Demjanjuk faces 27,900 accessory to murder counts
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. observers warn of Syria civil war after massacre
( 7 )
-
Obama on the defensive over spending, debt
( 18 )
-
Egypt's top candidates try to broaden support
( 1 )
-
Queen marks diamond jubilee riding wave of popularity
( 0 )
-
Thousands take part in 'Slut Walks' in Brazil
( 10 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
65 Comments
Login to comment
0
WhiteHawk
I thought someone, somewhere, had run one of those "facial bone recognition" scans on Demjanjuk and had determined he was, in fact, Ivan the Terrible. Does anyone remember that? It's been a while, probably the 80's.
0
sabiwabi
He spent years on death row because they had lots of "evidence" and "witnesses" certifying that he was Ivan the Terrible. But then they found the real "Ivan the Terrible", so they had to let him go.
How do we know the "evidence" and "witnesses" are any more legit this time. Leave the poor guy alone, he's suffered enough.
0
grafton
I think the it is very reassuring that even alter having been found guilty in Israel as Ivan the terrible the Israelis continued to keep working to be sure that justice was being genuinely done & did eventually release this man. However having once been brought into public view it was impossible that his real past would not be found out. As for any extreme rightist ideas that he should be left alone, I think they might need to be reminded that many of the people he killed might also have wanted to be left alone & THEY were genuinely innocent of any wrong doing.
0
WhiteHawk
sabiwabi:
Eh? When did that happen?
0
kinniku
Easy...it is something called a t,r,i,a,l. Just as in the trial to which you are referring, both sides will be heard. If the prosecution cannot provide enough evidence, he will be released.
0
sabiwabi
In the previous TRIAL, they provided "evidence" and "witnesses" to prove that he was Ivan. At that TRIAL, he was sentenced to death and he spent years on death row. His family worked very hard and were able to identify the real Ivan. That is the only reason they let him go. If his family did not work so hard (and get lucky) to find the real Ivan, he would have been executed as a result of that TRIAL. I wonder what happened to all those who LIED at the previous TRIAL.
How do we know he killed them? Don't forget, he was going to be executed because they had a "TRIAL" with "irrefutable proof" that he was Ivan the Terrible, but he wasn't Ivan.
How do we know the evidence is any better this time?
0
sabiwabi
Yeah, funny how most articles about this guy never mention this detail? I wonder why...
0
kinniku
In A previous trial, you mean. In the directly previous trial, he was aquitted in Israel, by the Israeli Supreme Court.
Heh, there you go again. Could you please provide even one scrap of real and specific evidence that someone purposefully lied? You know, lying would be like linking an article claiming it revealed something to do with the Iranian election, when in reality the article was talking about US elections...You know, like you did...
Eh hem....that is what a TRIAL is for. You know, the trial you seem to dislike the idea of so much.
We don't...that is why there will be a TRIAL...
That trial is finished now. It is done. However, I find it entertaining that you somehow think being aquitted in a trial means you cannot be tried for anything else every again. You see, the two things have nothing to do with each other. The man should be considered innocent until proven guilty. However, to complain about different charges being filed is rather ridiculous. Well, ridiculous unless you are still having trouble deciding whether the Nazis were good or bad. Then the rediculousness takes on your usual entertaining aspect.
0
kinniku
Hmm...yeah, I wonder why you asked such questions when even in this particular article they mention 'this guy'. Really, you need to brush up on your phonics and reading...
From the very article we are all reading and discussing:
"However, the conviction was overturned by the Israeli Supreme Court after evidence emerged from Soviet archives that “Ivan” was a different Ukrainian named Ivan Marchenko."
0
smithinjapan
I don't agree with sabiwabi that he should be simply 'left alone', but I do agree that there needs to be DEFINITIVE evidence against this man, since witch-hunts like this have, as in the past, turned up the wrong people. This man was convicted to death and then later released upon the real criminal being found.
If there is sufficient evidence, and again so long as it's definitive, charge the man -- it's time to pay the piper. But if it is not conclusive, let him go.
0
kinniku
smithinjapan,
Yes, I agree. However, there are times when a trial is the best way to have the evidence weighed. Hopefully, everyone will have their evidence in order and justice will prevail.
0
sabiwabi
It is clear from the previous trial that some people just wanted to see someone hang for the alleged holocaust and they made up evidence and got eye witnesses to say whatever was needed to say to get the guy executed. He was sentenced to death in 1988 and this was overturned in 1993 only after his family were able to find the real Ivan. That is a very long time to be waiting for an execution for being someone you're not.
After the real Ivan was identified, why didn't they go after these liars, to find out what were their motivations. Are these the same people who are going after him again this time? From what I have seen, there isn't much in terms of evidence this time, definitely nothing coming close to the "evidence" they had in his first trial.
0
sabiwabi
Here is a snippet from
http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=18633
Dieter Lehner, the expert from the Demjanjuk defense team, has exposed the ID card as a total fabrication, a discovery matching those of the German Federal Criminal Police Office. Even though the Israeli authorities were already apprised of this fact by the Federal Criminal Police as early as 1987, the Court suppressed this information. Chief Prosecutor Michael Shadek commented merely:
"As far as I am concerned Demjanjuk did commit murders - whether in Treblinka, in Sobibor or elsewhere, that's secondary."
And in response to the objection that the Federal Criminal Police Office had proven the SS ID card to be fake:
"We are relying on our own expert reports and consider them no less convincing than before."[10]
But German authorities also played a strange game where the forged Trawniki ID card was concerned. For example, the Münchner Merkur reported that the Federal Chancellery itself saw to it that the Demjanjuk defense team did not learn of the German expert reports by Lehner and the German Federal Criminal Police Office [Bundeskriminalamt, BKA], and that the latter was ordered from higher-up to keep silent about its findings. And what is more: the expert witness from the BKA who did ultimately take the stand in the Jerusalem Court after all, had been instructed by the German authorities to draw up a partial report for this trial, dealing exclusively with certain similarities between the retouched ID card photo and John Demjanjuk's real-life features. In this way the impression was evoked in the Jerusalem Trial that the ID card was genuine. The partial report was submitted by BKA expert Dr. Altmann. In a memo he drew up at that time, BKA Department Chief Dr. Werner described these actions of the German authorities thus:
"Clearly, factual doubts had to be subordinate to the political considerations."
It has turned out that the photograph on the ID card is an old photo of Demjanjuk from 1947 which was taken from his American immigration file(!) and retouched for the ID card.
When the first doubts were raised about the authenticity of the heretofore unknown ID card, the Jerusalem Court suddenly had several other specimens of identical make on hand; the origin of these cards, which were also fabrications, has not been determined.
0
skipthesong
Hey Sabi, why has this grabbed you so much?
0
kinniku
skip,
Simply because he sees this thread as a way to promote his holocaust denial. What is very interesting is his constant claiming of fantastic theories and his using racist and anti-semitic websites (VHO being one of them) to 'back up' these claims. Even funnier is him linking a racist internet bulletin board to 'back up' his claims.
0
Madverts
What a waste of time and money. Whether he's guilty or not is immaterial - these people are long dead and a guilty verdict isn't going to bring them back...
Tyring one person for the crimes of thousands seems ridiculous.
0
kinniku
Madverts,
Of course, you have a right to your opinions. However, IMHO, there should be no statute of limitations on murder or murder-related crimes. Whether the victims are long dead or not, there should be a trial if there is a suspect. The point is not to 'bring back the victims', it is to see justice done.
Not if they are suspected of having a connection to them, it isn't.
0
Madverts
Kinniku,
What will "justice" entail, were he to be found guilty?
I understand and respect your opinions, but show trials such as this only serve to bring the conspiracy nuts like sabiwabi out of the wood-work and not a lot else. What about the thousands uopn thousands of other Nazi's that slipped out of the internment camps free to end their lives, as the vast majority of thse people already have?
Trying one person for the crimes of many absolves the rest IMO.
0
skipthesong
Sabi, its only one guy. Its not like they have come down on every person of European heritage.
0
kinniku
Madverts,
To me? Justice would be the decision of innocence or guilt. For me, nothing more would be needed.
Mr. Demjanjuk should only be tried for crimes to which he is somehow connected. As to the other Nazis you have referred to, obviously justice was not served in those cases. That is all the more reason to seek justice in cases such as these.
Although I certainly understand your point about the conspiracy nuts, in my experience on the internet mere discussions of everyday events bring them out of the woodwork as well. Their ability to make fantastic connections to unconnected events and weave unrealistic stories around their fabricated conspiracies would make a schizophrenic envious.
0
sabiwabi
That decision was already taken, when they DECIDED that he was Ivan the Terrible. That would have been good enough for you, it seems. Fortunately it wasn't good enough for his family, who struggled hard to find the real Ivan. It seems German (and American) officials played an important part in falsifying evidence in the first trial. Him going to a new "trial" in Germany is not very reassuring.
0
kinniku
No, he was aquitted. Don't you even read what YOU write?
Please consider dealing in reality, if even for just a few moments. I believe in justice. He was aquitted. That was justice. As for your opinions about what would be good enough for me, as usual, you are incorrect. What is good enough for me is that all evidence be presented and judged at trial. What seems good enough for you, based on your comments here, is to ignore any and all evidence about any suspect and 'leave them alone'. That is ridiculous.
Meh. Says you based on a racist internet bulletin board linking and quoting a racist website. Yes, again please do tell us how you haven't as yet decided whether the Nazis were good or bad yet...then get back to us on how not very reassured you are...
That's alright, it seems you weren't very reassured when he was on trial in Israel and he was aquitted. So it seems you don't really know what you are talking about.
0
sabiwabi
This is my last reply to you, I hate wasting my time explaining things to someone who pretends to not understand very simple concepts.
A decision was taken, he was convicted and sentenced to death for being Ivan the Terrible. FIVE (5) years later, that conviction was overturned when they found the real guy. If they had not worked tirelessly to find the real guy and if they didn't get lucky, they would have executed him because the initial FALSE conviction was good enough for them, and it seems it would have been enough for you.
This guy spent 5 years on death row, he was not treated fairly.
You don't get justice by dishonestly going after an innocent guy.
0
kinniku
Awww...boo hoo!
By very simple concepts it seems you mean idiotic and racist conspiracies shown on idiotic and racist internet bulletin boards which link idiotic and racist websites. If so, it is not that I pretend to not understand, it is that I simply don't care for idiotic or racism unrealistic conspiracies...
Yes. Justice was served.
Ummm...any time a defense team is unsuccessful, their client loses. Not particularly unusual. Of course, if the defense initially does not do their job effectively enough, they will likely lose. Welcome to the real world.
No, justice being served is good enough for me...
He was found guilty, so of course he was put in jail. Do you expect people who are found guilty to be released? I can see it now: Judge Sabiwabi has decided that all convicted people will be released! I have never said life has treated Mr. Demjanjuk fairly. However, it is hardly unusual for a convicted person to be held in prison...
And you don't get to claim dishonesty merely by using idiotic and racist message boards and websites. I have asked many times what your specific proof of lies are. Yet, you are unable to answer. You have claimed witnesses lied. Yet, unsurprisingly, you are completely unable to provide any specific proof of purposeful lies.
Again, it really does seem as if you have no idea what you are talking about.
0
thundercat
Why not just charge him with all 10 million counts of murder?
Kinniku, we've been over this before. Your definition of 'justice' refers only to the legal definition. Your 'justice' has nothing to do with fairness, only what is determined at trial. If he were executed after the original trial only to be acquitted postmortem you would still consider it 'just', while most of us would be appalled. You defend the injustice of his first trial with the 'justice was served' (your words) of the second trail. Admit that the first trail was injustice and then people might understand your position better.
0
kinniku
thundercat,
It seems only you and Sabiwabi (great company you have found yourself with BTW) have trouble understanding my position. The word 'injustice' indicates to rational people outright lying or dishonesty. Do you have specific proof of purposeful lies in the first trial or are you also just blowing wind?
Meh. Sabiwabi has already tried to decide what I think. You are not doing any better. The man was not executed. Although it took longer than it should have, justice was eventually served. It seems you and Sabiwabi would have all trials cancelled because there is a possibility there may be a mistake. Sorry but those of us in the real world prefer to try our suspects in court rather than just letting everyone go.
0
BeaverCleaver
Well, both Sabi and Kinniku have made errors it seems, but Kinniku's attitude is really the pits. And while Sabi has some historical errors, Kinniku's are both historical and incorrect just within the context of the thread. Sabi clearly said the case was overturned. But Kinniku accuses him of saying he was acquitted, which he didn't and which never happened historically.
No matter Sabi's past or affiliations, I have to give this one to him, but emphasize that he is far from perfect himself.
There are good reasons to believe Demjanjuk is guilty of the new charges, as they were even suspected back when his other sentence was overturned. In fact, indentifying him as a DIFFERENT guard was just as much part of the process of oveturning his conviction as declaring someone else to be the real Ivan even thought the real Ivan was never actually found!
Kinniku's assertion of "well, there was a T=R=I=A=L" is rightly taken to task by Sabi. One trial is not necessarily any better than another, and his previous one has been shown to be very bad indeed.
Demjanjuk really lucked out in being mis-identified as Ivan. He lucked out not being discovered sooner. I think his luck is at an end.
But he may have earned his luck. Remember, he was NOT Ivan. He was a lesser guard and not a memorable one at all. What EXACTLY did he do at the camp? You tell me. I don't see that info anywhere. And do you know how he got to be a guard? To save his butt, that's how. He was originally a prisoner of war of the Nazis. You think them was happy days for a Russian POW in Germany? Heck no. He had two choices: collaborate or die. None of his kids would be alive if he had chosen the latter.
So, until I hear clear evidence that he actually killed someone with own hands, you know, did more than just be a coerced guard at a death camp, then I say let him go. 5 years on death row was already more punishment than he deserved.
0
kinniku
BC,
What are you on about? Demjanjuk was aquitted by the Israeli Suprem Court. That is the one thing everyone here agrees on (except you it seems). Heh, at least it is better than when you had trouble telling the difference between Iran and Iraq. Now what was it I was 'incorrect' about again. You see in all your rambling, you never actually mentioned...
0
thundercat
Your last two posts have been classic smear jobs Kinniku and don't actually address any of the points brought up against your argument. You accuse me of 'being in the company' of someone with whom I most certainly am not. You attack my credibility by accusing me of 'not living in the real world' without even scratching the surface of the point I made. You outright lie in your assertion that I would rather just 'let everyone go' and that 'all trails should be cancelled because there is a possibility there may be a mistake'. Two things I have never said. And you bring up completely irrelevant, off-topic points about BC not being able to tell the difference between Iran and Iraq to make him/her seem stupid and therefore invalidate their argument.
Not that I actually expect you to answer my question (since you didn't the first time) but here it goes. Do you think the first trial was 'justice served' (as you so like to put it)?
(bracing myself for insults and accusations!)
0
usaexpat
So Israel decided he wasn't Ivan the Terrible but now we think he was a murderer at another camp. Who knows if the guy's guilty or not, this far down the road witnesses are few and memories frail. Nothing will be gained by imprisoning this guy for a few years until he dies of old age. I used to wholeheartedly support the nazi hunters but I think their day has come and gone and now it's merely a show.
0
kinniku
thundercat,
Maybe you should read more closely before you suggest I did not answer your question or points. I addressed all of them, as I will again. If you jump on to defend others, you certainly become one of their company, especially when it seems you have not taken the time to read the whole thread.
Now to your points (again). I suggest you are in the company of the posters I suggested, because you have chosen to align yourself with them while completely ignoring all conversation in the thread up to that point. You did that the last time we conversed as well. As I mentioned then and I will mention again, Sabiwabi is suggesting a Jewish/Israeli conspiracy is behind this trial. He is suggesting witnesses purposefully lied, etc. He is suggesting this is the source of the lack of 'justice' because the trials took place in Israel. My point has continued to be that although (I am repeating myself, but it seems you did not read it the first times both in this and our other thread) he lost the first trial and justice took longer than it should have, Mr. Demjanjuk did eventually get justice and he got it in Israel. You asked if I think he got justice in the first trial. I think he got the same chance anyone would have to get justice in the same case. Of course, we all know now the decision in the first trial was incorrect. So, no, according to the ruling in the second trial, 'justice was not served' at the end of the first trial. However, the question is a difficult one, because the court system had not run its course at the end of the first trial. There was a second ruling. It is like asking if justice has been served mid-way through questioning, instead of waiting for the answer. I have brought this point up again and again and answered you again and again, I have never said the man got a fair shake in life. I just said it appears he got a fair trial.
Now, I am sure BC appreciates your defence as much as other posters do, however the man accused me of making errors and doesn't manage to write any of them. In addition, he writes that I am 'accusing' Sabiwabi of saying Demjanjuk was aquitted by the Israeli Suprem Court. It is a rediculous thing to write as plainly we are all aware that Mr. Demjanjuk was aquitted (except for BC it seems). I'm sorry, but this is completely similar to him thinking Israel bombed Iran in the early 80's. He did not even read the very thread on which he is accusing me.
Maybe it would be better to actually read the conversations of people before you decide to jump in the middle (again). Then you might understand their positions better...
0
thundercat
Kinniku,
To start off, you seem to love these hatchet jobs of yours. Point to one single post were I aligned myself with anyone else posting on this thread. Because I disagree with you, you try to lump me in with holocaust deniers which is NOT TRUE! Instead of apologizing, like any rational person would have done, or even admitting that you were wrong (which is the minimum you could have done) you continue your libelous meandering.
Now to address your post (and please take note I will NOT go after your character, please show me the same respect!) 90% of your reply is in response to Sabiwabi's posts, not mine. Please understand (I'll say for the second time) that he and I have very different opinions about this topic. If you continue to choose to ignore that then your arguments are moot as they do not concern my post. My question was not a difficult one, as you suggested, it was a very simple one. 'Do you think that Demjanjuk received a fair trial?' After some long winded rambling about comments another poster made (which you do AGAIN to try and associate me with someone that I am not associated with!) you finally say
5 years on death row for a crime he didn't commit is justice? Again and again you use the over-ruling of the second trial as a basis for your belief that Demjanjuk received justice. It's absurd!
This point you make is really interesting:
If that is how you feel about the justice system than I question whether or not you actually understand anything about trials at all. A trial is complete, in its entirety, once a verdict is read. When we are talking about someone's life (especially the death sentence) the state does not ever have the luxury of getting it wrong. When they get it wrong it is injustice, plain and simple. Following your line of reasoning, if he had spent 50 years on death row only to have his case over-ruled you would still consider it 'justice served'.
So no, Demjanjuk did not receive a justice in Israel. He was deported for a crime he didn't commit. He had his immigration status revoked for a crime he didn't commit. More importantly, he spent 5 years on death row for a crime he didn't commit. Oh, but because he wasn't executed in Israel he received justice? Give me a break.
BTW, I wasn't defending BC, just showing a clear and undeniable pattern of ad hominem attacks in your posts. And technically, BC was right about Mr. Demjanjuk not being acquitted as the second trial was an appeal which can only overturn a previous ruling not actually acquit a defendant.
0
kinniku
thundercat,
No hatchet job. You jumped into the conversation without once considering the context in which my comments took place. This is the second time you have done that.
By jumping into the middle of a conversation without making any distinction in your argument you appeared to align yourself with the poster mentioned. This is especially true given the timing in which you jumped in.
If that is not the case, I apologize. Not for my reaction to what you wrote, but for misunderstanding what you wrote. Again, if you are going to jump head long into a conversation like a bull in a china shop, expect to look upon like a bull.
Again, this problem of not reading what I write and deciding how I feel about something. I never wrote that 5 years on death row was justice...
It is not absurd. In the second trial he did receive justice.
Umm...not in this instance it wasn't. There was a second trial and the original verdict was overturned and Mr. Demjanjuk was aquitted.
I agree. Nothing I have written states otherwise...
I agree. Nothing is what I wrote states otherwise...In the second trial, they got it right.
No, I would think it was finally justice served...you would understand that if you had truely read my above response and my answers within to you...
No, the truth came out. That is justice. He received a fair trial based on the evidence. I have never said he deserved to be arrested, deported, tried or inprisoned. I have merely said he was treated fairly based on the evidence at the time...
Yes, you were and do so again in this post.
While I am sure your Israeli law credentials are quite impressive. You are mistaken as was BC on two points. One, I brought up the fact that the Israeli Supreme Court overturned the conviction by quoting the above article. Two, the Israeli Supreme Court overturned the conviction and Based on that he was aquitted. This is a matter of historical fact and it has even been mentioned many times in various reports of the trials.
0
sabiwabi
What do you mean? I have been [FALSELY] accused of being a nazi, conspiracy nut, anti-semite, muslim.
I am just one who refuses to believe things blindly, especially when they are scientifically impossible.
Anyway, the fact that the German and American governments were involved in providing faked documents in his previous trial is not reassuring. How do we know the evidence is any more credible this time?
0
thundercat
Sure thing Kinniku, don't let something as inconvenient as logic get in the way of a good rant. I guess I didn't read the fine print on the JT posting rules that stated one is not allowed to voice their opinion on a topic after 25 posts, otherwise they will be subject to personal attacks. When you attack someone's credibility making up lies about that person's opinion, what they have said, who they associate with and their level of intelligence to try and undermine the points you ARE doing a hatchet job.
This denies the reality of this case. You can't argument that he received justice in Israel if you think 5 years on death row for a crime you didn't commit is injustice. That is an illogical assertion.
Is this really how you define justice?? So if he were executed, but later exonerated for the crime, you would consider that justice as well. After all, the truth would have come out.
This is where we have a serious disagreement. You feel that truth, one way or the other, is more important than this man's life. If he were found not guilty in this case and died as the judge read his verdict, you would be satisfied that the truth was finally known, even though he spent the last days of his life in prison for a crime he didn't commit. Neither of us knows the evidence that is being used in this case but I sure hope it is more substantial than what was used to convict him the first time. When trying an 89 year old man on 60 year old charges authorities had bet err on the side of caution. Something that doesn't seem to happen often in these kinds of trials (and which obviously didn't happen the first time he was charged).
As a final note, I can see that you just can't help yourself when going after someone's credibility with your
nonsense. Grow up.
0
kinniku
Also, one who still has not decided whether the Nazis were good or bad yet, but always has time to harp on about unrealistic conspiracy theories about holocaust denial, Jews, Israelis, people you have decided are Jews even if they are not, etc.
Nah, what is not reassuring is that your only evidence is racist and idiotic message boards and website...
0
kinniku
thundercat,
Please...you aimed your opinions directly at me while I was in the middle of a conversation and you jumped right in repeating what had been said by the person with whom I was conversing. Had you just made a random comment your point would be valid. However, you were talking directly to me.
Absolutely not. In the second trial he did receive justice. It is a plain and simple fact.
Please...the man's conviction was overturned and he was aquitted. That is justice. Were he to have been executed, it would not have been justice.
As to your last comment, it is not I that needs to grow up if you are not able to read about a story and realize the man was aquitted. You sought to pontificate about how he was not aquitted, when he was. You were mistaken.
Moderator: Kinniku, Thundercat, please stop sniping at each other.
0
thundercat
Post one example of my 'pontificating'.
My point, from the beginning, was that you have a very different idea of justice from a lot of people. A man can spend 5 years on death row and you consider it justice. In fact, a man could be executed for a crime he didn't commit and you would consider 'justice served' as long as his innocence is eventually prove. After all, justice is truth to you, not fairness (the point I was making all along!!). His deportation was unjust. Losing his immigration status was unjust. Spending 5 years on death row was unjust. But, he wasn't executed in the end and the 'truth' came out so that is justice.
0
kinniku
thundercat,
Fair enough. I overspoke with regard to that word. However, you did not even check your information before deciding I was incorrect and needed correcting.
Again, nope. I never wrote that and in fact, have written the opposite several times now.
Nope. Again, see above...
Nope. I have mention to you several times that I thought life was not fair to Demjanjuk. Fair and justice with regard to the law are not always the same thing.
I agreed with you on this a couple of times already.
Yes. The truth coming out and his being freed is justice. I am glad you finally understand...
0
sabiwabi
To some, it seems getting justice means going through the justice system, regardless of whether its fair. I guess with that kind of reasoning, one could say that those who were thrown in concentration camps by the Nazis also got justice (the Nazis too had laws too).
And that German and American governments were involved in providing fake documents and deceiving the Israeli court seems to also be considered getting justice.
0
kinniku
No, it means going through a justice system with no evidence of dishonesty, etc... What did you specifically think was not fair about the trial? What specific provable lies can you describe?
Hmm...interesting...I remember you saying as much a few times in the past excusing the concentration camps because the Jews were as you put it, 'enemies of state' or some such nonsense. However, no, you are incorrect as you have not shown that the laws in regard to the justice system Mr. Demjanjuk were immoral or racist in some way. Rational people know the Nazis laws were faulty, immoral and racist...So your comparison fails. Nice to see you couldn't manage to stay away though!
0
kinniku
By the way, I should correct what I wrote above...
I meant to write: 'Fair in life and justice with regard to the law are not always the same thing. '
This, of course, follows what I have been saying in this thread.
0
BeaverCleaver
Kinniku-"Now, I am sure BC appreciates your defence as much as other posters do, however the man accused me of making errors and doesn't manage to write any of them."
Arguing with you is like trying to train a dog that has rabies. I wrote down your errors. A conviction over-turned is not an acquittal, certainly not after spending 5 years on death row.
The wiki on Demjanjuk clearly says he was convicted and had his conviction overturned 5 years later. And you cannot point us to any source telling us he was acquitted.
Kinniku "No, he was aquitted. Don't you even read what YOU write? "
This you wrote to Sabi even though he clearly and accurately said the conviction was overturned.
You have made two factual errors. One was the historical fact, and two was the words of Sabi. And your attitude there and still is extremely bad, offensive, and just plain ridiculous and uncalled for.
And I do appreciate thundercat's words mostly because he has described you to a T. Hatchet job artist. I am not going to reply to you anymore in this thread either. You have obviously lost it.
0
kinniku
BC,
Sigh, First of all, the five years has nothing to do with the terms overturned or aquitted.
Second:
Sigh,
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-04/news/mn-203541supreme-court
"Contrary to the Justice Department's stance, the man Israel ****acquitted**** of being Nazi death camp guard "Ivan the Terrible" must be allowed to return to the United States while the propriety of ..."
Also from the same LA Times article:
"Ed Nishnic, Demjanjuk's son-in-law who flew to Ohio Monday night from Israel to hear the decision, said that the family was "elated" with the decision, according to the Associated Press. "We feel that justice was done today. I believe that the Israeli court must let him go," Nishnic said."
He seemed to agree that justice was done, although it certainly took too long...
http://news.aol.com/article/demjanjuk-murder-counts/569553?icid=spherenewsaolinpage
"The Ukrainian-born Demjanjuk was once sentenced in Israel to death, then ****acquitted**** by the country's Supreme Court in 1993 of being the notorious "Ivan the Terrible" at the Treblinka death camp."
From the Isreali Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
"That was the crime with which he was charged in the indictment, and on that charge he was entitled to be ****acquitted****."
http://www.france24.com/en/20090512-ex-nazi-camp-guard-deported-germany
"John Demjanjuk at a hearing in Israel's Supreme Court in Jerusalem in 1993 where he was acquitted more than five years after he was sentenced to hang."
And so on and so on...
Third,
No, it seems you didn't read what I was replying to even though I quoted him...
He wrote: 'That decision was already taken, when they DECIDED that he was Ivan the Terrible. '
To which I answered as you wrote I did. I was not questioning the use of the words overturned either. In addition, you now are aware I was not mistaken about Mr. Demjanjuk being acquitted.
What exactly have you found so offensive about my comments? It is interesting that you have never seemed to find offense with sabiwabi suggestions that top Nazis were really Zionist Jews or that he still hasn't not decided whether the Nazis were good or bad yet.
0
thundercat
You are arguing the exact opposite side of this issue. I can't believe you would take a quote like that and try to use it to support your argument. He is clearly elated because an injustice was corrected. The justice he is referring to can only exist because of a previous wrongful conviction.
That's an easy one. It's because arguing with guys like this, by being baited into the controversy that he is trying to start, you give legitimacy to what he says. Just ignore him. Holocaust deniers have lost touch with reality.
0
kinniku
thundercat,
No, I have been arguing exactly this issue. Sabiwabi in this and the previous thread about this issue was attempting to suggest an Israeli/Zionist/Jewish conspiracy to outright lie. All I have been saying is that it was a legal trial that was done with the evidence provided. In the end, justice was done. If the whole idea was for this Israeli/Zionist/Jewish imaginary group to frame and convict him to further promote as Sabiwabi refers to it as 'the Holocaust lie', then the Israeli Supreme Court would not have reacted in the correct manner they did when new evidence was presented. That has been and still is my point.
I truly understand and appreciate what you are saying. It is a difficult choice whether to engage in discussion about these matters. However, in the world today, too many seem to ignore things that do need to be confronted, and this seems to make them stronger as they convince more and more naive people that their ideas are sane. Mold tends to grow better in the dark. I am merely attempting to shine some light on it.
However, in doing that, I did manage to incorrectly insult you and for that I sincerely apologize.
0
sabiwabi
Why do you see everything as an attack against Israel or Jews, take your lithium. I clearly stated that the German and American governments were involved in faking documents and deceiving the courts. The link I gave provided references for it, check it out.
No, you're just sprinkling fertilizer on it.
By the way, what is antisemitic about vho.org? By the way, I am delighted to announce that Germar Rudolf was finally released from prison earlier this month. Great news isn't it!
Can you imagine how the Israeli court would have been viewed if they executed him when it could be clearly proven that another man was in fact Ivan the Terrible.
0
grafton
Demjanjuk was arrested on suspicion of being Ivan the terrible & wrongfully found guilty of being this man & part of the reason that he was found guilty was because he wasn’t in a position to easily show that he was a different man doing different things at the time Ivan was killing people & the reason he couldn’t prove he was somebody else was because the somebody else was also a concentration camp guard very probably helping to kill different people somewhere else. Proving himself innocent of being one criminal would have meant proving himself guilty of being a different criminal.
Demjanjuk was eventually found innocent of being Ivan the terrible & his conviction was overturn, thereby leading to an acquittal. Please note that the two things, “overturn” & “acquittal” are both possible in respect to the same person & the same crime.
Demjanjuk’s past mistakenly lead him to be arrested, his own past left him open to that mistake & it ultimately lead to him getting a great deal of very unwelcome publicity. Had this not happened he would not now be under arrest again, because he would have remained hidden in the US.
The Israeli courts did act in good faith when they first tried Demjanjuk, & in that sense Kinniku is correct that justice was done, in so far as there was no deliberate attempt at perverting the court to arrive at a preordained verdict & for some reason I have yet to work out ever Wabisabi agrees with this. Yes five years was too long in putting this mistake right & it is this that is the injustice, not the original court case. The death sentence was not carried out, so to used the “what if” is a total nonsense, it never happened. I might just as well argue with what if he had been hit by a bus when he first moved to the US so preventing any of this ever coming to court? It’s nonsense because it never happened. Five years was too long, but he wasn’t executed.
Most of the arguments above have gone around & around in pointless circles, more designed to score points of each other & having little to do with the real subject. As is usual when ever the word Israel appears in any story Wabisabi pops up like the Valkyrie he thinks he is. I sort of agree with Kinniku on this, Wabi’s delusional view of the world really does need to be challenged rather than given space to grow, though I have to say that there is little point spending too much time arguing with Wabi, he has never been known to answer any direct question I ever put to him. Wabi believes that there is this terrible conspiracy going on in the world so to challenge him on this only provides him with the proof that he is right, his mind is closed to reason so as to protect it self from the conspirators.
Demjanjuk is guilty & I suspect most of us know this even though we may feel the need to avoid saying it. Being a Slav rather than a German I suspect even Wabi agrees.
0
kinniku
Yes, and time and time again you have stated that you believe that these countries' governments are controlled by Jews...
LOL! What ISN'T antisemitic about vho.org?
You forgot to say that Germar Rudolf is referred to as a holocaust denier by news agencies such as Iran's IRNA.
Ummm...I don't not care one way or the other...
They would have been viewed and should have been viewed as any court that made the same mistake would have been viewed...
0
sabiwabi
Grafton, Before sentencing someone to death for being a specific person, you need irrefutable (and legit) evidence. One should not need to prove that they are someone else.
How do you know. The trial is not yet finished. You seemed to have made up your mind a long time ago. If you're old enough, I bet you also considered him guilty of being Ivan the Terrible when that trial had started. And you're saying that my mind is closed!!!! You sound like kinniku (too much in fact).
0
grafton
sabiwabi at 12:43 PM JST - 16th July
In answer to your two points.
If I were arrested in a case of mistaken identity I (ME) would do my best to prove who I was. Demjanjuk failed to do that because to do so proved he was someone almost as bad as Ivan the terrible. Whatever the legal system we are ultimately responsible for our own lives. By failing to identify himself he left himself open to a misinterpretation that very nearly cost him his life. That was his doing, not the courts.
“How do you know. The trial is not yet finished.”
I don’t know, but what I reason is that if there wasn’t much evidence nobody would take the risk of putting this man on trial again, not after the last time. The very fact that they are doing tell s me that this time they really must having some very damning evidence. Even you must be able to work that one out. And yes I am old enough to remember the last trial. But I saw little reason to pay very much attention to it, so can remember little about it.
Now let me try again at asking you a question. Demjanjuk in the general scheme of things was only a little person, & assuming he is who they now say he is, he is still not one of the real bad guys. So why do you think there is this conspiracy of nations to convict him?
0
sabiwabi
Grafton,
Your reasoning seems to go against innocent until proven guilty: he was guilty until he could prove that someone else was Ivan. That is a strange form of justice.
Don't forget that last time, they not only brought him to trial, they sentenced him to death!
It tells me that they really want to get this guy, especially considering that German and American government officials conspired to fake documents and deceive the Israeli court.
Well, I already explained several times on previous threads about how this might be meant to keep people who know what truly went on in the camps quite. Or might also be to add credibility to their story, a bit like how they continue to bring people to trial for conspiring to commit 9-11 (completely irrelevant people).
And yes he was only a very little person, which brings me to wonder whether in a few or several decades they will also go after all the little people of the IDF connected with the recent (and not so recent) crimes against humanity. Hmmm, interesting thought!
0
BeaverCleaver
Okay, I am breaking my word. This deserves a reply. Yes, yes, I know that kinniku is jotting this down on the back page of his copy of "How to conduct a primary school playground argument" for posterity. "Scribble, scribble...BC broke his word on..."
kinniku-"Sigh, First of all, the five years has nothing to do with the terms overturned or aquitted."
Not sure what that is supposed to mean. But after reading the snippets from the articles you provided and checking a dictionary, it does turn out that the word acquitted just means the charges were dismissed, and the timing is irrelevant. Not being in the legal profession I thought it was only during the trial and was incompatible with a conviction. So I was wrong about something, and I admit it. And yes, I know kinniku is writing that down too, and I am bound to hear about it in 8 months time in a thread about poison cookies or something. Since kinniku never admits he is wrong, he never is. (Sure.)
However, it still does not change the fact that Sabi explained very accurately when he said "conviction was over-turned" and you glossed it over with the more general term acquitted to make it sound like he was never convicted in the first place. He was convicted. He sat on death row for 5 years. It is a relevant fact. Yeah, they decided he was not Ivan in the end, but only after they DECIDED HE WAS IVAN, and that stood for five years. That is what Sabi pointed out, and what you glossed over.
"What exactly have you found so offensive about my comments?"
One is explained above. But understand it was primarily your question "Don't you even read what you wrote?" that bothered me. Sabi was accurate. And you attitude there and elsewhere left much to be desired. See you around kinniku and don't forget to remind me when next we meet of all the mistakes I have made, as if I never admitted one before I met you.
0
BeaverCleaver
grafton-"Demjanjuk failed to do that because to do so proved he was someone almost as bad as Ivan the terrible. "
Just being a guard at a death camp does not make one "almost" as bad as Ivan the Terrible.
Again I ask, what exactly did he do? As a Russian held by the Germans as a POW, what choice did he have?
It seems many people want to hang him just for being a guard. Its not nearly enough.
0
kinniku
BC,
However, it still does not change the fact that Sabi explained very accurately when he said "conviction was over-turned" and you glossed it over with the more general term acquitted to make it sound like he was never convicted in the first place. He was convicted. He sat on death row for 5 years. It is a relevant fact. Yeah, they decided he was not Ivan in the end, but only after they DECIDED HE WAS IVAN, and that stood for five years. That is what Sabi pointed out, and what you glossed over.
I did not gloss over the fact that the conviction was overturned. I mentioned it before the very post you keep referring to...I did not gloss over the fact that he was in jail for 5 years. I have clearly discussed this point in this thread as well. Again, maybe you are reading what I wrote, but it sure does not seem like it. I wrote specifically why I responded the way I did and you 'glossed over' that in your response above...Sabiwabi was suggesting that Mr. Demjanjuk could never be treated fairly or justly and pointed to the 5 years in jail and the incorrect conviction. I pointed out that the conviction was overturned and Mr. Demjanjuk was aquitted. So, I am sorry, but you are mistaken in this regard as well and so was Sabiwabi...
0
kinniku
Sorry, even though I used the quote function, it did not seem to work. The first paragraph is BC's.
Also:
I appreciate you admitting it. However, maybe now you might consider admitting that you might be the rabid dog you were referring to with this comment:
and this one:
I was bothered by the fact that it was Sabiwabi 'glossing over' the fact that the conviction was overturned and Mr. Demjanjuk was aquitted. That is was I meant and I have explain this several times...
It is not that you make mistakes, it is that you insult people as you do with comments about mental instability or them putting too much sugar in their kool aid etc before you even check if they have made a mistake or not...and I hadn't...
0
sabiwabi
Glossing over? What the...
I mentioned that he was sentenced to death and he spent 5 years of his life on death row because they were convinced that he was Ivan the Terrible. That decision was overturned only when they could prove that someone else was Ivan. I never criticized the Israeli court, but it seems you want us to praise them for their fairness.
If you want us to stop “glossing over” the Israeli court’s “great fairness”, you might want to stop writing that he was treated fairly or that he got justice. The only time that happened was at the moment the conviction was overturned.
I am glad others have caught on to your irritating childish behavior. Hopefully you'll change it, but I doubt it.
0
kinniku
Yeah, sure you didn't criticize them. I guess someone else was using your user name and password when they wrote:
Lastly, you started things off in May when you wrote at 06:27 PM JST on 12th May:
So, sorry, but you were criticizing the Israeli court clearly and plainly...
Sorry, but he did finally get justice. Even his family thought so as reported in the LA Times link I kindly provided...
Childish behaviour would be making claims that you do not and can not back up such as claiming there was dishonesty at the trials in Israel. I have provided clear and provable reasons why I have said what I have said and my proof does not rely on racist conspiracy websites or message board. I would say that is the height of maturity.
0
kinniku
Oh there was more of your criticisms of the Israeli court...
When I suggested he was given a fair shake at trial, at 12:45 PM JST on 13th May, you replied with:
So, yes indeed you did criticize the Israeli court...
0
sabiwabi
Actually, no! Reread those quotes. You'll see that I was not criticizing the Israeli court. Better yet, reread my entire posts to get the proper context.
Wow! How can anyone take you seriously.
0
kinniku
I read those quotes again and it was the Israel court that passed down the death sentence you were referring to.
Again, the execution order came from the Israeli court and you are claiming they did not make an honest mistake.
Hey, in addition at 02:12 PM JST on 11th April you wrote:
Again, the 'they' is the Israeli court that ordered the execution order.
Here you are claiming that this trial will be some sort of signal as the previous trial was. Note the word 'again'.
at 05:13 PM JST on 15th April you wrote:
Of course you don't think he was treated fairly in the Israeli trial. Right above again you state that based on the Israeli court's trial you do not expect him to be treated fairly in future trials.
Because I deal in facts. I don't need fantasies, conspiracies or racist websites or message boards to make my points. Again, here is the quote from Mr. Demjanjuk's son-in-law who agrees with my take that justice was finally done when Mr. Demjanjuk was aquitted.
"Ed Nishnic, Demjanjuk's son-in-law who flew to Ohio Monday night from Israel to hear the decision, said that the family was "elated" with the decision, according to the Associated Press. "We feel that justice was done today. I believe that the Israeli court must let him go," Nishnic said."
Of course, as you know the Israeli court did let him go. I totally agree with Mr. Nishnic. Justice was done.
0
sabiwabi
Yes, the Israeli court sentenced him to death. But I have clearly placed the blame on those people and governments that conspired to provide faked documents and lying "eyewitnesses". Did I ever accuse the Israeli court of doing that? No! The only criticism of the Israeli court that I might have hinted at was for them not going after those who deceived the court.
Notice, that Nishnic said:"We feel that justice was done TODAY." You shouldn't need to distort things this way to prove a point (if you had a decent point to prove).
0
kinniku
Yes, and you had been incorrectly complaining about the lack of fairness when the court was clearly reacting to evidence given to them.
Yes, your fantasies again. However, it seems you are completely unable to provide any evidence of what you claim are 'faked documents' and purposefully lying witnesses. Oh, racist websites and message boards don't count.
One of my criticisms of your ever-strange line of thought is that you have never ever proven that witnesses 'deceived' anyone in this trial.
Now, you can dance around all you want, however you did suggest that the previous trial was not fair and that that leads you to believe the next one will not be fair as well. As I have pointed out many times, when the Israeli court was provided with new evidence they overturned the conviction. That is certainly being fair. You squawk back that the Israeli court 'had not choice' because of the new evidence. Of course they had 'no choice'. As a court that wanted to see justice done, as evidenced by their actions through out the trial, they reacted by aquitting Mr. Demjanjak because it was the correct thing to do.
Ummm...I TYPED what you quoted above. It was MY quote. It INCLUDED the word TODAY. I TYPED the word TODAY. I agree with the sentiments because I agree with the FACT that justice was finally done. That was my POINT all along. As always, there was NO distortion on my part.
As I said, I deal in facts. I don't need fantasies, conspiracies or racist websites or message boards to make my points. Pity you cannot say the same.
Back to top