Earlier this morning, Laszlo Csatary, who is three years away from reaching the age of 100, was living a relatively quiet life in his later years. He seemed normal in every way. On the news, I saw footage of him carrying his groceries to his home, as quietly as could be done when you live in the city.
Also, as quietly as he could when all sorts of cameras and such are pointed at him, trying to catch a glimpse of him.
Why is a nearly 100-year old man such a hot item for cameras and such? Well, it is because of his past.
You see, the quiet and relatively peaceful life I just described, a life that belongs to the older version of Laszlo up until very recently, hid a more disturbing version of his life when he wore a younger man’s clothes.
When he was still a relatively young man, during the chaotic days of the Second World War and the Holocaust, he helped to organize the deportation of over 15,000 Jews to Auschwitz.
After the war, he fled to Canada, and lived a fairly normal life there as an art dealer under a false name. However, in the 1990’s, he had to leave Canada after being stripped of his citizenship. He went to Hungary.
Csatary is number one on the list of the Nazi hunting Simon Wiesenthal Center, and they warned the Hungarian government about him.
On Wednesday (the 18th), he was surprised to be placed under arrest.
State prosecutor Tibor Ibolya said, “He denies being guilty of the crimes he is accused of. One of his arguments in his defence is that he was obeying orders.”
That has been the standard reasoning for those accused of war crimes since the days of the Nuremberg Trials.
According to Ibolya, Csatary “is in good physical and mental health. He is being cooperative. He was surprised (about the arrest) but he expected to be questioned.”
There have been some questions in recent years about Nazi hunting, and the image of these very old men being imprisoned and made to pay for crimes that took places the greater part of a century ago.
That said, this world seems filled with such criminals, and I, for one, do feel that there is considerable legitimacy in hunting them down. You do the crime, then you do the time. Also, have your name dragged through the mud, if it comes down to it. It is a sad state of affairs, of course. But how else can we fight against those who would carry out these horrific war crimes?
There has been some progress on this score, of course. Earlier this year, former Liberian President Charles Taylor was convicted of war crimes. What made that particular case unique was that he was a sitting President of a country, and was not physically present in the area (the crimes took place in the neighboring nation of Sierra Leone) where the war crimes were supposed to have taken place, yet he was found guilty of having largely caused it. That was unprecedented. He was charged with 11 offenses, amounting to war crimes, including murder, rape and other violent acts, enslavement and the use of child soldiers, pillaging, and even terrorism.
Of course, Charles Taylor, like Nazis and many others accused before him, claimed that he himself was just a victim. He compared his actions with those of George W. Bush, during the War on Terror (another reason that perhaps future Presidents should be a little more careful, intelligent, and thoughtful before taking action and invading a country – because the whole world is indeed watching, and will hold the President, and the American people in general, accountable).
Whenever we try and allow some people to be above the law (and they almost always use the excuse that they are protecting the freedoms of the people in who’s name they are taking such actions), we giving them carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want. This often works out disastrously, as it did in Nazi Germany. As it did in turkey, in the declining years of the Ottoman Empire, when up to a million Armenians were murdered. As it did in the former Soviet Union, particularly under the reign of terror of Stalin. As it did in Nigeria, during the Biafran Civil War. As it did in Mao’s China. As it did under the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. As it did in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990’s, and again in the late 1990’s, during the rule of Slobodan Milosevic. As it did in Rwanda in 1994. As it did under the reign of President Charles Taylor in Liberia. As it did in Darfur most recently.
These crimes are too numerous to list, and they almost literally span the globe. And that, only since around the midway point of the twentieth century.
After the end of World War II and the Holocaust, a familiar refrain that was often repeated was “Never Again”. But that has proven not to be true, actually. If anything, these crimes seem to be gaining in momentum and frequency.
So, it seems logical to me that such criminals should be hunted, much like they themselves did the hunting, when they had the power to do so. Yes, Csatary is nearly 100 years old, and these crimes that he is accused of took place around 70 years ago. Does that mean he should no be held accountable? If so, what kind of message is that? Perhaps there is a statute of limitations in place within the legal framework of the still yet developing world court. But are there not exceptions to those who escape justice by going overseas under a false identity, such as Csatary did (as well as many, many others). Is it not right to go after them?
Again, a lot of time has passed since the Holocaust, and many of those who were around to play an active part in this terrible chapter of history have since died. A lot of them, but not all of them.
Yet, when one is still found, as Csatary has now been found, is it not right to persecute them for war crimes, even those that took place a long time ago?
How else are we going to try to prevent these things from happening in the future, without letting the perpetrators know that, yes, they will be hunted, literally, for the rest of their lives?
It might not be the ideal solution, but it is better than doing nothing, isn’t it?
Also, I would add that it seems ridiculous to me that anybody would want to make an exception and exempt people, simply because they belong to a certain nationality. I mentioned Charles Taylor, and how he compared himself with George W. Bush. There are countries that either Bush nor former Vice-President Cheney or former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld can go to, because they would indeed technically be guilty of war crimes there.
Many Americans feel that their fellow countrymen should be exempt from these charges, but I feel this is an absurd and contradictory stance for anyone to be taking. When Americans supported the crusades of Bush and his team, largely on the grounds that international terrorists were conducting all sorts of horrors around the world and needed to pay for their crimes, they are hardly being fair or logical when they themselves want a status that exempts them from the same such crimes, if indeed they are guilty of them. The war in Iraq was waged largely on the premise of Weapons of Mass Destruction, but those were never found. Bush and his team claimed to be shocked, and suggested faulty information. They were misled, in other words. But the only misleading that they were involved with was the propaganda that helped tog et the ball rolling with the war. They wanted it, and got it. I am not going to get into the whole Haliburton thing here, but what they did was nothing short of a crime, and they should be held accountable. Yes, even if they are Americans. I am not a believer in this notion of systematic American exceptionalism.
Some Americans have suggested that Americans are incapable of crimes against humanity like that. Tell that to the families of innocent victims during the Iraq War. Tell that to the families of those killed by the American soldier earlier this year, who was described by neighbors as completely normal in every sense.
So, yes. Let war criminals around the world be brought to justice. If they run and hide, as Csatary did, and as well as many other Nazis, let them know that they are being hunted. Let them know that they will never be left in peace, because these rimes are unique, being on such a scale. Let them not be allowed to live the rest of their lives in peace, since they did not allow their victims to live in peace when they had the chance to, however long ago it may have been.
Also, let us recognize the dangers of the jingoistic propaganda campaigns that have been evident in all of these cases that I mentioned, and let us understand better the fine line between actual defense, and inexcusable aggression.
“Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. ”
- Hermann Goring
Below is the link to the Yahoo! article "Top Nazi "war criminal" Csatary arrested in Hungary", by Florence La Bruyere, which provided much of the information in this blog entry, as well as all of the quotes used here:
http://news.yahoo.com/hungarian-nazi-war-crimes-suspect-csatary-custody-092553444.html
No comments:
Post a Comment