This conversation is closed.

Does anyone think of the latest move to prosecute Nazi war criminals as something justifiable?

It was reported today that the Simon Wiesenthal Center has decided to pay for information that can lead to capture of Nazi war criminals. The reward for this endeavor goes up to $33,000 and the reason they are pursuing this is based on the successful conviction of John Demjanjuk who was 91 years at time of capture. But considering that most of these "criminals" are old and knocking on death's door, is pursing them a human thing in a world where most people are calling for a show of human love and forgiveness, or is this just based on seeking revenge and retribution? As humans can we factor in their remorse or the duress of being under orders as we make a call on what they did?

  • thumb
    Dec 27 2011: The Nazi horrors were truly unspeakable. If a participant in that horror has evaded punishment and enjoyed unmerited freedom for more than 65 years, I would not shed a tear if he ended his life in confinement, whatever his age. That said, it is also true that literally tens of thousands of Nazis who did some pretty nasty things are still alive and well in Germany, having been allowed to go back to their lives unpunished after the war, when Germany was desperately short of manpower. So the criminals being pursued now should be of a different sort, with a more direct connection to atrocities, than the many freed Nazis who are walking the streets.
  • thumb
    Dec 15 2011: Yes.
  • thumb
    Dec 15 2011: The question is justifiable to who? From one perspective justifiability is time-bound, just based on the emotions of individuals until they don't care anymore or until they are dead. On another perspective it is eternal, when there is a law put out by a government that law is cemented in time. I personally do not see the point of it, most of the individuals convicted of war crimes were simply brainwashed into doing such horrible crimes but, now that light has come to them, I believe that they would have lived through the remorse of what they did, probably throughout their whole life times. I am having mixed feelings about it, but I believe that it is necessary, of course a law is a law and some will saw that it should be flexible in some areas, I believe so, but I believe that it should be the decision of the war victims to decide that.
  • Dec 15 2011: I actually think it is mundane and useless.

    They have done their damage, let's not waste our resources.
    A lot of people are still dying today and someone's doing it.
  • thumb
    Dec 14 2011: Greetings Omosetan,
    Whether I have agreed with it or empathized with the defendants because I feel all war participants are victims, I have always accepted it as 'the agreed upon law'. This is not only a nation of laws, but due to international agreements and peace talks, this was supposed to be a planet of laws, an international community agreeing on acceptable behavior and opposing the un-acceptable. However, in light of the past ten years, I am now guilty of harboring war criminals within my country and no one seems to anxious to prosecute our own. I believe there should be a moratorium on all war criminal cases until it is understood that no one is above the law. First we prosecute the criminals in our country and restore the integrity of this country, and make honorable, once again, the laws by which all international communities have either agreed to recognise or suffer the consequences, then let us return to throwing stones. It appears that those quaint laws of human rights and respect are no longer recognised, let alone, enforced.
    This is nothing more than a pacifier to the angry, and a threat to any dissidents in my humble opinion. What else have government judicial courts ever been?
    If we prosecute one more, then please give us the courage to prosecute them all!