Analize si comentarii

Poate l-as crede si pe nastratin cu toate ca gadahn Americanul este mult mai credibil decit anticomunistul nastratin.

Din fericire, memoria internetului este inca nealterata, chiar daca anumite situri sau mesaje sint cenzurate.

Revenind la povestea cu Demjanjuk nedoveditul Ivan cel teribil, acuzat si achitat pe baza unei legitimatii unicat, nemaintilnita si nestiutata "specialistilor" care totusi au autentificat-o, oare ce mai spune azi David Twersky de la Forward?


http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/29/opinion/l-no-reason-to-readmit-death-camp-guard-992693.html

No Reason to Readmit Death Camp Guard
Published: July 29, 1993
[...]
Interesant mi se pare sa regasim atmosfera dinainte de deznodamintul procesului de la Jerusalim. La fel ca si azi, era gata condamnat, in ciuda informatiilor contradictorii care circulau.

Judge Wiseman was appointed by the Sixth Circuit a year ago to determine not if Mr. Demjanjuk was Ivan, nor if he was guilty of crimes under his own name at the Sobibor camp, but if there were grounds to conclude that in the original proceedings against Mr. Demjanjuk the Justice Department perpetrated fraud on the court and was guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. That charge was raised by Mr. Dannen in a June 1992 article in Vanity Fair. In that article, he states that actions by Justice's Nazi-hunting unit, the Office of Special Investigations, "may not be the 'frameup' the Demjanjuk family believes that it is, but it does make a strong case for prosecutorial misconduct."

The special master's report refutes those charges: "My recommendation to the court is that the case of Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, et al. be closed and that no action be taken against any of the Government attorneys who prosecuted Mr. Demjanjuk."

His first thesis discredited, Mr. Dannen now concludes that Israel should release John Demjanjuk and that the United States should readmit him. Whether or not Mr. Demjanjuk was Ivan is still to be decided by the Israel court. But on readmitting Mr. Demjanjuk to this country, the Wiseman investigation reaches a different conclusion from Mr. Dannen's:

"Nothing uncovered in these proceedings or, indeed, in the 12 years since Judge Battisti's decision in the denaturalization case, has cast any substantial doubt on his finding that Mr. Demjanjuk served in the German SS at the Trawinki training camp. . . . Because the Trawinki allegations formed an independent ground for Mr. Demjanjuk's denaturalization and deportation, therefore, the judgment was, and is, a sound one."

If, as Mr. Dannen would have us believe, the special master is right about Mr. Demjanjuk's not being Ivan, a conclusion based on a peripheral look at part of the evidence, how can he be wrong in concluding that the extradition was sound, regardless of whether or not John Demjanjuk was Ivan, the question to which he devoted the greatest part of his investigation?

Domnule dorin PULA inteleg ca te referi la mine ,ti-am explicat deja ca am fost obligat sa schimb nikul findca un echilibrist la cenzura a decis ca nu sunt demn sa raspund nincompupilor ca tine si Ahmed ruSSul,te deranjeaza da sunr anti comunist anti antisemit anti islamofascist si mai ales anti incinosi idiotii,vezi descriotia ta in ce am scris?



La 2009-12-15 20:56:56, dorinP a scris:

> Poate l-as crede si pe nastratin cu toate ca gadahn Americanul este
> mult mai credibil decit anticomunistul nastratin.
>
> Din fericire, memoria internetului este inca nealterata, chiar daca
> anumite situri sau mesaje sint cenzurate.
>
> Revenind la povestea cu Demjanjuk nedoveditul Ivan cel teribil, acuzat
> si achitat pe baza unei legitimatii unicat, nemaintilnita si
> nestiutata "specialistilor" care totusi au autentificat-o, oare ce
> mai spune azi David Twersky de la Forward?
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/29/opinion/l-no-reason-to-readmit-death-camp-guard-992693.html
>
> No Reason to Readmit Death Camp Guard
> Published: July 29, 1993
> [...]
> Interesant mi se pare sa regasim atmosfera dinainte de deznodamintul
> procesului de la Jerusalim. La fel ca si azi, era gata condamnat, in
> ciuda informatiilor contradictorii care circulau.
>
> Judge Wiseman was appointed by the Sixth Circuit a year ago to
> determine not if Mr. Demjanjuk was Ivan, nor if he was guilty of
> crimes under his own name at the Sobibor camp, but if there were
> grounds to conclude that in the original proceedings against Mr.
> Demjanjuk the Justice Department perpetrated fraud on the court and
> was guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. That charge was raised by Mr.
> Dannen in a June 1992 article in Vanity Fair. In that article, he
> states that actions by Justice's Nazi-hunting unit, the Office of
> Special Investigations, "may not be the 'frameup' the Demjanjuk
> family believes that it is, but it does make a strong case for
> prosecutorial misconduct."
>
> The special master's report refutes those charges: "My recommendation
> to the court is that the case of Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, et al. be
> closed and that no action be taken against any of the Government
> attorneys who prosecuted Mr. Demjanjuk."
>
> His first thesis discredited, Mr. Dannen now concludes that Israel
> should release John Demjanjuk and that the United States should
> readmit him. Whether or not Mr. Demjanjuk was Ivan is still to be
> decided by the Israel court. But on readmitting Mr. Demjanjuk to this
> country, the Wiseman investigation reaches a different conclusion from
> Mr. Dannen's:
>
> "Nothing uncovered in these proceedings or, indeed, in the 12 years
> since Judge Battisti's decision in the denaturalization case, has
> cast any substantial doubt on his finding that Mr. Demjanjuk served
> in the German SS at the Trawinki training camp. . . . Because the
> Trawinki allegations formed an independent ground for Mr. Demjanjuk's
> denaturalization and deportation, therefore, the judgment was, and is,
> a sound one."
>
> If, as Mr. Dannen would have us believe, the special master is right
> about Mr. Demjanjuk's not being Ivan, a conclusion based on a
> peripheral look at part of the evidence, how can he be wrong in
> concluding that the extradition was sound, regardless of whether or
> not John Demjanjuk was Ivan, the question to which he devoted the
> greatest part of his investigation?
>
>

Nu ma refeream la tine. Faceam referinta la personajul nastratin demn Paturica, care s-a metamorfozat in cel mai mare anticomunist dupa ce, conform cele afirmate de el, a schingiuit si ucis in numele comunismului. Oricum, tinind de atitudinea ta iubitoare fata de romani, in special cei ortodocsi, n-am nimic impotriva sa stric si pe tine un daraf si sa-ti satisfac dorinta.

La 2009-12-15 21:09:47, contraevreu-rus a scris:

> Domnule dorin PULA inteleg ca te referi la mine ,ti-am explicat deja
> ca am fost obligat sa schimb nikul findca un echilibrist la cenzura a
> decis ca nu sunt demn sa raspund nincompupilor ca tine si Ahmed
> ruSSul,te deranjeaza da sunr anti comunist anti antisemit anti
> islamofascist si mai ales anti incinosi idiotii,vezi descriotia ta in
> ce am scris?
>
>
>
> La 2009-12-15 20:56:56, dorinP a scris:
>
> > Poate l-as crede si pe nastratin cu toate ca gadahn Americanul este
> > mult mai credibil decit anticomunistul nastratin.
> >
> > Din fericire, memoria internetului este inca nealterata, chiar daca
> > anumite situri sau mesaje sint cenzurate.
> >
> > Revenind la povestea cu Demjanjuk nedoveditul Ivan cel teribil, acuzat
> > si achitat pe baza unei legitimatii unicat, nemaintilnita si
> > nestiutata "specialistilor" care totusi au autentificat-o, oare ce
> > mai spune azi David Twersky de la Forward?
> >
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/29/opinion/l-no-reason-to-readmit-death-camp-guard-992693.html
> >
> > No Reason to Readmit Death Camp Guard
> > Published: July 29, 1993
> > [...]
> > Interesant mi se pare sa regasim atmosfera dinainte de deznodamintul
> > procesului de la Jerusalim. La fel ca si azi, era gata condamnat, in
> > ciuda informatiilor contradictorii care circulau.
> >
> > Judge Wiseman was appointed by the Sixth Circuit a year ago to
> > determine not if Mr. Demjanjuk was Ivan, nor if he was guilty of
> > crimes under his own name at the Sobibor camp, but if there were
> > grounds to conclude that in the original proceedings against Mr.
> > Demjanjuk the Justice Department perpetrated fraud on the court and
> > was guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. That charge was raised by Mr.
> > Dannen in a June 1992 article in Vanity Fair. In that article, he
> > states that actions by Justice's Nazi-hunting unit, the Office of
> > Special Investigations, "may not be the 'frameup' the Demjanjuk
> > family believes that it is, but it does make a strong case for
> > prosecutorial misconduct."
> >
> > The special master's report refutes those charges: "My recommendation
> > to the court is that the case of Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, et al. be
> > closed and that no action be taken against any of the Government
> > attorneys who prosecuted Mr. Demjanjuk."
> >
> > His first thesis discredited, Mr. Dannen now concludes that Israel
> > should release John Demjanjuk and that the United States should
> > readmit him. Whether or not Mr. Demjanjuk was Ivan is still to be
> > decided by the Israel court. But on readmitting Mr. Demjanjuk to this
> > country, the Wiseman investigation reaches a different conclusion from
> > Mr. Dannen's:
> >
> > "Nothing uncovered in these proceedings or, indeed, in the 12 years
> > since Judge Battisti's decision in the denaturalization case, has
> > cast any substantial doubt on his finding that Mr. Demjanjuk served
> > in the German SS at the Trawinki training camp. . . . Because the
> > Trawinki allegations formed an independent ground for Mr. Demjanjuk's
> > denaturalization and deportation, therefore, the judgment was, and is,
> > a sound one."
> >
> > If, as Mr. Dannen would have us believe, the special master is right
> > about Mr. Demjanjuk's not being Ivan, a conclusion based on a
> > peripheral look at part of the evidence, how can he be wrong in
> > concluding that the extradition was sound, regardless of whether or
> > not John Demjanjuk was Ivan, the question to which he devoted the
> > greatest part of his investigation?
> >
> >
>
>