89-year-old former Auschwitz guard arrested in Philadelphia

[Brittain33]

If children and teenagers were old enough to be butchered while he stood outside making sure no one escaped, a young adult is old enough to be held accountable for his role in their murder.

Not to mention that while he was shooting civilians at Auschwitz, other young men his age from the US, UK, Soviet Union, and of course Germany were fighting and dying for their countries on the battlefield.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Regardless of whether or not it's right, how is this legal?  I had no idea you could be arrested for war crimes you were involved with over half a century ago, regardless of magnitude.

[The Dowager Mod]

Regardless of whether or not it's right, how is this legal?  I had no idea you could be arrested for war crimes you were involved with over half a century ago, regardless of magnitude.

Genocide has a statute of limitations? really?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Regardless of whether or not it's right, how is this legal?  I had no idea you could be arrested for war crimes you were involved with over half a century ago, regardless of magnitude.

Genocide has a statute of limitations? really?

Only if you're a politician.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Regardless of whether or not it's right, how is this legal?  I had no idea you could be arrested for war crimes you were involved with over half a century ago, regardless of magnitude.

Genocide has a statute of limitations? really?

Again, I was asking about the legality, not the morality.

[The Dowager Mod]

In the United States, the Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987 expressly states that there is no statute of limitations for the crime of genocide.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

In the United States, the Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987 expressly states that there is no statute of limitations for the crime of genocide.

Since that is the case, I have no further qualms about the extradition.

Clarification: My initial distaste at the arrest was due to the theater of it-dragging an old, dying man and putting him on trial (and possibly in prison, though he will spend any sentence he serves in a hospital I’m sure) seemed very unnecessary. But as there are no statutes of limitation, and the fact that it took them twenty years to build a case (they clearly have the evidence if their doing this now instead of just waiting for him to die), makes the arrest an actually legitimate prosecution.

Furthermore, I want to apologize for my gross lack of knowlege on the role of guards in the camp. Doing just the smallest bit of research has clearly proven me wrong on that one.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I'm all in favour for prosecuting surviving concentration camp guards too... be it for the sake of making a point.

And the point is: If you participate in a genocide - be it as a 19-year-old - you will never be able to get away from this. You can only hope to postpone the inevitable.

It may be something of a ordeal to be put through this legal process now as a 90-year old man. But then again, he did have the opportunity to turn himself in back in 1945. If you refuse to choose for yourself the moment where you face justice, this decision is eventually made for you by others.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I'm all in favour for prosecuting surviving concentration camp guards too... be it for the sake of making a point.

And the point is: If you participate in a genocide - be it as a 19-year-old - you will never be able to get away from this. You can only hope to postpone the inevitable.

It may be something of a ordeal to be put through this legal process now as a 90-year old man. But then again, he did have the opportunity to turn himself in back in 1945. If you refuse to choose for yourself the moment where you face justice, this decision is eventually made for you by others.

Eh... actually, if anything, this is probably a better motivator for not turning yourself in.  Based on the article, this guy didn't seem to have that hard of a life aside from a few immigration problems.  The fact that he's getting ready to pay his dues now kind of, well, sucks.

That aside, though, given that this is apparently consistent with the law, I have absolutely no problem trying him.  (That isn't to say I'd be staunchly opposed if it weren't, but consistency is kind of important when it comes to these things.)

[Middle-aged Europe]

I'm all in favour for prosecuting surviving concentration camp guards too... be it for the sake of making a point.

And the point is: If you participate in a genocide - be it as a 19-year-old - you will never be able to get away from this. You can only hope to postpone the inevitable.

It may be something of a ordeal to be put through this legal process now as a 90-year old man. But then again, he did have the opportunity to turn himself in back in 1945. If you refuse to choose for yourself the moment where you face justice, this decision is eventually made for you by others.

Eh... actually, if anything, this is probably a better motivator for not turning yourself in.  Based on the article, this guy didn't seem to have that hard of a life aside from a few immigration problems.  The fact that he's getting ready to pay his dues now kind of, well, sucks.

That aside, though, given that this is apparently consistent with the law, I have absolutely no problem trying him.  (That isn't to say I'd be staunchly opposed if it weren't, but consistency is kind of important when it comes to these things.)

Well, of course, criminals always try get away.

I meant it more as a justification why I won't lose any sleep over the fact that he's prosecuted now as a 90-year old.

[The Mikado]

Obviously, this man should have his day in court, and if convicted, should serve his punishment for committing war crimes, no matter how long ago it was.  I seriously don't get this idea that evading justice for three quarters of a century should be functionally the same as an acquittal.  Justice delayed is not optimal, of course, but it's still significantly better than justice denied.

[Hifly]

lol @ people literally defending a concentration camp guard. Congrats, forum, you have reached a new low today.

What threat does this man pose to society?  Do you feel threatened by an 89 year old man being at large?

It's happening when he is 89 because after World War II for many decades afterward, there was no interest or concern in tracking down or bringing justice to the men who committed these crimes against humanity

Who told you this? There was large scale involvement in bringing those responsible for crimes to justice. The fact that this man was never highlights that he played less than a minimal role in camp activities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How many people did he kill personally? Who told you this?
He's being accused of complicity. There is no evidence he has personally killed "large numbers of civilians".

Antonio V and yourself have very reactionary and conservative views on justice. But you have grown up in a country that still employs the Death Penalty so I'm not surprised.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

lol @ people literally defending a concentration camp guard. Congrats, forum, you have reached a new low today.

What threat does this man pose to society?  Do you feel threatened by an 89 year old man being at large?

It's happening when he is 89 because after World War II for many decades afterward, there was no interest or concern in tracking down or bringing justice to the men who committed these crimes against humanity

Who told you this? There was large scale involvement in bringing those responsible for crimes to justice. The fact that this man was never highlights that he played less than a minimal role in camp activities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How many people did he kill personally? Who told you this?
He's being accused of complicity. There is no evidence he has personally killed "large numbers of civilians".

Antonio V and yourself have very reactionary and conservative views on justice. But you have grown up in a country that still employs the Death Penalty so I'm not surprised.

Dude, the man was a guard for freaking Auschwitz.  I highly doubt he didn't do more than just smoke and drink coffee all day.  And, yes, technically he is innocent until proven guilty, but the evidence is going to be formally examined and weighed in good time.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

What is wrong with you people?

Obviously this guy is not going to harm anyone at 89 year olds but that's hardly the point, or at least not the whole point.

He was a willing accomplice in the most evil thing humanity has ever done and I think you all need to remember that when you're bravely rolling your eyes or calling it shenanigans.

Well said

Some folks on this board just prefer to oppose any commonly held belief, even if something such as "The Nazis were and are evil" is commonly held for damn good reason

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Regardless of whether or not it's right, how is this legal?  I had no idea you could be arrested for war crimes you were involved with over half a century ago, regardless of magnitude.

I believe there is no statute of limitations on murder in any state. I read a couple years ago about a guy arrested in Minnesota for a murder he committed in the 70s. Now granted that's far more recent than WWII, but really with the statute of limitations on any crime, might as well be the same, there's really no other crime you can be tried for from the 70s. So if killing just one person gets that, it makes sense killing far more would.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

This man is obviously awful and should face justice, though it's interesting that the war criminals who have held office for the past 60 years have not and will never get the same.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Regardless of whether or not it's right, how is this legal?  I had no idea you could be arrested for war crimes you were involved with over half a century ago, regardless of magnitude.

I believe there is no statute of limitations on murder in any state. I read a couple years ago about a guy arrested in Minnesota for a murder he committed in the 70s. Now granted that's far more recent than WWII, but really with the statute of limitations on any crime, might as well be the same, there's really no other crime you can be tried for from the 70s. So if killing just one person gets that, it makes sense killing far more would.

Yeah, but the crimes that this man is likely guilty of are far worse than murder (as you said), they transcend national boundaries, and they were committed in the midst of a war that ended more than half a century ago, which is why I questioned the legality of his prosecution.

[H. Ross Peron]

I like it when Nazi-scum is tracked down and brought to justice.

No matter how old they are ...

(normal)

[The Mikado]

This man is obviously awful and should face justice, though it's interesting that the war criminals who have held office for the past 60 years have not and will never get the same.

Milosevic ended up on trial at the Hague, though he died before his trial could be completed.  Karadzic and Mladic are both currently on trial.  Saddam Hussein was convicted of a tiny fraction of the murders he committed, but there's a scale issue there in that your punishment can't go higher than the death penalty.  Charles Taylor is serving a fifty year sentence for warcrimes.  It's true that a depressing amount of people do get away (Pol Pot and Idi Amin are especially glaring examples) and it's problematic in the extreme that someone like Omar al-Bashir might well die in office completely unobstructed by his indictment for war crimes, but war crimes trials can and do happen in the modern world to reasonable success.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

At this point I'm not sure why they're even bothering (and for the record I am Jewish, and if I were Harry Truman, I would deliberately extended the war against Germany to use the atomic bomb against them, they deserved it- but now they've more than paid their pennance)

As it was, the Americans had stopped pushing towards Berlin. Uncle Joe Stalin wanted dips on Berlin and he got it. Truman had no say in the matter of determing how long the War lasted, that was all dependent on how long it took the Red Army to steamroll Berlin by March/April/May 1945. Not driving into Bavaria and Austria, would have merely given the Soviets a bigger piece of Germany as well as all of Austria to "liberate", which could have meant a larger East Germany and a Communist Austria during the Cold War.

[IceSpear]

This man is obviously awful and should face justice, though it's interesting that the war criminals who have held office for the past 60 years have not and will never get the same.

Milosevic ended up on trial at the Hague, though he died before his trial could be completed.  Karadzic and Mladic are both currently on trial.  Saddam Hussein was convicted of a tiny fraction of the murders he committed, but there's a scale issue there in that your punishment can't go higher than the death penalty.  Charles Taylor is serving a fifty year sentence for warcrimes.  It's true that a depressing amount of people do get away (Pol Pot and Idi Amin are especially glaring examples) and it's problematic in the extreme that someone like Omar al-Bashir might well die in office completely unobstructed by his indictment for war crimes, but war crimes trials can and do happen in the modern world to reasonable success.

I think Snowstalker was using the True Leftist definition of war criminal, which roughly means "95% of current world leaders".

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

This man is obviously awful and should face justice, though it's interesting that the war criminals who have held office for the past 60 years have not and will never get the same.

Milosevic ended up on trial at the Hague, though he died before his trial could be completed.  Karadzic and Mladic are both currently on trial.  Saddam Hussein was convicted of a tiny fraction of the murders he committed, but there's a scale issue there in that your punishment can't go higher than the death penalty.  Charles Taylor is serving a fifty year sentence for warcrimes.  It's true that a depressing amount of people do get away (Pol Pot and Idi Amin are especially glaring examples) and it's problematic in the extreme that someone like Omar al-Bashir might well die in office completely unobstructed by his indictment for war crimes, but war crimes trials can and do happen in the modern world to reasonable success.

I was referring to the murderers who have sat in the Oval Office for decades.

[The Mikado]

This man is obviously awful and should face justice, though it's interesting that the war criminals who have held office for the past 60 years have not and will never get the same.

Milosevic ended up on trial at the Hague, though he died before his trial could be completed.  Karadzic and Mladic are both currently on trial.  Saddam Hussein was convicted of a tiny fraction of the murders he committed, but there's a scale issue there in that your punishment can't go higher than the death penalty.  Charles Taylor is serving a fifty year sentence for warcrimes.  It's true that a depressing amount of people do get away (Pol Pot and Idi Amin are especially glaring examples) and it's problematic in the extreme that someone like Omar al-Bashir might well die in office completely unobstructed by his indictment for war crimes, but war crimes trials can and do happen in the modern world to reasonable success.

I was referring to the murderers who have sat in the Oval Office for decades.

None of whom have even been indicted, let alone convicted, of warcrimes...?  I don't get this definition.

[GMantis]

I still don't see the point of punishing the guardsmen. They would have been shot if they didn't do what Hitler wanted to be done.

Nonsense. There is no record of any German soldier ever being executed, imprisoned or even seriously punished for not participating in atrocities. Plus the guards in the concentration camps were SS volunteers.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

This man is obviously awful and should face justice, though it's interesting that the war criminals who have held office for the past 60 years have not and will never get the same.

Milosevic ended up on trial at the Hague, though he died before his trial could be completed.  Karadzic and Mladic are both currently on trial.  Saddam Hussein was convicted of a tiny fraction of the murders he committed, but there's a scale issue there in that your punishment can't go higher than the death penalty.  Charles Taylor is serving a fifty year sentence for warcrimes.  It's true that a depressing amount of people do get away (Pol Pot and Idi Amin are especially glaring examples) and it's problematic in the extreme that someone like Omar al-Bashir might well die in office completely unobstructed by his indictment for war crimes, but war crimes trials can and do happen in the modern world to reasonable success.

I was referring to the murderers who have sat in the Oval Office for decades.

None of whom have even been indicted, let alone convicted, of warcrimes...?  I don't get this definition.

The leaders of great powers tend to be above the law. Only the thugs from litte countries (Liberia, former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, etc.) face justice.