I recently watched a documentary about Efraim Zuroff from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre who has started Operation Last Chance.This is a concerted effort to bring Nazi war criminals to justice regardless of their age. The recent case of Heinrich Boere and the ongoing case of John Demjanuk are just two instances where alleged Nazis have been put on trial.Should old Nazis be put on trial or indeed extradited to the countries where they allegedly committed war crimes as in the case of Charles Zentai in Australia who is fighting extradition to Hungary.
Zentai has just won the latest round in his fight against extradition, but it might be appealed.
For the record, Zentai was not a Nazi but a member of the Hungarian Army at the time of the alleged murder of a Jew.
PERTH man Charles Zentai says he is overwhelmed by a Federal Court ruling overturning his extradition on war crimes charges.
Home Affairs Minister Brendan O’Connor’s had ordered that he be extradited to Hungary over the murder of a Jewish teenager during World War II.
The court found Mr Zentai, 88, was not liable for extradition and it was beyond Mr O’Connor’s jurisdiction to make the order.
Judge Neil McKerracher said the minister had failed to consider whether it would be “oppressive and incompatible with humanitarian considerations” to extradite Mr Zentai given his age, ill-health and the potential severity of punishment.
“It was fantastic,” Mr Zentai said outside the court. “Something perhaps I haven’t felt before, not for a long time anyhow.”
He said he and his family had been “through hell” in the seven years since the Simon Wiesenthal Centre alleged he had killed Peter Balazs in Budapest in 1944.
His son, Ernie Steiner, said the federal government failed to look at the detail of the case.
“My father has suffered a huge injustice and I believe there may be grounds for compensation, but I’m not a lawyer,” he said.
Mr Zentai had been on $75,000 bail after initially spending two months in a Perth prison from November last year when Mr O’Connor made his ruling.
The great-grandfather had appealed to the court to overturn Mr O’Connor’s decision on the grounds he had not been charged with any offence by the Hungarian authorities and was merely wanted for questioning. But the commonwealth argued Mr O’Connor had been fulfilling Australia’s obligations under its extradition treaty with Hungary.
The Simon Wiesenthal Centre’s Efraim Zuroff was stunned and described the decision as “strange”.
“This means Australia has totally failed on the Nazi war crimes issue.”
He said it was up to Hungary to continue pursuing the issue.
Mr Zentai has always denied killing Balazs.
Extradition proceedings began in 2005 when Hungary issued a warrant for his arrest. Mr O’Connor has 28 days to appeal.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/court-overrules-zentai-extradition/story-e6frg6nf-1225887317485
I don’t have a problem with it, but I live in a jurisdiction where there is no statute of limitations on major crimes such as murder and rape and I agree with the notion that some things are so bad that nobody should escape the law by the passage of time.
Also, if some bastard had exterminated my family a generation or two ago I’d think it was a very good idea.
The problems are that:
- The effort devoted to most cases in the West is huge and the result usually small or nothing,
as with Zentai. - There is a huge degree of irony when the law in all its majesty defends the rights of bastards who
trampled upon the most basic human rights of their victims. - The legal process used now in jurisdictions which are not designed to deal with war crimes and
crimes against humanity lacks the efficiency of the war crimes tribunals. - The evidence is unreliable, whether because of witnesses’ failing memories or bias in evidence
presented by some governments. - Prosecutions are absurdly selective as they target a miniscule number of all those who
committed such crimes. - Allied crimes are ignored.
Despite all that, I’m happy to see some old bastard shit him or her self for years under threat of extradition and better still be tried in the jurisdiction where he or she committed the crime. They’ve had about six or seven decades more life than that of their victims, so **** 'em!
I would totally agree with every thing Rising Sun said.
At this point in time teh vote is saying “leave the past in the past” but my view is these criminals had no worries about killing old people and children so why should we worry about prosecuting them when they are old?
Good point, and well stated.
I think that there are times you have to start afresh,forget what happenrd to your kin,and hope the other side do to.(I used to live in nortern ireland)
However there are some crimes so horrible,it dosn,t matter how much time has passed you should be held accountable.
For those of the Nazi party who committed criminal acts, there should be no relief due to Statutes of Limitation. Whether the acts were a function of the Reich’s policies, or of an individual nature should not bear on their status as criminals. All such people should be brought to trial to answer for their actions, and let justice under the law determine their fate. Perhaps the U.S. at least could use the RICO act to some benefit.
Agreed, but the problem is always that victor’s justice applies.
There are many reasons to try some British forces in NI for various excesses and some deaths, but there are also many reasons to try the IRA and UDA etc for their exesses, notably kneecappings, and many deaths.
Why limit it to Nazi Party members?
I have read, and on a few occasions personally heard, many reliable accounts of Allied soldiers, including Australians and Americans in the Pacific, committing war crimes, albeit on a small scale compared with the Japanese.
There are many instances of such Allied war crimes mentioned in various Allied soldiers’ memoirs (don’t ask me to specify right now - it will take a bit of time if I have to dig out the references but there are many).
My natural sympathy is with the Allied troops, but if we’re being fair they would be brought to account now as well as old Nazis.
I do agree, I was just speaking to the topic. It shouldn’t matter which side a defaulter is on, such crimes have to be addressed, and dealt with, or one becomes their enemy.
True, but for all my moral posturing I’m a lot less willing to prosecute, say, an Australian or American soldier who followed the well-founded practice of shooting an apparently wounded or dead Japanese in the head because of their past conduct in attacking Allied soldiers than prosecuting a Japanese (or Korean) who presided over, say, the Burma Railway where Allied soldiers and Asian labourers were rampantly exploited by the Japanese in the worst of inhumane conditions.
To boyne-water -
Yes that is a very valid point.
I am not an expert on NI so forgive my naiveity. However I think the solution there seemed pragmatic. As I saw it the criminals still got prosecuted and found guilty but were then let out early which to me at least let the victims feel a partial sense of justice whilst moving the whole political situation on.
Regarding these remaining criminals from WW2 at least if they go through a court process they will be unearthed for what they are in front of their friends, family and country and the victims relatives can feel a sense of justice - as can we all; whilst these people still live comfortable lives I feel a deep sense of injustice.
Operations against an armed and motivated enemy force can result in all manner of borderline actions, one does what one must, as the enemy certainly will. I was thinking of acts more along the lines of the ORADOUR-SUR-GLANE massacre, or Malmedy. Unarmed civilians, captured/surrendered soldiers incapable of defending themselves.
I recently read an article in a paper that stated that a German Man by the name of Klaas Faber, was a Nazi enthusiast who is being protected by the German government. He was an SS soldier who was involved in the Holocaust and was sentenced for war crimes against humanity.
He was sentenced to death for the murder of 22 people. But he did a runner. He now lives in Germany. This is wrong!
He was born Dutch but lost his Dutch citizenship due to his membership in the SS. The question is now if he was given the German citizenship, nobody seems to know…
Faber is another member of the Silbertanne command, Heinrich Boerer was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2010.
Yes! justice knows no rest.
There is no statute of limitations on murder, any murder. So yes, if you find them prosecute them! Even if they are in a wheelchair sucking oxygen!
To do less is to ignore the millions that died by their hands and to encourage later generations to follow that path.
When I was in university I wrote my dissertation on the idea of a statute of limitations for war crimes, so I found this a really interesting thread.
In my view, prosecutions such as the John Demanjuk case are tasteless and do nothing to reduce the likelihood of future genocides. The thing to remember is that those committing war crimes are often absolutely convinced that they are destined to be victorious, so potential future trials are of little imprortance to them at the time. The trials of former Nazis did not stop the genocides in Rwanda, Sudan or the former Yugoslavia.
True enough, they killed the elderly and vulnerable, but to say that we should therefore not show clemency to them on grounds of age or infirmity is to take a step down towards their level, even if there is not an exact moral equivilence.
Also, by this time, evens are often so cloudy in the minds of witnesses, and the paper trails so weak, that any conviction is potentially unsafe. Therefore, one is causing a lot of distress to both the alleged perpetrator and the victims, for no discernable gain.
I also feel that the prosecution of minor ‘foot-soldiers’ in the grand scheme of things is unjust. One simply cannot ignore the fact of following orders from higher authority, much as one may wish to. Those who issued the orders are long dead by whatever means, but for those sent to carry out such orders I see very little realistic alternative than to have complied.
So what do you think an appropriate statute of limitations should be in the case of war crimes?
Hi Wizard,
Although I can see good arguments for having no statute of limitations on war crimes, I would summarise my personal view as below;
I think that you cannot have a limit on prosecuting a Hitler or Milosevic, but for a mid ranking officer (i.e. a KZ Commandant) I would think that after 10 years witness testimony would become so vague as to render a conviction potentially unsafe as events fade, appearances change etc. This is of course barring a very good paper trail, which would be easier in a modern scenario with electronic communications etc. For a junior soldier (i.e. Einsatzgruppen Trooper) I would think that unless there is a pressing reason to prosecute immediately upon cessation of hostilities (and by a neutral power) then I would not pursue charges.
This is only my personal opinion of course, but as I said I find the sight of agend former Nazis and foreign auxilliaries being brought to trial based on 60+ year old evidence distasteful.
I hope I have answered your question.