Aegis Trust

The leaked OSI report tells of a pattern: ignorance of their entry, toleration of their presence (and a welcome for some who were deemed valuable such as those involved in rocket design and research), followed eventually by quite vigorous official action. 

Alas, history tends to repeat itself. The pattern of immigration and occasional tolerance by the U.S. authorities was followed for suspected war criminals from modern-day conflicts - from Yugoslavia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Argentina, Rwanda and elsewhere.   

Nowadays U.S. immigration authorities are pursuing over 1000 cases.  Unlike the UK which has almost state of the art laws which are never used; the US has criminal laws which are full of holes - yet ICE and DOJ are effective in using prosecutions for visa fraud as an 'Al Capone' alternative.  (If you've ever wondered why, when flying into the U.S., you have to fill in that green visa card stating that you're not a Nazi, terrorist, or genocidaire - wonder no longer).  The answer for the U.S. is a crimes against humanity act, and reforms to the War Crimes Act to allow for an element of extra-territorial jurisdiction.  The answer for the UK is greater use of criminal prosecutions and less reliance solely on administrative processes on the suspects found here.

David Cesarani is a historian and researcher whose judgment is always sound.   His book, Justice Delayed, about the campaign to bring to justice Nazi war criminals living in the UK, was a great influence on us as we campaigned (successfully) to change British law on suspected genocidaires from modern conflicts.

Therefore, its noteworthy that he's come out and called the Demjanjuk court proceedings a 'trial too far'.  Essentially, his argument goes like this: justice isn't served when this sick man is dragged into a courtroom.  Even if he is found guilty - which Cesarani thinks is extremely likely - whose interests are served by sending him to send his last years in a prison hospital bed?  Another possibility, Cesarani argues, is that he's given an extremely light sentence - which will make the process seem ridiculous.

But is that last part of the argument right?  Is it not a sign of moral progress that we can hold a trial, hear the truth, judge a perpetrator, and then pass a sentence that reflects their age and ill-health?  I agree that the idea of sending this sick old man to die in prison is repulsive.  But allowing the scales of justice to work, while sparing her sword, is to offer a glimpse of the humanity which concentration camp guards never showed their victims.