Post by Doc Tony Post by Bolt Upright
FWIW, the best thing for everyone
Post by Bolt Upright
concerned would be if Demjanjuk were to drop down dead of a massive
aneurysm right now.
Considering how unmercifully the poor old man has been persecuted for
so many years, that's not unlikely. However, I would not regard it as
a just outcome. Now, if his persecutors were all to drop dead ... that
would be justice.
And there you have it! You make the call on that bit of purveyed
'justice' [!?] as AR nym, Al "not personally involved®" Smith, sees it.
Al, you 'do' know that this trial is in Germany and not in Israel, yes?
Just checking! You also give the impression that the trial is simply
some sort of one-sided J'accuse recitation especially by the himself 87
year old 'witness', one Alexei Weizen, and then Demjanjuk is wheeled
away, so to speak, and the case concluded forthwith but Demjanjuk has
not just the right of defense counsel but he is in fact duly represented
by Günther Maull and certainly the witness and the alleged
identification will be a focal point of the defense as a matter not so
much of and for the law itself but of common sense! So too, defense
counsel is well aware of the amount of years that have gone by for such
an identification and I believe he knows that without any need for
prompting and foot stomping from you to consider that issue.
It appears you already have the trial verdict in hand, Al, and my
question to you is how is this possible? Right now the trial is in
recess [as of February 4th] due to the defendant's health but it's
hardly over. The defendant also has the right of appeal [under German
law] even if he is found guilty but 'first' it seems prudent to at least
see what happens NOW before you make with the usual hand wringing and a
guilty verdict that has 'not' come in at this time. Why not leave the
matter to the defense counsel, Al, and see what happens or is it a case,
Al, where you and certain others, feel that the verdict has already been
determined well in advance ... you know, the demands of, as you put it,
"a small elite" who allegedly 'control' the BRD and, indeed, to hear
some revisionists say it, even the EU itself much less the BRD!
Get back to me on my other post to you, Al. Bad enough "Papagei®" Ebe
has made with the size 17-EEE track shoes for the last year and has been
beating feet ever since, why add your nym to the runner list, yes?
"I will not Tanz to the Jewish Fidel!" [sic -- Kurt "alte Puppe®" Knoll]
To 'X' -- I suggest two things: One, you make your remarks public and
two, before you ignorantly drop on me the nym J'accuse that I allegedly
"support thought repression" [sic], read my material [13 years of it!]
where I am on record as 'opposing' what 'I' term "thought legislation"
laws and again I'll add for the record that I am not the only so-termed
"anti-revisionist" that feels that way. The difference is, I have said
so publicly and given my reasons. And so have a few others.
I believe such thought legislation merely churns out "martyrs for
the[ir] cause" [Zundel, Lauck, Irving, et al] and accomplishes nothing
[** see the Gary Lauck website for immediate 'proof' of what some years
in a German 'joint' did for Gary ... catch Gary's SA threads too and not
to mention Gary's ridiculously cloned Hitler 'brush' mustache and the
forelock shtick!] but I've also stated that what other nations opt to do
is their sole prerogative and represents the majority will of such
nations with so-termed Holocaust denial laws [in whatever specific
wordage such laws are couched] and they are free under their presently
in-place democratic systems to either reject such laws at such future
date ==or== conversely, as they deem appropriate, even expand and
strengthen such laws. It's their call! Not "Jews and Zionists" [sic],
the individual nations and their people who enact such laws and
That said, and moving to the Demjanjuk matter, no verdict has been made
in this latest case being held in Germany. Clearly, the 'identification'
issue from witness Weizen, will be a veritable focal point of this trial
but to second-guess the result of such testimony at 'this' point is mere
flatus in the wind conjecture. ANY witness for the prosecution is
subject to cross examination on a variety of issues and I don't think it
takes a Harvard Law JD credential to figure that out and no matter the
geographical location of the court at least in the NATO nations. So too,
there are ramifications here because if there is a guilty verdict [**
still subject to appeal however at a higher judicial level], and
depending on the specific 'wordage' of the judgment, that 'could'
conceivably open the door to further prosecutions to virtually 'anyone'
who served in a KZ during the NSDAP era, even temporarily. Recall that
the originating charges involve [as translated and per German media
reports] "assisting in the murder of .... ", that opens a can of worms
which the judicial system will also have to consider. You don't, if a
guilty plea is rendered, grab a single camp guard in 2010 and render a
guilty verdict but then, what, concurrently give any and all known
others who ever stepped foot in a KZ as a guard a free ride? Again, the
'wordage' would be important as to any specific and named victim "you
did it" kind of thing [and as proven therein] ==versus== a wording of
"assisting in the murder of 'X' persons" which opens the door to further
prosecutions of 'all' who have served in that KZ guard capacity. I'm
simply mentioning ramifications but which, at this point in time, and
specific to the Demjanjuk case, still remains to be seen.
Now add this to the mix: I personally feel that murder PER SE should
'never' have any statute of limitations and, indeed, most legal systems
subscribe to that interpretation and indeed reality ==but== it begins to
get into a gray and murky areas when one talks of "assisting in the
murder of 'X' persons ...." when 'then', at least, and it seems to me,
that fairness 'demands' a 'very' specific knowledge of 'exactly' in what
precise capacity was this "assisting in the murder of 'X' persons" done!
In effect, would simply "being there as a KZ guard" be sufficient for an
indictment and prosecution? It 'is' known, BTW, that certain soldiers
who were recovering from wounds but not quite ready for service at the
front were 'temporarily' assigned to KZ's as a viewed "light duty" and
later returned to their original military unit. What of these? They were
there! The only thing reasonably certain is this: within 25 years hence,
2035+, 'all' the KZ 'guards' and associated 'administrative bodies' of
such KZ's and all 'witnesses' to same, should all be gone via natural
causes. Although I also believe that the horrors of same will and should
never be forgotten else once again the philosophical axiom of George
Santayana [1863-1952] is far too easily discarded and, in fact, history
is tragically repeated! That happens too. And all too often. I offer
Vietnam [** where I myself wore the uniform] and Iraq/Afghanistan as
just 'one' ad hoc example of same.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [--
George Santayana, "Reason In Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Volume 1,
p. 284 of 'Reason in Common Sense'", 1905-06]."