German woman, 91, charged in 260,000 Auschwitz deaths

[mongers]

If found guilty I'd trust the German legal system to punish her appropriately.

To some extent they're playing 'catch-up' as in the late 50s and 60s they let some far more serious perpetrators of SS and  Wehrmacht atrocities, go free. 

[jimmy olsen]

I assume all Stasi informants have been put on trial.

Nope, they plan to start those trials in the 2050s.

[Valmy]

I assume all Stasi informants have been put on trial.

Nope, they plan to start those trials in the 2050s.

Good German efficiency.

[jimmy olsen]

I assume all Stasi informants have been put on trial.

Nope, they plan to start those trials in the 2050s.

Good German efficiency.

They have to wait until most of them are dead and the survivors are in their 90s so they can have a handful of show trails to assuage the nations guilt, while not actually doing anything meaningful to bring justice to their victims.

[Valmy]

They have to wait until most of them are dead and the survivors are in their 90s so they can have a handful of show trails to assuage the nations guilt, while not actually doing anything meaningful to bring justice to their victims.

Well right now there are hundreds of thousands of people who were complicit to some extent with the Stasi so best to wait until they have stopped working, have retired, and most of them have died. Think of all the money that is saved.

[The Minsky Moment]

What are the facts?  What exactly were her roles?  What did she know?  What did she assist in?  Are there extenuating circumstances?  Inculpatory ones?

And how can anyone prejudge the case either way without knowing the answers?

There's a reason why they have trials.  Cynics aside, it's not just a hollow ritual.

[The Brain]

What are the facts?  What exactly were her roles?  What did she know?  What did she assist in?  Are there extenuating circumstances?  Inculpatory ones?

And how can anyone prejudge the case either way without knowing the answers?

There's a reason why they have trials.  Cynics aside, it's not just a hollow ritual.

Hitler was innocent of any 1933-45 crimes since he didn't get a trial.

[Martinus]

I assume all Stasi informants have been put on trial.

What crimes can Stasi informants be put on trial for (assuming we are talking about crimes that can be prosecuted irrespective of domestic legislation at the time the crime was committed, in the same way Holocaust collaborators can be put on trial)? Honest question.

[11B4V]

I assume all Stasi informants have been put on trial.

What crimes can Stasi informants be put on trial for (assuming we are talking about crimes that can be prosecuted irrespective of domestic legislation at the time the crime was committed, in the same way Holocaust collaborators can be put on trial)? Honest question.

Why even bother?

[garbon]

What are the facts?  What exactly were her roles?  What did she know?  What did she assist in?  Are there extenuating circumstances?  Inculpatory ones?

And how can anyone prejudge the case either way without knowing the answers?

There's a reason why they have trials.  Cynics aside, it's not just a hollow ritual.

Actually I believe investigations can take place before a trial.

[The Brain]

I assume all Stasi informants have been put on trial.

What crimes can Stasi informants be put on trial for (assuming we are talking about crimes that can be prosecuted irrespective of domestic legislation at the time the crime was committed, in the same way Holocaust collaborators can be put on trial)? Honest question.

I'm confident that we can find something at least as bad as operating a radio.

Btw, if Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge (played by that hott actress in Der Untergang) wasn't put on trial (which I don't think she was) it seems weird to go after SS radio operators.

[Martinus]

I assume all Stasi informants have been put on trial.

What crimes can Stasi informants be put on trial for (assuming we are talking about crimes that can be prosecuted irrespective of domestic legislation at the time the crime was committed, in the same way Holocaust collaborators can be put on trial)? Honest question.

I'm confident that we can find something at least as bad as operating a radio.

Btw, if Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge (played by that hott actress in Der Untergang) wasn't put on trial (which I don't think she was) it seems weird to go after SS radio operators.

Her crime is not "operating the radio". Her crime (for which she is still being put on trial so may be innocent) is "aiding and abetting genocide". I am not sure whether crimes of stasi (however horrid) actually qualify as genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity - in which case aiding and abetting their crimes would be subject to a statute of limitation and would not be punishable under a retroactive statute.

[The Brain]

I assume all Stasi informants have been put on trial.

What crimes can Stasi informants be put on trial for (assuming we are talking about crimes that can be prosecuted irrespective of domestic legislation at the time the crime was committed, in the same way Holocaust collaborators can be put on trial)? Honest question.

I'm confident that we can find something at least as bad as operating a radio.

Btw, if Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge (played by that hott actress in Der Untergang) wasn't put on trial (which I don't think she was) it seems weird to go after SS radio operators.

Her crime is not "operating the radio". Her crime (for which she is still being put on trial so may be innocent) is "aiding and abetting genocide". I am not sure whether crimes of stasi (however horrid) actually qualify as genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity - in which case aiding and abetting their crimes would be subject to a statute of limitation and would not be punishable under a retroactive statute.

I'm sure getting his orders typed up and distributed was no help at all to Hitler's genocides.

[The Brain]

Also, advocating retroactive legislation seems bizarre to me.

Edit: if no one is then disregard this.

[Martinus]

Also, advocating retroactive legislation seems bizarre to me.

Edit: if no one is then disregard this.

It is generally accepted that certain crimes can be prosecuted even if they were not, technically, a crime under the national jurisdiction of the country where they were committed. This is what allowed for Nurnberg trials to happen, for example. But the list of such crimes is generally very short.

My assumption was that cooperating with the Stasi before 1989 was not a crime in Eastern Germany, so the only way it could be prosecuted is if it falls within the narrow group of the crimes that can be prosecuted as described in the first paragraph.