[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It wouldn't take much to confuse parliament would it, Did he also bamboozle the Geneva convention and NATO that he ticked all the boxes on the UN charter?
It has everything to do with the debate, it goes to show when a power is hellbent on a course of action little gets in the way.

It has nothing to do with this. We're discussing someone who was actively involved in the mass slaughter of people in a concentration camp. Some people think he should get away with it scot free after living a long life, others think he should pay, no matter how much time has elapsed. All the diversionary talk about Blair is a separate issue. And we didn't go into that "illegal" war alone. I'm not sure what you mean about "bamboozling the Geneva Convention". The Geneva Convention is a series of four treaties, not a body of people.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

It has nothing to do with this. We're discussing someone who was actively involved in the mass slaughter of people in a concentration camp. Some people think he should get away with it scot free after living a long life, others think he should pay, no matter how much time has elapsed. All the diversionary talk about Blair is a separate issue. And we didn't go into that "illegal" war alone. I'm not sure what you mean about "bamboozling the Geneva Convention". The Geneva Convention is a series of four treaties, not a body of people.

I disagree, the fact that there is a question mark over it at all is bad enough, it's irrelevant who else was or was not involved.
Far from being diversionary it's simply to illustrate that however many safeguards, treaties and or bodies of people there may be it happened.
I also disagree with the term actively involved the officer was a book keeper I read he had no say in issuing orders to kill or killing, I can't see how his incarceration in his 90s stands for anything in the grand scheme of things.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I disagree, the fact that there is a question mark over it at all is bad enough, it's irrelevant who else was or was not involved.
Far from being diversionary it's simply to illustrate that however many safeguards, treaties and or bodies of people there may be it happened.
I also disagree with the term actively involved the officer was a book keeper I read he had no say in issuing orders to kill or killing, I can't see how his incarceration in his 90s stands for anything in the grand scheme of things.

The court of law in which he was tried and found guilty had more information than you or I on what he did and didn't do. The term 'bookkeeper' seems a little innocuous for what he was actually doing. So whether or not you think it stands for anything is neither here nor there. I have faith that they came to the right decision.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

The court of law in which he was tried and found guilty had more information than you or I on what he did and didn't do. The term 'bookkeeper' seems a little innocuous for what he was actually doing. So whether or not you think it stands for anything is neither here nor there. I have faith that they came to the right decision.

They have no reason to hold back information as to his level of involvement, the others had their duties exposed in the same way. Had they come to this decision 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50yrs ago it would have been the right one, now there's only those so far down the pecking order left it seems suspect (to me anyway).

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

They have no reason to hold back information as to his level of involvement, the others had their duties exposed in the same way. Had they come to this decision 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50yrs ago it would have been the right one, now there's only those so far down the pecking order left it seems suspect (to me anyway).

I never said they held back information, I said neither you nor I are privy to all the information from the trial. There should be no time cut-off if you've committed a crime (and he has committed a crime because he's been jailed for it) because of advanced age. He is just as guilty today as he was 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. To a lot of the survivors of Auschwitz it feels like it happened yesterday.

I have nothing more to say on this.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

I never said they held back information, I said neither you nor I are privy to all the information from the trial. There should be no time cut-off if you've committed a crime (and he has committed a crime because he's been jailed for it) because of advanced age. He is just as guilty today as he was 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. To a lot of the survivors of Auschwitz it feels like it happened yesterday.

I have nothing more to say on this.

Then why have they only decided to prosecute post 2011, when Poland have successfully prosecuted over 700? I appreciate it's a pain that never leaves you as a survivor, which is why this delay seems so strange and begs the question why now?