John Demjanjuk's lawyer says client too ill to be tried

[demoleft]

Source: bbc

The lawyer of alleged Nazi death camp guard John Demjanjuk has called for his client's trial to be abandoned on the grounds of poor health.

On the trial's second day, Ulrich Busch complained that Mr Demjanjuk had been forcibly deported from the US despite, he said, having a terminal illness.

Mr Demjanjuk, 89, denies helping to murder 27,900 Jews at the Sobibor camp.

Mr Busch said he was being tried for the same crimes twice, after Israel cleared him of murder at another camp.


Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8388334.stm

---

no comment.

[SteppingRazor]

1. There was a great article on Demjanjuk in last month's Esquire:

http://www.esquire.com/features/john-demjanjuk-1109

It's certainly not a Demjanjuk apologia, but it is pretty critical of the effort to try him again. The author, Scott Raab, is, for the record, Jewish.

[dugaresa]

5. that was a good article, the one section that stands out for me is

"But then I've never doubted that even as a prisoner and a Jew, I would have done whatever would have kept me alive; and while it's pretty to think that I might've used whatever drop of strength I had to strike a blow, to brain one enemy, to die on my feet rather than live on my knees, I see little evidence for this in the actual course of my actual life, and I also thank God for never putting such a test in front of me. I've failed much easier."

What would any of us do if we were in such a situation?

[Scairp]

20. Thanks for posting that

I read the entire thing and many of the points this writer made are the same opinions that I have had for years. I grew up in Ohio, and this has been big news throughout the state since I was a teenager. Something about it has always seriously bugged me and this article only causes the whole matter to bother me more than ever. What is guilt when it comes to surviving a horrific experience like WWII, and how can any human be judged guilty for surviving, even if what they did to live was reprehensible in non-wartime? Even if he did become what they say he was, he was first and last as much a victim of the Germans as any Pole or Jew. This was pure, raw survival and even many Jews turned and became the brutalizers. To survive. Evolution has given us the basic visceral need to survive in desperate situations, and I'm sorry, if Demjanjuk did what he had to to stay alive, then they have no business putting this 90 year old man in a crappy prison in marginal conditions, especially with such thin evidence. I think they are hoping he will die before the trial begins, then they won't have to defend this terrible case, and can claim he was a "war" criminal for all time. Not sure how someone who was a POW could be a war criminal, but maybe I'm just not that smart. At any rate, it's like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. In my humble opinion, this prosecution will not help one survivor or any descendants of the victims feel that one iota of justice has been done.

[MrCoffee]

28. That is a brilliant article...Scott Raab nailed it.

[LiberalFighter]

2. Poor health? How many of those executed because of him were in poor health?

[dysfunctional press]

17. maybe zero.

that's why they're supposed to be having a trial.

[24601]

3. Yeah, sure - the MF is "sick" of people dredging up his past.

Polygraph the lawyer - if he doesn't believe what he's saying, lock him in the same cell for attempting a fraud on the court.

[derby378]

4. Mr. Busch, let's say that you're a Jew imprisoned at Sobibor...

By this time, you've already spent time in a ghetto somewhere in Poland with tragically little in the way of food, water, heating oil, sanitary facilities, etc. You personally have probably been physically accosted by Nazi soldiers a couple of times. Maybe they clubbed you with a rifle butt, pulled out your beard, or merely put you in a stranglehold and made you listen to whispered sexual insults against your mother. Nevertheless, you've managed to carry on so far.

Then, one day, your ghetto is emptied, and you and your family, friends, and neighbors are herded at gunpoint into railway cars until they're stuffed beyond capacity. Winter has arrived in full force, and here you are, being trucked across the Polish countryside without any food or heat, and only a lucky few getting water from melting snow that leaks through the roof. Many of your fellow Jews will not survive the journey on the rails.

So now you've arrived at this strange work camp called Sobibor, and you're herded off into this queue of men who have been chosen for work detail - many of your friends have instead been sent to the gas chambers upon arrival, most likely with the excuse that they were to be cleaned and deloused before they received a hot meal.

You're cold, wet, starving, and generally miserable. Your physical health is suffering considerably, and you fear your mental health is the next to go. Then one of the camp supervisors tempts you with a little bit of meat and cheese, which you wolf down ravenously as the guards stand around you and belittle your Jewish blood. And then, without warning, that same officer who gave you your first hot meal in months grabs your head and urinates down your throat, and the guards laugh their heads off as you vomit into the snow.

This is not hyperbole. This actually happened at Sobibor. And much, much worse happened before the inmates at Sobibor finally rose up and practically destroyed the camp.

So when you start claiming that Mr. Demjanjuk should not stand trial, I respond by telling you to go to Hell. Because that poor Jewish inmate I just described has already been there.

[Piewhacket]

7. "Remember the atrocities, remember the victims!" is not an appeal to law,

but incitement for the mob.

Demjanjuk has already been acquitted as INNOCENT of one set
of false accuastions... by the Israeli high court no less.
After an extensive trial.
Not just 'not guilty', not just 'acquitted on a technicality',
but FACTUALLY INNOCENT despite the unequivocal and damning
testimony of no less than five witnesses who positively
and unequivocally identified him as 'Ivan the Terrble'.

So what has been "proved" from this is that prosecution based on
eyewitness identification testimony offered 70 years after the
fact is utterly unreliable. Seriously, what makes anyone think
this trial is based on anything better?

Now no one wants war criminals to escape. Of any era.
Least of all me, just look at my bleeping sig line!

But there is no vindication to be had in false and doubtful
accusation or conviction, and no justice to be found
appeasing the screaming fury of the mob.

And that no amount of stories of guards pissing down
prisoner's throats or the horrors of the death camps,
or any other atrocity, changes these fundamentals.

[Kelvin Mace]

10. If an Israeli court acquits you

that would seem to be the end of it, but what the court said was that he wasn't "Ivan the Terrible", which is what he was charged with.

The Israeli Supreme Court said there was credible evidence that he was a guard at Sobibor, but as that was not what he was charged with, the conviction was overturned. Israel decided not to retry him on the provable charges for many complex reasons.

I believe the man should have his day in court, as that is the only place the issue can be decided once and for all. The public is not required to subscribe to "the presumption of innocence", but it is the only ethical thing to do.

Invoking atrocities that don't involve the accused is rather unfair, even if it is a fact. I would hope we would be better that than the wingnuts at understanding the nuance of the law, but I hope in vain.

Reality is complex and nuanced. It requires thinking, not knee-jerk emotionality. But thinking is hard, and jumping to conclusions is easy.

[Piewhacket]

14. Points in debate...

We've seen the debacle of one appalling and humiliating
one year show trial which resulted in casting Holocaust
survivors in the role aggressors.
Persecuted become the persecutors.
Well, some might say, here we go again..

What is clear about this case is that multiple intelligence services
have involved themselves behind the scenes, particularly American,
in the role of promoting prosecution and providing evidence.
The difficulty is, these have been caught red-handed withholding exculpatory
evidence that, once obtained, compelled the Israeli court to reverse
the conviction. It has been repeatedly and credibly speculated that
these agencies deliberately sought to scapegoat an innocent man for
political purposes.

Now I haven't read the court decision, but I'm relatively confident
the court didn't pass on the credibility of the evidence he was a guard at
Sobibor. That wasn't their job. We know there are no eyewitnesses who
identify him at Sobibor. A supposed ID card... the apparent sole evidence
indicating a Sobibor connection is in considerable doubt because, for openers,
there is no one to corroborate that evidence. It is also claimed there is credible
evidence it is a forgery. A skeptical person with even slight knowledge of photoshop
and how intelligence services work, might tend doubt the uncorroborated id's authenticity.

Then we turn to the real issues. The claim he is too ill to be tried. This is a credible
claim by his lawyer. He's 89 with a reported terminal condition, and already spent 8 (?)
years in prison on a false charge. His conditions of confinement are reported to be spartan
and punitive. The trial will take considerable time. If he dies during trial, the result
will be moot. If he is convicted, he will not survive long in prison, and almost certainly
will spend most of that time dying in the prison infirmary.

All this doubt, all these machinations, another holocaust show trial, but for what?
Justice? For who? So the world will remember? Then let us also remember the atrocities
have JUST HAPPENED, the blood that stains our own hands. Let us remember that.

Still, the world must remember, I agree. But not like this, not using this
prosecution of an insignificant player, who seems likely misidentified.
The horror of the holocaust demands justice of a higher caliber. So say I.

I remind finally of this. Those who survived Sobibor, also participated in the killing.
Let us place that in our philosophy and smoke upon it. I think we should rather
spend our effort to understand how these things happen, and how to
construct safeguards so they will not happen again. So we may say with
certainty 'never again'.

[Kelvin Mace]

15. The Israeli court

pretty much pointed out that the ID card from the Soviets, and vouched for by the Americans, put this man at Sobibor, not Treblinka, where Ivan the Terrible operated.

I completely agree with you that his was a show trial. From an Esquire article mentioned elsewhere:

The horribly funny thing — not to the Israelis, many of whom had doubts about prosecuting Demjanjuk from the start — was that some of the evidence that led to his release in 1993 had come to light years before and was withheld from the Israelis by the American government — the Office of Special Investigations of the Department of Justice, the very same cadre of Nazi hunters who had urged Israel to charge him with being Ivan the Terrible.

Why? Because Ivan the Terrible was a trophy fish, and John Demjanjuk was small fry, and whatever doubt the OSI harbored about his true crimes — and the records show that some of its investigators there felt doubts galore — if the agency wanted to burnish its reputation and justify its budget, it needed a villain big and bad enough to convince the cautious Israelis to mount a show trial.

Funny thing: The strongest documentary evidence the OSI did give to Israel, an SS-issued ID card, clearly put Demjanjuk at Sobibor during the same time that Ivan the Terrible was at Treblinka. The three judges and the lawyers on both sides wrestled vainly with this inconvenience, but the Treblinka survivors' eyewitness testimony — sanctified, consecrated, beyond need of proof by virtue of their hideous suffering and lifelong grief — condemned John Demjanjuk to death.

But the kicker, the real punch line, was yet to come. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Israel, faced with dozens of affidavits from Treblinka guards identifying Ivan Marchenko as Ivan the Terrible, unanimously overturned Demjanjuk's death sentence, and also unanimously ruled that Israel could not retry him for crimes he may have committed at Sobibor — because he had not been extradited for Sobibor, because no Sobibor survivors could identify him, and because, as chief judge Meir Shamgar wrote, "The complete truth is not the prerogative of the human judge."

Like you, I agree that I wish these folks howling for this sad old man's blood, were half as adamant about Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, Bush, et al.

[Piewhacket]

16. n/t .

regards. :fistbump:

[COLGATE4]

18. This is an excercise in sophistry of the highest order

"Another holocaust show trial"? Why is this a "show trial"? And what is wrong with trying him so the world will in fact remember? Is the
Holocaust somehow of lesser status than "the atrocities have JUST HAPPENED", whatever these might be.

You declare him to be an 'insignificant player', just as were hundreds of thousands of Germans, Poles,and Ukrainians as they diligently and enthusiastically carried out their systematic slaughter of the Jews. Because they were all not Adolph Eichmann is this somehow supposed to justify giving them a pass for their inhuman conduct?

Finally. in a sgtatement that is absolutely striking in its absurdity, you state that "Those who survived Sobibor also participated in the killing". Aside from the twisted logic in this statement, you are equating victims with their persecuters in a form rarely seen outside of Neo-Nazi publications.

[Kelvin Mace]

22. I think the point being made,

rather inartfully, I fear, is that the majority of the guards at Sobibor were POWs (Soviets, Ukarnians, etc) from other camps who agreed to work as guards to get a degree of "freedom" and better treatment. This is similar to the Nazi's use of Kapos in other camps, were prisoners were given special treatment and collaborated with the Nazis as guards.



I don't quite know about other "show trials", but in this specific case there WAS misconduct by the Justice department and they did KNOWINGLY try to pass the man off as "Ivan the Terrible" when they knew damned well he wasn't. No matter what kind of scum this man might be, he deserves a fair, and impartial trial. Ironically, he got just that from the one group of people least likely to be fair and impartial.

I have had first-hand experiencing with prosecutors so bent on glory and fame, they abused the crime victims to get their convictions. In my particular case it was a prosecutor who lied to several victims of a child molester, telling them THEY had committed crimes and would be PROSECUTED unless they testified against their molester (a prominent local citizen). For some reason he couldn't understand, young boys are reluctant to get up in public and recount the sordid details of a molestation, and that reluctance meant the prosecutor wouldn't get the high profile, career-boosting show trial he wanted. When you terrify and shame 10-12 year old children for your own personal aggrandizement, you have sunk below the child molester in my opinion.

My view is that people should be tried on the merits of the case, not in the media, and not by dishonest prosecutors. And if we have to let some criminals go to protect the integrity of the system, I am willing to pay that price.

Once you show that you are prepared to lie to get a conviction, you have ZERO credibility in my book.

The misconduct in this instance has damaged our system of justice, and made it possible that this man, though quite probably guilty, may still walk. They could have tried him for being a guard at Sobibor, and he would almost certainly have been convicted and been in jail these last two decades, but they chose to "go for the glory", and lied to do it.

[Piewhacket]

23. Normally we don't feed the prevaricating poltroon. But nice post. Well said.

"Show trial" it clearly was. It was for the purpose of
trying the holocaust, not the accused. There are
reasons enough to call it so. Conviction and death
sentence were pre-ordained.

Of course, that the accused was in fact provably innocent is an
unbelievably rare event, not because it isn't far too often so,
but because it is so difficult to prove. Here the evidence is the
defendant's innocence was a fact actually known (or recklessly
disregarded) by the prosecution, but then, such facts are of no
relevance to a show trial.

For a "show trial" is a theatrical production,
not a legal proceeding, thus not entitled to the serious regard
of civilized society on any matter of importance.

Given these circumstances the Supreme Court of Israel had no
choice but to repudiate the proceedings and release the
condemned. It was that or face the ridicule of the world
for a sham justice system. The tradition of Solomon made the
latter unthinkable. They unanimously chose the high road.
Not the popular road. The high road. They affirmed they are
a just society and ruled by just law, not by the mob.

Alas, if only we were so principled here in the US.

Thus also, for the reason Kelvin Mace has explained, the
prosecution is not entitled to belief on matters they
alone attest, or based on the swearing of proven liars.
The id is the only connection to another alleged crime Sobibor,
and the Israili court SPECIFICALLY DID NOT rely on that to aquit,
but instead relied on the sworn statements of numerous treblinka
guards identifying 'Ivan the Terrible' as someone other than the
accused.

Thus, in this new trial there had better be more. A lot more.
Or "show trial" will be its name, and miscarriage its progeny.

[Kelvin Mace]

26. I think the phrase that required clarification was

"another show trial", and whether you were referring to other cases aside from this one. I see now that you are simply referring to the continuation of this case.

Sadly, I must agree with you on this characterization. The powers that be, having been thwarted by their own iniquity, must now get a conviction at all costs on the crime they didn't charge him with originally.

An argument could be made that the grief this guy is suffering is just recompense for what he did. The problem, of course, is that this has yet to be proven in a court of law, so we are "punishing" a presumptively innocent person. To justify this misconduct, they must have a trial, and they must find him guilty. Thus, the circus going on now

To clarify another point, I hope I am not the "prevaricating poltroon" you are responding to. :)

[Piewhacket]

27. Certainly, you have it right, Kevin. Again well-stated.

It is the nature and purpose of a 'show trial' that there must be an accused,
there must be a notorious or heinous crime, there must be a verdict
of 'guilty' or the crime will not be repudiated. the victims dishonored.
That is the 'show'. The 'bread and circuses' of demagogues.
Entertainment for the masses.

The new trial commences. Given the history of the matter
we might well ask why should this trial be given the presumption of
propriety? I say it has lost such presumption, and perhaps
the opposite presumption should be made. The prosecution has
a great burden here overcoming a previous gross miscarriage of justice.

And again we have the mob screaming "Sobibor!" with the same zealous fervor
they previously screamed "Treblenka!" and "Ivan the Terrible"!.
What regard have these voices earned from us? None.

Some walking among us seem to advocate using a criminal trial
as the means of inflicting punishment and heaping approbation and
humiliation on their victim, the accused. Whether guilty or innocent
it seems not to matter at all to them. There is somehow for them
a vindication in the howling of the mob and the screaming for blood.
The mob is whipped for money or power, joined by others who have
lost their humanity. Is justice to be found with these? No.

The question posed by a poltroon was what is wrong with a show trial?
Why not have them, to entertain and educate the world?
This question cannot be answered to the satisfaction of the asker, for
the question is really a rhetorical device not for asking a question
but for asserting that the fate of a human being has no meaning,
value, or purpose, except as fodder and victim for the bloody circus.

The world's major religions including particularly Jews, Christians,
and Muslims reject this premise, it violates fundamental precepts of
their beliefs. It is core that a human being has worth. God has said so.
Rationalists must also reject the premise, for if a man has no worth
they they themselves have no worth. So who is left then to advocate
this idea of humanity as fodder for bloody circus? The insane and the
prevaricating poltroons, presumably.

So we return to the question of a poltroon and provide its simple answer, the truth
of which will be neither understood or satisfying to the asker. The reason we
don't have 'show trials' is because of the value and dignity we place on
human life.

We turn next to the true purpose of the criminal trial. To determine, by
means of man's law, whether the accused has committed particular crimes.
The accused is not guilty until he is convicted. Then he still might
appeal an unfair trial. John Demjanjuk has once endured this gauntlett and
escaped death and been set free as innocent. Is he then without sin?
No court of man decides such things, and no one claims that for Demjanjuk.
Indeed who among us dares claim such even for themselves?

Christians and others who find wisdom in the teachings of Christ, should
beware judging beyond the meaning of a proceeding. Among other teachings,
beware the warning of Matt 7:2 "For in the same way you judge others,
you will be judged". And for non-Christians, the admonishment should also
be well taken. Those who fear God should have a care not to blaspheme
by usurping his judgment, and those hypocrites (actors) who have no fear
of God but pretend to wield his judgment should fear their fellow man
wielding the secular version of Matthew. To such actors I suggest, back away.

The new trial of John Demjanjuk commences in the humiliating ruin of a previous
abomination of justice. We will see what this new trial brings.
If the sole evidence is an 'alledged' id provided by the same intelligence
services who perverted justice in the prior case, I will find little to
respect in either the verdict rendered or those who have
brought the case.

[Piewhacket]

29. A point of clarification concerning 'art'

Kevin, you may certainly decide for yourself whether something I have said
is "inartfully" done or not. I make no objection to that. Actually I approve your
supporting comments.

For sensible people might sometimes use analogy and allegory in artful expression
of unpleasant things, certainly. But there is also "art" and propriety in plain-speak.
So here I make my meaning plain:

I said:

I remind finally of this. Those who survived Sobibor, also participated in the killing.
Let us place that in our philosophy and smoke upon it.

I meant exactly that as a statement of fact, not mere rhetoric. Precisely exactly that.
From the prisoner who set the fake clock at the station, to the prisoner burning bodies,
Every function, every activity, every person's efforts were directed to one and only one purpose.

For Sobibor, unlike other places, was entirely a death camp. That was its SOLE function. To kill Jews.
The life expectancy of a Jew arriving at the (fake) station at Sobibor was measured in hours.
There were no significant facilities for holding prisoners. Jews lived for the time it took
to process them up the path called the "Gate to Heaven" to their death. A few hours.
Jews that survived did so because they were set in aid of the camp's function.

So what does it mean? That is what I meant by "Let us place that in our philosophy and smoke
upon it." It is intended for reflection by those with the ability to do so. For example, what (accepted)
moral philosophy justifies saving yourself by killing another? This must be very deep philosophy indeed,
or very shallow. Perhaps some think it of no consequence, so long as these have the same result.
Ends, means, whatever. Perhaps some just regard thinking as a tedious waste of time. To each his own.
For the prisoners, some complied and the others died. For the guards, 20 SS and 100 Ukrainians,
some complied, some committed atrocity, some refused and were themselves simply shot.

Consider then, that the situation itself was the horror, evolved beyond the power of men to stop.
Consider that. Wonder where is morality, or free will in such circumstances?
So rather doesn't it seem a ludicrous reply made 70 years late to lay this horror on the shoulders
of one 89 year old terminally ill man already once falsely convicted then exonerated, who no
account or survivor of Sobibor can identify, and who may have had NOTHING to do with it.
And even if he did, what justice is being served here, in this case?
That is my thought.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/holocaust/a/sobibor.htm

[MrCoffee]

30. This is the very definition of a show trial

Germany has no jurisdiction. They are trying a Ukranian for crimes committed in Poland.

Germany is trying Demjanjuk for a crime that the Israeli High Court exonerated him.

There is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, linking Demjanjuk to any specific crime. All they can do is establish that he was at Sobibor.

[24601]

32. Does he still get his retirement income? I'll differ with you on one

point - the Israeli High Court didn't exonerate him on the current charges - only of allegations that he was Treblinka's Ivan the Terrible. Then he was returned to the US because the extradition was based only on the "Ivan" charges.

[MrCoffee]

33. You are correct, thank you

I misspoke on that one.

[CrawlingChaos]

12. Thank you - the voice of reason

It's truly frightening how many people are ready to grab the pitchforks without knowing anything about the case.

[Turbineguy]

6. If he delays enough

Demjanjuk will be too dead for a trial.

[Seedersandleechers]

8. Good

[47of74]

9. Call the Whaambulance

[Birdiesmom]

11. Please read the article on Demjajuk in Esquire before you declare him guilty.

http://www.esquire.com/features/john-demjanjuk-1109

[Raine]

21. Interesting

THANKS for the link.

[Bo]

13. This Guy was found innocent in ISRAEL !

WTF....

[Ter]

19. If he wins again in court, end it

Enough with the new charges already. I can see it now: In 10 years, at 99 and just about dead, the government tries him again.

[dogfacedboy]

24. Why is this NAZI still breathing in the first place?!?! n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

25. *sigh*

If you had read the other posts, you would have an answer to your question. Simple recap:

The U.S. Justice Department decided to claim that "the Nazi" was "Ivan the Terrible", when they knew damn well he wasn't. Taking down Ivan the Terrible would have been a major career win for all concerned. Taking down a low-level Sobibor guard, not so much. So, they lied in putting the case together, they made Patrick Buchanan's outrage justified (which should be a crime itself).

He went to Israel, was tried on the false evidence and convicted. The Israeli Supreme Court refused to be part of the lie and overturned the conviction. Since the prosecution had destroyed their own credibility by fabricating evidence, they had no real chance of trying him on the crime he is probably guilty of.

So, he came back to the U.S., and the U.S. spent the next two decades hounding him on the real charge, that he would have been convicted of if they hadn't lied in the first place and gave him lots of sand to throw into the gears of justice.

The Nazi is still breathing because American prosecutors deliberately perverted justice, fabricated evidence, and accused a man of a crime they KNEW he was not guilty of, just to advance their own careers. Each and every person who did this should be in a cell beside this man, for embracing Nazi tactics to win a case and advance their own careers.

Again, reality is very complex and requires us to analyze, question, and deduce the truth. Far easier to simply kill people we have labeled "the Nazi", facts be damned.

[MrCoffee]

31. He is not, and never was, an Nazi.

He was a Ukranian Wachmanner, a POW sent to work at the camps.