The headlines screamed, "Is this the face of a murderer? on the front cover of 'The Age's - Good Weekend' magazine. (June 14, 2008). It went on to say that 'Jane Cadzow takes tea with Perth grandfather and accused Holocaust killer Charles Zentai.'

'Accused Holocaust killer?' I thought, good grief - a mass murderer in our midst. However on reading the magazine article it seems that the eighty-six-year old Zentai is accused of the murder in 1944 of a young Jewish man in Budapest.

According to 'Good Weekend' magazine, 'The way is now clear for a West Australian magistrate to decide at a hearing in August whether
Zentai is eligible to be surrendered to a military tribunal in Budapest. Zentai's friends and family are outraged by the allegations against him and appalled that he might be sent to Hungary to be tried.'

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this very case ?
The evidence that is being presented comes from the then existing Soviet system. There are many questions here - including, what constitutes 'war crimes?'

Should all war criminals be prosecuted or only some? Are some war criminals not acceptable, while others are to be prosecuted at any cost and by any means?

Any thoughts?

I had the same thought, Foxy. Even assuming he is guilty, which as you point out may be difficult to prove, if the bloke had been involved in the killing of a gypsy, homosexual, mentally-retarded or other category of holocaust victim would he now be receiving the publicity? I suspect it is solely because the victim was Jewish that he is being pursued rather than any other special aspect of the case. I'm not suggesting for a second that the religion of the victim excuses his crime, although no doubt the usual accusations will be made by the usual dimwits. My concern is that the events and most of those involved in them, as well as the circumstances which lead to them have all been and gone. I can't help feeling that Zentai is being used as another in a long line of "trophy persecutors" trotted out to remind us all of how badly-done-by the Jews were during the War and by extension, justify whatever misbehaviour is perpetrated by Israel in the future. Why not, that strategy has worked well for over 60 years so far?

When we start seeing prosecutions for the war crime of murder of gays and petty thieves during WW2, I may modify my views.

You are both right.

It would be very hard to prove the crimes against Charles Zentai and I would also be worried he wont get a fair trial.

Besides as antiseptic said the Jews are a bunch of whingers who wont let the holocaust become part of history because they have a chip on their shoulder the size of a synagogue.

They are also total hypocrites when it comes to punishing war criminals.

We all know the story of the wanted Jewish war criminal Solomon Morel who was wanted for the murders of 1500 German women and children after the finish of the Second World War. The man fled to Israel where the Israel’s refused to extradite him even though there was a plethora of evidence against him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4659985.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Morel

Although I think all criminals should be punished it was a long time ago, hard to prove and is merely a witch up by a group of people who have no credibility.

May all 55 million people who died during WW2 rest in peace.

"Should all war criminals be prosecuted or only some? Are some war criminals not acceptable, while others are to be prosecuted at any cost and by any means?"

should there be a statute of limitations on murder and if so, how long?

Antiseptic "I suspect it is solely because the victim was Jewish that he is being pursued rather than any other special aspect of the case."

and

EasyTimes "Jews are a bunch of whingers who wont let the holocaust become part of history"

I guess if you two lived in Mississippi you would spend saturdays nights with white hoods and go around looking for some unlucky n-i-g-g-e-r to vent your bile on and possibly string up to a tree for looking at you the wrong way, before going off and burning a church or synagogue or something.

Bigotry comes in many forms and your anti-semite bigotry is no exception.

Please keep posting, bigots make the best targets for public ridicule, they have no justification to defend themselves with.

Dear Col Rouge,

The memories of those who perished at the hands of Hitler and Stalin during World War II are not revered by mock justice. It does not honor those who suffered and died that we now attempt to punish some alleged war criminals by relying on evidence produced by other perpetrators of the same crimes against humanity.

Hungary was under the Soviet Regime in 1948 - and this is where the evidence comes from that accuses the Perth resident.

The acceptance of alleged evidence selected and orchestrated exclusively by Hitler's partners and the punishment of targeted individuals who are not allowed to present a proper defense, is not only contrary to the most fundamental Western principles of justice, but compounds the tragedy of World War II.

Why is Hungary pursuing an Australian citizen 64 years after the alleged crime was committed, who allegedly killed one
person - when they have never brought to trial one single Soviet war criminal? The Soviets killed thousands of Hungarians. Why discriminate? Does Hungary (or Moscow) have a vested interest in discrediting refugees who were forced to flee Eastern Europe?

Are not all war crimes - equally horrible?

Even if it were possible to conduct a fair hearing so many generations after the alleged war crimes were committed, when most of the eyewitnesses have died and the surviving witnesses' memories are frail, can justice be achieved through a selective process which violates the most fundamental due process rights of the accused?

It seems to me that this is not justice.

You would hope anyone who murders wouldn't be free from judgement no matter how long ago it was. Fairly hard case to prove you'd think. But hopefully someone who is guilty and proven to be so would pay for that crime. I'd be keen on that if it was my family.

What's more the shame are the bigots that rise from the stinky festering swamp of agenda driven driatribe when an issue involving the holocaust and Jews comes up.

Dear Stg,

I agree with you - anyone who murders should be held accountable.
But if war criminals are going to be targeted - they should all be targeted.

The problem I have with this particular case is - can the defense build its case? Does it have free access to alleged documents and witnesses? Otherwise - how can justice be done? The evidence against this man comes from a period in his country's history that was filled with deceit and disinformation, where evidence was selected against the then (Soviet) regimes avowed enemies. How reliable is the evidence against him?

It is morally and legally unacceptable that our law is distorted for the purpose of avenging wrongs at the expense of individual liberties.
Our law guarantees the individual certain fundamental rights and protections. Our laws are based on the principle that the law serves the individual, not the state.

In contrast Lenin made it clear that,
"A law is a political measure, it is politics." No Soviet authority or leader has abandoned this concept.

As I said, I find it troubling that the evidence against this man comes from the time of the Soviet regime.

Me: "I'm not suggesting for a second that the religion of the victim excuses his crime, although no doubt the usual accusations will be made by the usual dimwits"

Col Rouge: "your anti-semite bigotry [amid a rather poor attempt at a rant]

StG: "bigots that rise from the stinky festering swamp of agenda driven driatribe when an issue involving the holocaust and Jews comes up"

Congratulations, dimwits.

Col Rouge – I like how you turn criticism on the Jews into branding me a racist. How cliché! Its sounds like something as daft as CJ Morgan would say. You and him have a lot in common when posting on OLO because you never have any facts nor do you provide any substance! Nothing but pure empty dogma!

I would be very interested if you could explain how I am being racist?

I know I am wasting my time asking Col Rouge this as his contributes to OLO is along the same lines as a clowns contributes to a bad circus act.

I have to ask what about all the Jews who where in the camps who killed captured Germans towards the end of the war? Should they all be trialed for Murder? The number of these cases are in the hundreds and well documented! Do you support the arresting of these murders Col? Or are you just a weak worthless low down raving hypocrite like suspect you are!

O and by the way Col if my grand parents had been living in Germany in the time of Hitler they would have been branded “Jews” and treated accordingly!

I have to say I do pity idiots like you.

Foxy – “As I said, I find it troubling that the evidence against this man comes from the time of the Soviet regime.” You are right there the number of crimes committed on the Eastern front by both sides both during the war and after are in the hundreds of thousands. All the cases against Germans which can be prosecuted have been as far as I know. There are still many tens of thousands of cases against Russians soldiers and the like that will never be prosecuted!

I have also heard of crimes committed by Allied and Australian soldiers against Japanese POW.. but lets not go there!

Foxy I forgot to post this link if you are interested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

Charles Zentai was one of three men who failed in a bid to avoid extradition hearings.

On 23/4/08 the High Court of Australia dismissed the appeals by a majority of six to one after the trio lost earlier appeals in the Federal Court.

That decision also covers the cases of Larry Williams, wanted in the US on tax evasion charges, and Irishman Vincent Thomas O'Donoghue, who faces fraud charges.

Charles Zentai, served in the Nazi-allied Hungarian Army during the war. He was one of thousands who fled the Russian advance and ended up in Australia as a refugee in 1950 after living in the American and French-occupied zones of Germany.

Hamish Fitzsimmons reported that: “The bulk of the evidence against Charles Zentai comes from the trials of two Hungarian army officers, Bela Mader and Lajos Nagy, who were convicted of the crime in 1947.

"Mader was sentenced to life with hard labour but released in 1956. Nagy was executed. Both pointed the finger at Charles Zentai.”

Efraim Zuroff of the Wiesenthal Centre claim that both Mader and Nagy very clearly identified Charles Zentai as the person, one of the people who carried out the beating and murder and the person who threw the body of Peter Balasz into the Danube.

In 1947 Hungary's new communist government charged the former army officer in his absence with the murder of Peter Balazs, the 17-year-old Jewish youth who was murdered on 8/11/'44. Mr Zantai claims he left Budapest on the 7/11/'44 with many civilians and a large military contingency so I don't imagine that would be impossible to verify.

The High Court's recent decision does not augur well for others, who suspected of war crimes, have found safe haven in Australia.

Mr Zuroff advised that "after being accused of a war crime, the health of every alleged Nazi war criminal usually follows a predictable path — it rapidly declines."

I haven't met Mr Zentai therefore I cannot verify whether he is “charming” or not. Perhaps we shall find out in the not too distant future.

Foxy your deflection into the history of Hungary is deficient (nothing new in that from you), Hungary is one of the newer members of the EU and thus can be considered to have moved of from its years under the yoke of bestial communism.

“can justice be achieved through a selective process which violates the most fundamental due process rights of the accused?”

It seems to me that is what a trial will be about, rather than a proclamation of his innocence or exemption from due process because it fits with your personal thought for the day.

Antiseptic “Congratulations, dimwits.”

I have no problems with what you call me.

I would far sooner be mistaken for a ‘dimwit’ than to stand here, like you and announce yourself as a small minded bigot devoid of sufficient wit (dim even) to know how indefensible your arrogant posturing condemns you to be.

I guess you need all the ‘antiseptic’ you can get, having adopted the content and values of a carbuncle.

Easytimes “into branding me a racist.”

I did not brand you a ‘racist’,

It was your own invective statement “the Jews are a bunch of whingers who wont let the holocaust become part of history because they have a chip on their shoulder the size of a synagogue.”

Which does that.

As for “O and by the way Col if my grand parents had been living in Germany in the time of Hitler they would have been branded “Jews” and treated accordingly!”

So what, I have two great grandmothers who were Jewish but I was brought up an English protestant.

I guess if we look back far enough there might be a “little bit of Jew” in all of us. It is a point of neither shame or acclaim.

How we are, the values we aspire to (or otherwise) is a matter for each individual to decide.

That you have clearly decided on being a racist is your shame and would doubtless be considered so by your grandparents too.

I'd not heard about this case so I did do a little checking - but without going into the right and wrongs of this case, I am always surprised when people espouse the cause of age giving exemption to crime.

Murder is murder - it is against the laws of man, nature and, for those who believe in him, god. Whether this person's case was hyped up to present him as a Holocaust Killer or whether indeed it was a gay person or a petty thief whom he is accused of murdering makes no difference to me. To cite a person's current age as an extenuating circumstance does not seem to be an adequate defense - it just means that a person has escaped lawful retribution for a longer period than most.

It would not seem to be taking murder seriously enough if society were to condone it once a person had managed to elude the law for a certain length of time. In any case, how does one determine that time? If a person reaches the age of 60 is that adequate? Or is that not quite old enough? Or do we determine that anyone who reaches 80 is exempt but, if caught at the age of 79 is not?

I also fail to see why a person's charm or lack thereof should also be taken into consideration. Most serial killers are described by neighbours and friends as "A really nice person", after all. Is a person without charm more culpable than one who possesses it?

I am pretty much an equal opportunities person: those who have committed a crime go through due process regardless of age, personality or appearance.

Romany: "Whether this person's case was hyped up to present him as a Holocaust Killer or whether indeed it was a gay person or a petty thief whom he is accused of murdering makes no difference to me."

In terms of his accused crime it makes no difference to me, either, but it does make a difference to the chances of his being prosecuted over 60 years later. What annoys me is that if he was accused of murdering a different class of holocaust victim, no one would ever hear of it. When such a long time has passed there seems little point in rehashing what was, in the overall picture of atrocity that was WW2, a relatively minor crime [cue the dimwits saying I am trying to excuse a murderer]. I have no idea of the strength of evidence in this case, but if it's at all like any of the other show trials that have been held over the past decade or so it will be very weak, which means the trial is largely a propaganda exercise rather than a real search for justice.

Col Rouge: "stand here, like you and announce yourself as a small minded bigot devoid of sufficient wit (dim even) to know how indefensible your arrogant posturing condemns you to be"

So show me how it's "indefensible" then, dimwit, instead of trying to play the man, which you're obviously not adequately intellectually equipped to attempt. You might like to actually examine the atatements made before you start. On second thoughts, don't bother, the facts would only confuse you.

Antisemit....sorry, septic.

Blow me.

Well blow me too! Once again I find myself agreeing with Col Rouge - and StG and Romany. It seems to me that murder's murder, and I don't see that a murderer's success at hiding himself for however long exonerates him, and neither does his "charm".

I agree that there are probably political reasons for pursuing Zentai, but that doesn't get him off the hook now that he's been identified. Clearly, his prosecutors think they have enough evidence to secure a conviction - and if they don't, he'll presumably be found not guilty.

No need for thinly veiled anti-Semitic conspiracy theories here.

Antiseptic “So show me how it's "indefensible" then, dimwit, instead of trying to play the man,”

I was not trying to “play the man”.

A “man” stands up for fairness and the universal right of others, regardless of their race.

All you are doing with your generalisations like

"trophy persecutors" trotted out to remind us all of how badly-done-by the Jews were during the War and by extension, justify whatever misbehaviour is perpetrated by Israel in the future”

is the wholesale denigration of others, based on their racial /ethnic origins.

So as far as “play the man”, you do not qualify as a man.

The experience of this ‘dimwit’ (labels from racists don’t count as meaningful) is every racist I have met is really projecting their own deep seated sense of inadequacy, personal impotence, low self-esteem and insecurity. They are people who, on a good day, would aspire to the IQ of an earthworm.

Antiseptic, you are just ratifying my experience of racists.

I didn't mean to imply that I thought the man was 'charming.' That was the headline taken from 'The Age - Good Weekend' magazine. Sorry, if I gave people the wrong impression.

Col Rouge, my reference to Hungary was not a deflection - that's where the evidence comes from, against this man . And as I stated previously - it comes from a time when disinformation was part and parcel of that regime. Kindly avoid making personal comments directed at me - you don't know me - so be the gentleman that your
nom-de-plume - suggests you are .

I don't have a problem with murderers being charged. What I do have a problem with is that justice will not be served in this case. - This man is being accused of a crime that he denies having committed. He claims that he wasn't even in Budapest at that time - having left the city a day earlier-with his military convoy.
Whereas, his two accusers were the ones that were left behind in the barracks - where the young man was murdered. If you believe that this man can lie, why then can't his accusers?

What kind of a defence can now be built - 64 years after the event?
This man will not get a fair trial. How can he? Again, as I said previously - this is not justice that is being served.

Anyone else want to join the dimwit chorus?

CJ Morgan: "No need for thinly veiled anti-Semitic conspiracy theories here."

I agree. Would you care to point out where I have suggested he should not be tried, or that it is a bad thing that he be held to account if he did it? All I have suggested is that (assuming guilt is proven) if he had killed someone of a different religious background, it's a lay-down misere that he'd be permitted to live out his days without facing a trial, rightly or wrongly. The fact is that the Israeli State and many individual Jewish people make a point of finding and having prosecutions brought against people for crimes that are alleged to have been committed during WW2, a period when crimes of much greater magnitude than this one were committed daily all over the world. Let's move on, people! We all acknowledge that the holocaust was a terrible thing and we all acknowledge that the Jewish peoples suffered terribly, but it's 63 years ago and 3 generations have been born since. Let the vengeance thing go, it's over.

Everyone is right murder is murder and criminals should pay who ever they are we all agree there.

Now if this man had been accused of murdering non Jews would he be trialed? Simple answer no! See the link I first posted of the Jew who murder 1500 civilians and was given a hero’s welcome when he fled to Israel. Where were the people of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre when this Solomon Morel was on the loose? They didn’t care!

Groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Centre are not interested in justice for all victims of crimes during and in the after marth of ww2 they are only interested in revenge! For this reason alone they are not creditable as they have an interest in having people thrown in jail no matter how little the evidence. It also must be said that the Simon Wiesenthal Centre is funded by Jewish groups and if they are not having big show trials the funding for them will quickly dry up.

If these Jews don’t get him for murder at least they will in a typical Jewish fashion get schadenfreuden from bankrupting this old man.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23861127-5006789,00.html

Simple rules of war!

The winners make the rules! By default the Jews being victims of our enemy make them to be on the winning side! So Jews can get all the justice they want (fabricated or not) but if the victims are women and children of German decent there will be no justice no matter how much independent evidence you provide.

Col Rouge – You did not say if support having Jewish war criminals bought to justice! Well what is your stance?

There is certainly a high level of anti-Jewish sentiment among OLO posters.

I often become tired of holocaust 'talk', but then I remind myself that I wasn't involved; I have no idea of what the trauma has done to Jews still living and what their memories have done to their descendants.

Anybody who has killed anyone for any reason except self-defence should be brought to book, no matter how old or "charming" they are.

Col Rouge you stated "Foxy your deflection into the history of Hungary is deficient (nothing new in that from you), . . . "

That was an incredibly rude, mean-spirited and arrogant comment you made to Foxy.

What is deficient is your capacity to interact in a sensible and respectful way. An apology is in order

Dear Easy Times,

Thank you for the website. I appreciate it.

This Zentai case reminds me of a bad TV movie - where a police officer goes to great lengths to pursue a suspect - for his own agenda.

Col Rouge tried to point out - Hungary is no longer under the Soviet yoke. However, if that's true - why are they relying on evidence from that period?

In the past - 'evidence' was produced accusing people of 'war crimes'
where those people were too young to have been able to participate in the events they were accused of.

The accusations occurred because those people were active in the West
in anti-Soviet activities.

I can't help but wonder what hidden agenda is driving this case.

As Simon Wiesenthal declared when he retired in 2003, the time for pursuing those responsible for the Holocaust was over. "If there were any left, they'd be too old and weak to stand trial today...My work is done."

Well this is interesting. Here I'm concurring with Dickie and Mr Right, and disagreeing with Foxy. Most unusual.

I see your point, Foxy, in that it's hard to bring evidence against him and from so many years ago, establishing the reliability of said evidence will be very difficult.

But the system's weighted to take that into account. Sometimes, I think it's weighted that way a little too much. I've witnessed trials where there's been no doubt that severe life-threatening violence was inflicted upon someone in the most unlikely of circumstances, but because there was a possible chance it was an accident (you'd really be shocked how implausible this 'accident' was) they were acquitted.

So if indeed the evidence is flimsy, it is not difficult for a halfway competent defense counsel to achieve a not guilty verdict.

What you're getting at is that it should apply to everyone, not just be used as a tool to reinforce the horrors of the holocaust. I concur that yes, everybody, including this man, should be brought to trial for their day in court.

As for whether he's charming or not, or a seemingly pleasant pensioner, I think that's irrelevant and I'd be worried if this really was taken into account. Apparently the SS had a number of charming types, who were considerably less charming when it came to their duties.

Dear TRTL,

I fully agree with you - the man's so called 'charm,' is totally irrelevant. I deeply regret taking that headline from the magazine.

However, I still do not agree with the case being brought to trial - on suspect evidence - because no matter how good his legal team may be, if there's a hidden agenda driving all of this - the man won't stand a chance.

I remember the case of Nikolai Tolstoy in which he tried to get to the bottom of the handing over of some 40,000 Cossacks and White Russians, including many women and children that ended in his writing the book,"The Minister and the Massacres.'

His story was of a cover up operation lasting forty years which included the deliberate keeping in ignorance of both Winston Churchill and the British and US governments of the day, the removal or destruction of official government papers; a conscious attempt to place the blame for the massacres on Field Marshal Alexander, and concerted efforts made to avoid the full facts ever coming to light.

Tolstoy had all the evidence, the best legal advice, but no hope of winning. There was a hidden agenda.

I'm sure the same applies to this case of the Perth pensioner.

I'd hate to have to try and defend myslef against allegations about something from that far in the past. I'd hate at his age to have to try and deal with a serious legal case in a country which I'd not been in for around 58 years. If he is innocent the hooro of what he is facing would be overwhelming.

Is there evidence that this man has been in hiding or has he been living here under his real identity (or if he's anglicised his name did the authorities have his original name?

If there is evidence that he has been involved in a long term deception to hide then I'd say thats the risk you take but if he has been here in the open then the elapsed time period seems unreasonable.

War criminals should not escape but unless there is clear evidence that this man has been hiding I'd rather take the risk of letting one off than the risk of destroying the last years of a man who may well be innocent.

R0bert

Dear Robert,

According to the article in 'The Age's - Good Weekend,' magazine, June 14, 2008, and I quote:

"...No one was more surprised than he to learn of the extradition request..."I never knew about it," he says. "They didn't contact me at all." And it wasn't as if he was in hiding: his address in Germany was registered, to entitle him to food rations, and he migrated to Australia under his own name...He was listed in the Perth telephone directory...

Hardly the behaviour of a fugitive, says Ernie, who is convinced that his father could not have killed Petr Balazs on November 8. Why? Because he and his unit had left Budapest the previous day..."Some dates you don't forget," says Zentai, who contends that Nagy and commander Bela Mader WERE in Budapest on November 8, having stayed behind to secure the barracks. They and their families caught a bus to rejoin the unit a couple of days later.

Could they have committed the crime? "I don't know," he says. "I'm really not certain. But it is a possibility." Witnesses at the Nagy trial testified that Mader WAS present when Peter was dying..."

As I've stated in my previous posts Robert, this case is not cut and dry.

Easytimes “Col Rouge – You did not say if support having Jewish war criminals bought to justice! Well what is your stance?”

My view is simple,

if someone is suspected of a crime and if, on the balance of the available evidence, there is sufficient a basis for an appropriate authority to prosecute, then the means to determine someone’s guilt or innocence is to place it before a jury and I see no sense in the Hungarian government going to the expense of a trial without sufficient evidence; rather than pretend that a review of the newspaper reports here on OLO is sufficient an enquiry to exonerate anyone.

Foxy “Col Rouge tried to point out - Hungary is no longer under the Soviet yoke. However, if that's true - why are they relying on evidence from that period?”

I did not try, I clearly did point it out.

As to the evidence, the Hungarian authority of today is prosecuting a crime which predated the soviet occupation period, which is the period to which the evidence refers.

” The accusations occurred because those people were active in the West in anti-Soviet activities.”

That sounds like “innocence due to possible conspiracy theory” and might hold some validity if the soviet puppet regime still held the reigns.

“As Simon Wiesenthal declared when he retired in 2003, the time for pursuing those responsible for the Holocaust was over.”

I do not think that is within Simon Wiesenthal “gift” to make.

“However, I still do not agree with the case being brought to trial - on suspect evidence - because no matter how good his legal team may be, if there's a hidden agenda driving all of this - the man won't stand a chance.”

“if there is a hidden agenda”

– what “if” there is no hidden agenda, should the fate of his victim be forgotten and ignored?

Btw I asked you previously “should there be a statute of limitations on murder and if so, how long?”

You have not responded

Dear Col Rouge,

I can see that we are not going to achieve anything constructive in further discussions of this case. My knowledge of the history of Hungary differs from yours considerably. It wasn't until the 1990s that multiparty elections were held in that country - the same applies to the other "free" countries that once belonged to the Soviet bloc - where today supposedly democracies exist. As the saying goes, "Same bloke, different hat." And, getting a 'fair trial,'
according to their rules - would be rather difficult.

Anyway, Thank you for your comments and contributions to this thread.
I stand by the views that I've expressed here, and the reasons for them. I don't of course expect everyone to agree with me.

I'd like to Thank all the posters who have contributed - It has been an interesting discussion. Some very good points have been raised.

Foxy "As the saying goes, "Same bloke, different hat." And, getting a 'fair trial,'
according to their rules - would be rather difficult."

That is a very cynical assumption.

Considering the events of 1956 (oh I do know a little about Hungarian history) and the sense of nationhood which many Hungarians express, I think the last person to hold favour in Budapest would be of the "Old Guard".

As for the "charming pensioner" I am sure when they eventually bury Ivan Milat, someone will observe how genteel a man he is, layed out in the coffin (a closure which he denied many of his victims).

Col Rouge: "a closure which he denied many of his victims"

Sheesh! Hysterical much, lovey?

Dear Col Rouge,

Cynical assumptions.? I was merely quoting the observations made in
The Age - Good Weekend magazine. But, Comparing a person whose guilt has yet to be proven - with Ivan Milat?

What does that say about your degree of fairness? Open-mindedness - or 'innocent until proven guilty?' according to our legal system.
No wonder I feel uneasy about this Perth pensioner's chances of getting a fair trial...

cont'd.

I forgot to add... you said that according to Hungary's sense of nationhood, you felt that the last people to hold favour in Budapest would be someone from the "Old Guard." But today - the 'Old Guard,'
doesn't exist. Today - they have become 'patriots.'

And some of the biggest 'patriots' are ex-KGB.

Foxy “I was merely quoting the observations made in The Age - Good Weekend magazine.”

If I were to quote a source I would distinguish it from my own words. Either way, that you go to the effort of quoting it implies you agree with it, in which case, my original comment, regarding cynicism, stands.

“What does that say about your degree of fairness? Open-mindedness - or 'innocent until proven guilty?' according to our legal system.”

My degree of fairness which supports the rule of law, properly executed requests for extradition and a trial

Compared to your standard of

"innocent due to old age and looking “genteel”, as reported in a weekend comic."

That standard of “fairness” would equally excuse Dr Josef Mengele, if he were caught today.

Hardly a fair outcome for his victims either.

“And some of the biggest 'patriots' are ex-KGB.”

And I suppose they all run Hungary as part of a huge conspiracy…..

Antiseptic “Sheesh! Hysterical much, lovey?”

You are failing to make a point, probably just breaking wind.

Dear Col Rouge,

I've taken everything you've said on board.

I fully understand the points you've raised.

However, my views differ from yours.

Even if it were possible to conduct a fair hearing three generations after the alleged war crimes were committed, when most of the eyewitnesses have died,I don't believe that justice can be achieved through a selective process which violates the most fundamental due process rights of the accused.

But that is only my opinion. I don't expect you to agree with me.
I respect your right to your opinion. I only ask that you do me the same courtesy.

Cheers.

Col Rouge:"You are failing to make a point, probably just breaking wind."

A man stands accused of having been complicit in the murder of someone 64 years ago during a war, living an apparntly blameless life since and before and you try to compare him with Ivan Milat.

That, of course, was after you accused me of anti-semitism for daring to suggest he'd not even be in the predicament if the victim wasn't Jewish, followed by the revelation that the prosecution is being pushed by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre.

Dimwitted hysteria doesn't make for a good discussion, even by your normal low standards.

Fortunately, most here seem to apply rather better quality control to their output.