US: Expelled Nazis paid millions in Social Security

[Whatsnew]

I saw this article today, and was surprised especially about the following sentence:
The deals allowed the Justice Department's former Nazi-hunting unit, the Office of Special Investigations, to skirt lengthy deportation hearings and increased the number of Nazis it expelled from the U.S.

So basically they even didn't want those people to be prosecuted for their crimes?

[Keyboard Champion]

The nazis were a political party. Since when being part of a party is a crime?

[Deleted]

The nazis were a political party. Since when being part of a party is a crime?

Didn't the USA ban the Communist party?

[Puupi]

Didn't the USA ban the Communist party?

That doesn't mean it is a crime to be a member of such party. Nor is it even illegal. Illegal =! crime and in this case being a member is neither of those. Why should they be prosecuted?

[Cybran]

That doesn't mean it is a crime to be a member of such party.

The McCarthy witch hunts ruined a lot of lives, so.

[Keyboard Champion]

Didn't the USA ban the Communist party?

It was more of witch hunt and it happened in the '50s when everyone was a lot stupider and a lot less tolerant. At least we'd like to think we have outgrown that.

[Raamm]

Here's the problem with the whole anti-nazi thing in the U.S if you saw captain america 2 you'd know by fiction that the U.S conscripted Nazi's after WWII to help with all manners of weapon design and new technology design in general. Well, it turns out this was also the same case in reality simply put lots of the Nazi's that had technical experience and some with military/espionage experience or valuable intel were given asylum and a new country for cooperation. In the end of the whole situation they also paid into social security depriving a person of something they paid for is the crime known as theft.

The other problems is these people are like 90 years old what they tend to do is calculate how long they think they'll live math out the social security in comparison to how much a trial would cost. Also what if not enough evidence is found during the trial of 60+ year old crimes? You don't get a second shot. Convicting people of Nazi War Crimes in the U.S is incredibly difficult due to the first part I talked about. Many other Nazis were given great deals or were allowed in on cooperative terms. Then there is the problem of the underfunded/spread thin justice department. They either need more funding or need to stop going after the drug dealers/lords/cartels/worthlesscrimes. In the end a payoff can be better. It might not sound like a good solution but, it's the best we have sometimes.

Seriously lets say you're going after a 90 year old Nazi guy in the U.S well, he probably has dementia, evidence is sparse, and he's going to be dead in 5 years at most, getting him physically set up for the trial is probably going to be like 30,000$ and then the trial will run at like 750$ an hour. Is he really worth that much at this point?

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.businessinsider.com/nazi-scientists-space-program-2014-2

This is literally the tip of the iceberg the Apollo 11 project had probably 10% of the machinists and engineers were Nazis and then there is the upper management and the CIA and all the other people that wanted their expertise. I'd say that Nazi Germany was the most advanced nation on earth technology wise at the start and the middle of WWII.

[Whatsnew]

The nazis were a political party. Since when being part of a party is a crime?

Is that what I am referencing at? Those people committed crimes during WW2, fled to the US. They shouldn't be prosecuted for being a Nazi, they should be prosecuted for the crimes they committed.

- - - Updated - - -

That doesn't mean it is a crime to be a member of such party. Nor is it even illegal. Illegal =! crime and in this case being a member is neither of those. Why should they be prosecuted?

Did you guys even read the article? Guess not, they should be prosecuted for the crimes they committed during WW2.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's the problem with the whole anti-nazi thing in the U.S if you saw captain america 2 you'd know by fiction that the U.S conscripted Nazi's after WWII to help with all manners of weapon design and new technology design in general. Well, it turns out this was also the same case in reality simply put lots of the Nazi's that had technical experience and some with military/espionage experience or valuable intel were given asylum and a new country for cooperation. In the end of the whole situation they also paid into social security depriving a person of something they paid for is the crime known as theft.

The other problems is these people are like 90 years old what they tend to do is calculate how long they think they'll live math out the social security in comparison to how much a trial would cost. Also what if not enough evidence is found during the trial of 60+ year old crimes? You don't get a second shot. Convicting people of Nazi War Crimes in the U.S is incredibly difficult due to the first part I talked about. Many other Nazis were given great deals or were allowed in on cooperative terms. Then there is the problem of the underfunded/spread thin justice department. They either need more funding or need to stop going after the drug dealers/lords/cartels/worthlesscrimes. In the end a payoff can be better. It might not sound like a good solution but, it's the best we have sometimes.

Seriously lets say you're going after a 90 year old Nazi guy in the U.S well, he probably has dementia, evidence is sparse, and he's going to be dead in 5 years at most, getting him physically set up for the trial is probably going to be like 30,000$ and then the trial will run at like 750$ an hour. Is he really worth that much at this point?

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.businessinsider.com/nazi-...program-2014-2

This is literally the tip of the iceberg the Apollo 11 project had probably 10% of the machinists and engineers were Nazis and then there is the upper management and the CIA and all the other people that wanted their expertise. I'd say that Nazi Germany was the most advanced nation on earth technology wise at the start and the middle of WWII.

So what you are saying is that when the perpetrator is old enough, it's no use to prosecute them? Aside from that, it's not a thing that happened only recently.

[Puupi]

Did you guys even read the article? Guess not, they should be prosecuted for the crimes they committed during WW2.

Did YOU even read the article? Their crimes have "nothing" to do with this issue. The issue is that US government is paying social security to people whose citizenship has been revoked. That is what the article is about, not were they guilty or not for war crimes and have they been prosecuted or not. That's totally irrelevant.

[Keyboard Champion]

Is that what I am referencing at? Those people committed crimes during WW2, fled to the US. They shouldn't be prosecuted for being a Nazi, they should be prosecuted for the crimes they committed.

If they commited crimes they should be prosecuted. Since they aren't it's because they don't have evidence of any warcrimes and the only reason to expel them is because they're undesirables because of their past in the nazi party.

Zomg, but he was in the SS. Sure, and maybe he was pushing papers or sweeping the floors, doesn't mean he was involved in any war crimes. Still the SS payroll showing his name is enough to make him undesirable.

[Whatsnew]

So tell me, if they did NOT commit a crime, why would they be denaturalized? Both examples moved from the US just before "being stripped of their U.S. citizenship".

-edit- and did you even read the first sentence? it's explicitly about Nazis, and the role they played in the past.

[Puupi]

So tell me, if they did NOT commit a crime, why would they be denaturalized? Both examples moved from the US just before "being stripped of their U.S. citizenship".

So what? The problem here is that US kept paying them social security benefits, which is what the article is about.

-edit- and did you even read the first sentence? it's explicitly about Nazis.

Yeah it's a great sensational title.

[Whatsnew]

So what? The problem here is that US kept paying them social security benefits, which is what the article is about.

Yeah it's a great sensational title.

And now back to what I said: I find it strange that those people get stripped of their US citizenship, get deported but are not being prosecuted? "Hey, let's get rid of them, even pay them money as long as we don't have them in our country anymore (and especially let's forget about the possible war crimes they have committed)".

[Puupi]

And now back to what I said: I find it strange that those people get stripped of their US citizenship, get deported but are not being prosecuted? "Hey, let's get rid of them, even pay them money as long as we don't have them in our country anymore".

War crime prosecutions are being handled by the UN, not US justice system.

[Whatsnew]

War crime prosecutions are being handled by the UN, not US justice system.

That's not true, every nation can prosecute people for war crimes. But you showed in other threads already how much you know about international law.

From the article even:
"It was not upfront, it was not transparent, it was not a legitimate process," said James Hergen, an assistant legal adviser at the State Department from 1982 until 2007. "This was not the way America should behave. We should not be dumping our refuse, for lack of a better word, on friendly states."

Neal Sher, a former OSI director, said the State Department cared more about diplomatic niceties than holding former members of Adolf Hitler's war machine accountable.

It's basically putting your fingers in your ears shouting "NAHNAHNAH".

[Deleted]

Did you guys even read the article? Guess not, they should be prosecuted for the crimes they committed during WW2.

Should. Key word, with another thousands of suspects - we are speaking about hundreds of thousands possible suspects after ww2. With due process and all. They found it impossible to do after ww2 and generally speaking everyone gone only after the big(ger) fishes, the small - or, well, exploitable - ones got escaped.

Now, since now the number of small fishes radically decreased - do, the math, a 18yrs old camp guard in 45 now is about at least 87 yrs old - going after them is much easier, except that such trials tend to be a nightmare. Semi-senile defendant, semi-senile witnesses, ages old fragmented documentation, hysterical crowds - cruel or noth, its simply not worth it. Pretty much they got away.

- - - Updated - - -

And now back to what I said: I find it strange that those people get stripped of their US citizenship, get deported but are not being prosecuted? "Hey, let's get rid of them, even pay them money as long as we don't have them in our country anymore (and especially let's forget about the possible war crimes they have committed)".

The "easy way".

[Puupi]

That's not true, every nation can prosecute people for war crimes. But you showed in other threads already how much you know about international law.

Try harder with your ad hominem attacks.

From the article even:
"It was not upfront, it was not transparent, it was not a legitimate process," said James Hergen, an assistant legal adviser at the State Department from 1982 until 2007. "This was not the way America should behave. We should not be dumping our refuse, for lack of a better word, on friendly states."

Neal Sher, a former OSI director, said the State Department cared more about diplomatic niceties than holding former members of Adolf Hitler's war machine accountable.

It's basically putting your fingers in your ears shouting "NAHNAHNAH".

So you still don't understand what the article is about?

[Independent voter]

Didn't the USA ban the Communist party?

http://www.cpusa.org/

Been around since 1919. Instrumental in getting a lot of social laws passed. They were persecuted a bit here and there.

[Whatsnew]

Try harder with your ad hominem attacks.

So you still don't understand what the article is about?

Two things: I proved you again wrong with something you claimed, so I will repeat it: That's not true, every nation can prosecute people for war crimes. You can call it an add hominem, but don't spout bullshit here.
Secondly, read my OP. I am talking about something explicitly as repeated several times now, not about the article (it is YOU who needs to do the understanding)...

[Puupi]

Two things: I proved you again wrong with something you claimed, so I will repeat it: That's not true, every nation can prosecute people for war crimes. You can call it an add hominem, but don't spout bullshit here.

Every nation can prosecute people for war crimes in international court. There are many different international courts, but the US court isn't one of them. And if the US lacks evidence, it can't prosecute.

Secondly, read my OP. I am talking about something explicitly as repeated several times now, not about the article (it is YOU who needs to do the understanding)...

So what is it that you are so confused about? US didn't prosecute people they didn't have strong evidence against and thought it was just easier for them to deport those people and strip them of their citizenship.