

Proof that the defendant had no idea these people were not given trial ?
And proof that he was not shown writs of execution ?

So you're essentially asking NSG to provide all the evidence the prosecution in Germany is currently holding, and that form the basis of them calling for another trial?
I think you're asking the wrong people, then. We don't have access to this information. But. like you, we would like to hear it, and to also hear the answers of the accused.
Which means flying him to Germany and making him stand trial.

In fact, you're in trouble if you so much as threaten torture.
Referring to that one Polizeichef I take it?

Referring to that one Polizeichef I take it?Jakob von Metzler kidnapping.

So if he was nothing but a guard. Drafted by force from his native Ukraine to work the levers to the gas chambers. Where exactly is his crime? He had no part in the forming of the holocaust, nor it's inception or any control in it's occurence.

Also doesn't the follow orders apply to officers, not to foot soldiers? I am sure Nuremburg and other courts made quite a clear distinction there. This man Demjanjuk, if he is what is so far known, would be nothing but an executioner? No different than the hundreds of executioners the US employs. He simply kills the people his Government decrees enemies of the State. Whether these people deserve it is not his pregorative, for those kind of questions men like Goehring and Himmler get dragged to court. To me it just seems like they're bothering an old man because they're frustrated at not being able to actually have gotten anyone that mattered.

I've moved around your post since you messed up the quotes, and taken the opportunity to reorganize it to better respond to it.

Name me one person in this worldwide precedent who's sole duty was execution.
Why? The precedent is there, under international law as I've presented before. And I could also point out that many judges in Germany were convicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity through the abuse of the judicial and penal process, resulting in mass murder, torture, plunder of private property; And they were following the laws on the books, "Just doing their job."

Of course there is a difference, but you still haven't explained why someone should be granted immunity against the worst crimes merely because of a job title. That simply doesn't fly, and when there's no exception we fall back under the main rule. Back to the principles laid out under the Nuremberg trials. And any executioner from Sobibor or Treblinka or Belzec would clearly fall under there.

As Der Spiegel describes it:
But the investigations center on Sobibor. Sobibor was purely an extermination camp, and anyone who worked there as a guard participated in murder.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,591257,00.html
Not a single one of them showing a person solely in an executioner's role.
Nor do I see anywhere that that's what the prosecutor has claimed Demjanjuk's role was either, btw.


So the difference is only numbers ? So if we were to consolidate all executions in the US to be cared out by one person would he be a war criminal ? what is the magic number that you cease to be an executioner and become perpetrator of genocide ?
:rolleyes:

It's not "only numbers", it's a question of the Bigger Picture. In your hypothetical, where he was only an executioner who killed people only because he had faith in the German legal system (which isn't an excuse in and by itself, but nevermind that now) and believed that they had gotten a trial and conviction - when he's taking part in executing one person, you might not have any reason to suspect that there's something very wrong going on. However, when he's taking part in executing 1200 people per day... Alarm bells should go off, and a reasonable man in your hypothetical situation should understand that something isn't right.

Especially when also considering the fact that the people killed are mainly jews, and in all age categories.

The defendant in this case is not being charged with Rape.
the defendant in the case at hand is not charged with raping a 12 year old

The only one relevant is B the defendant has otherwise not be charged with anything else.

His murders did not take place in an execution environment.
So quickly you've forgotten that you said:
Most of the Serbians convicted were those who engineered it.
Those examples I've shown you demonstrate that people all through the "chain of command", including individual soldiers, guards, and militamen, were convicted. Not just a small part of those convicted where from the lower echelons, nor only those who "engineered it".

There is a significant diffrence between dragging people out of their homes and shooting them, and walking them to a gas chamber after a term of imprisonment.
What's the difference?


If he committed torture, rape, and murder (outside of the standards of execution at the time ) then the prosecution either needs to adjust their indictment or drop the charges.
Why? Maybe you just have to understand what "accessory to murder" means instead?

We could also say the same of whats called the Walls unit in Huntsville Texas.
This Prison unit only houses death row inmates in Texas.
This comparison leads me to conclude that you really have no idea what an extermination camp was.


yes, really.
TERRY STEWART, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al. v. WALTER LAGRAND 1999
And from Scotus not a circuit court.
Ah yes. I was kinda hoping you'd claim that the LaGrand case was somehow a valid argument here. It's not, so not only are you still wrong, but you've just shown that you don't even read the judgements you throw around.

SCOTUS has never ruled on the constitutionality of lethal gas. It has, however, vacate the federal appeals court ruling that lethal gas was unconstitutional because the California legislature called for lethal injection unless a prisoner specifically requested lethal gas.

That was not what the LaGrand (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1412.ZPC.html) case was about however. The question before the court was if LaGrand, by his actions, had waived his claim that execution by lethal gas was unconstitutional. The Court found that he had, and that he could indeed waive his Eighth Amendment protections in the capital context.

The dissenting Justice did mention, however:
Justice Stevens, dissenting.

In my opinion the answer to the question whether a capital defendant may consent to be executed by an unacceptably torturous method of execution is by no means clear. I would not decide such an important question without full briefing and argument.

I, therefore, respectfully dissent.


Who more over carried out this execution in a recognized humane matter.

Gas is humane as a means of execution, as ruled in 1999 by Scotus.
Fist of all, wrong.

Secondly, why are you using a US standard when it comes to this question? He's not even a US citizen anymore. Now, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has considered the gas chamber torturous and inhumane, but disregard the UN for now.

He was Ukranian, "working" for the German government, in Poland. Neither of those countries view execution by gas as humane.


But not all prisoners were gassed right off the train were they ?
If so things like the Sobibor uprising would not have been possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobibor_extermination_camp#cite_note-5
Yes, there lived 600 - 800 prisoners at the camp. That'd be about 0,32% of all the people passing through there during the 18 months. Someone had to pull the gold fillings out of the teeth of the dead bodies, bury the dead, sort clothes, unload and clean the trains, cut wood for the pyres, burn personal artifacts, cut the women's hair, etc.

Is there one reference to him killing anyone outside of the gas chamber ? I do not see it, the issue then is not means but circumstance. There has been no proof he was involved with killings of those in circumstances that would be criminal

So proof he gassed those straight off the train ?
Proof that the accused was involved in that ?

You seem to have me confused with the German prosecutor. It's not my job to provide proof of this, nor am I privvy to what kind of evidence they have.


Not all were Jewish, several Russians and gypsies.
Moreover Jews could not be proven by looks alone.
So prove that he knew they were all Jewish ?
See above.
Though I wonder, could there possibly have been some hints...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/images/jude2.gif
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/nazioccupation/images/Belgian%20Jews%20wearing%20the%20star%20of%20David.jpg


That's all the news reports have mentioned that he was a Ukrainian who operated the diesel engines that fed the gas chamber. anything more then that is just speculation on that point. As he is the defendant it would the burden of proof on those accusing him of doing any such thing.
He is the defendant who show he was not issued writs of execution, until then he is innocent until proven guilty.
until their is I will defend him.
Why not let him defend himself - in a court of law?


He was a Ukrainian who spoke only a little German (or at least now he does not speak German). This would cut him off from massive amounts of back chatter and lead certain assumptions in his duties.
Let him make that excuse in court. Not that he will, because this is still just your constructed argument.

the issue is not about the camp or the Holocaust. It is about one man. Just because bad things went on at a camp does not mean is was a part of them. who specifically did he execute? did he even see them ? was he working under the assumption that these were condemned people ?
Let that become clear in court, let him explain how he had now idea that people were being killed in an extermination camp.


Indeed he is claiming not to have been at the camp at all or a guard at any camp. I am working on the assumption that if he was at the camp the state has not shown that his actions amount to crimes against humanity
Silly boy. Of course the state hasn't shown it. That's what the trial is for...

this more and attempt by Germany to wash the blood off their hands by blaming foreigners in a Macbeth style manner.
Nonsense.

So if he was nothing but a guard. Drafted by force from his native Ukraine to work the levers to the gas chambers. Where exactly is his crime? He had no part in the forming of the holocaust, nor it's inception or any control in it's occurence.
If the charges are to believed, he helped make it a reality. Thus he shares responsibility on an individual level.

Also doesn't the follow orders apply to officers, not to foot soldiers? I am sure Nuremburg and other courts made quite a clear distinction there.
Nope.
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/390?OpenDocument

However, it had an effect on sentencing.


This man Demjanjuk, if he is what is so far known, would be nothing but an executioner? No different than the hundreds of executioners the US employs. He simply kills the people his Government decrees enemies of the State.
Very different.

Whether these people deserve it is not his pregorative, for those kind of questions men like Goehring and Himmler get dragged to court.
You ignore the individual responsibility each person has not to contribute to genocide and war crimes. There's no indication whatsoever that he would have been under the impression that this wasn't genocide, or that he was executing people who had seen any trials. Men, women, children, elderly, almost all of them jews.

To me it just seems like they're bothering an old man because they're frustrated at not being able to actually have gotten anyone that mattered.
Like who?
Franz Stangl, the Commandant? Sentenced to life in prison.
Erich Bauer, the chief of the gas chambers? Sentenced to life in prison.
Karl Frenzel, chief of Lager I? Sentenced to life in prison.

He can really be happy that he wasn't caught by the Russians.
Some guards were tried in the Soviet Union: B. Bielakow, M. Matwiejenko, J. Nikifor, W. Podienka, F. Tichonowski and J. Zajcew were found guilty and executed for their part in the Sobibor crimes. In April, l963 at a court in Kiev where Sasha Pechersky was the chief prosecution witness, ten former Ukrainian guards were found guilty and executed and one was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment.
http://www.sobibor.info/murderers.html

Israel let him go for not being Ivan the Terrible. The court that acquitted him from the charges was convinced that he was indeed a concentration camp guard. He wasn't on trial for being "a" guard in Israel, though, so they had to let him go.

I dunno. Israel has shown the entire world that they can do whatever they please, whenever they want. But it looks like there is going to be a trial and JD will be on a plane tomorrow.

http://www.fox8.com/wjw-news-demjanjuk-removed,0,1396940.story

His claim is, he was a prisoner and never killed anyone. I hope he gets a fair trial and the truth comes out.

http://www.fox8.com/wjw-news-demjanjuk-appeals-arrest-warrant,0,4459221.story

In the seven-page typewritten statement, dated 1979, the guard, Mikhail Razgonyayev, said he did not remember Demjanjuk from either Sobibor or the Trawniki training camp where he is also alleged to have served.

Razgonyayev, a Soviet soldier taken prisoner by the Germans who then went to work for them, maintains further in the testimony that guards who did not participate in the killings were threatened by their German overseers with being sent to concentration camps themselves.


Should be an interesting case. If fellow testimony from other guards present there say they don't recall him ever serving in the camps, does this effectively kill the case once it does reach a court level? Does it hold an significance that all his fellow guards died of age, hence cannot be questioned, and only have their insistent stance that they don't remember him on a testimonial paper?


Also. Should it turn out he actually was a guard at the camps and not a prisoner. Does the second hold any significance? If he was actually threatened with murder, should he not process the gas chambers, does this absolve him of the murder charges? Since he was forced, under stress of his life, to commit actions he otherwise would not have?

If he was actually threatened with murder, should he not process the gas chambers, does this absolve him of the murder charges? Since he was forced, under stress of his life, to commit actions he otherwise would not have?
I know of no legal system which finds guilt in actions under duress.

What the fuck is the point of the gendered poll?

We all know wimminz are more sympathic to Nazis.

He can really be happy that he wasn't caught by the Russians.Ironic that it was Russian KGB files that saved him from being executed in Israel...
His claim is, he was a prisoner and never killed anyone. I hope he gets a fair trial and the truth comes out.
I think that's hilarious. He's not on trial for killing people, but for being an accomplice to murder.

So if he was nothing but a guard. Drafted by force from his native Ukraine to work the levers to the gas chambers. Where exactly is his crime? He had no part in the forming of the holocaust, nor it's inception or any control in it's occurence.

Also doesn't the follow orders apply to officers, not to foot soldiers? I am sure Nuremburg and other courts made quite a clear distinction there. This man Demjanjuk, if he is what is so far known, would be nothing but an executioner? No different than the hundreds of executioners the US employs. He simply kills the people his Government decrees enemies of the State. Whether these people deserve it is not his pregorative, for those kind of questions men like Goehring and Himmler get dragged to court. To me it just seems like they're bothering an old man because they're frustrated at not being able to actually have gotten anyone that mattered.

Germans didn't force people from occupied countries to be guards in the camps. If they were slave labourers, they would be doing the physical work.
Guard jobs were usually given to either Germans, or to local volunteers. So the simple fact that he was a guard points to definite willing cooperation (if he was, which will have to be established in the trial).

Goering was trialed and sentenced, as were most of the top ranks of the Nazi regime. Why would anybody be frustrated about that?

So if he was nothing but a guard. Drafted by force from his native Ukraine to work the levers to the gas chambers. Where exactly is his crime? He had no part in the forming of the holocaust, nor it's inception or any control in it's occurence.

Also doesn't the follow orders apply to officers, not to foot soldiers? I am sure Nuremburg and other courts made quite a clear distinction there. This man Demjanjuk, if he is what is so far known, would be nothing but an executioner? No different than the hundreds of executioners the US employs. He simply kills the people his Government decrees enemies of the State. Whether these people deserve it is not his pregorative, for those kind of questions men like Goehring and Himmler get dragged to court. To me it just seems like they're bothering an old man because they're frustrated at not being able to actually have gotten anyone that mattered.

Did he know that by pulling those levers he was killing people?

Well, he's arrived in Germany, and it seems like he'll have his day in court.

Accused Nazi death camp guard John Demjanjuk arrived from the United States on Tuesday to face charges he helped kill 29,000 Jews in 1943, and what is likely to be Germany's last major Nazi trial.
The Wiesenthal Center says Demjanjuk pushed men, women and children into gas chambers.
Demjanjuk, born in Ukraine, has denied any role in the Holocaust and a court could decide he is unfit to stand trial.

His lawyer said he was in a wheelchair and that an investigating judge had read Demjanjuk the 21-page warrant.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE54A5DJ20090512