Pemaksaan Peradilan yang dilakukan bagi Bekas Nazi

Penjaga kamp Konsentrasi Nazi, John Demjanjuk yang dibalut selimut menggunakan kursi roda, dibantu ketika memasuki sebuah ruang pengadilan di Munich, pada hari Senin (30/11), saat pradilannya mulai digelar. Sidang pengadilan John Demjanjuk, mantan penjaga kamp Nazi berusia 89 tahun, dimulai, atas tuduhan membantu memaksa 27.900 orang Yahudi masuk kamar-kamar gas pada 1943. Demjanjuk, seorang pensiunan pekerja pabrik mobil AS, muncul menggunakan kursi roda di depan sebuah pengadilan di kota Munich, Jerman Selatan mungkin menjadi sidang pengadilan besar terakhir Jerman dari era Nazi.

John Demjanjuk Saat dipersidangan

Para jaksa negeri Jerman yakin Demjanjuk, yang berada di urutan teratas daftar Pusat Simon Wiesenthal para penjahat perang paling dicari, membantu pembunuhan di kamp maut Sobibor, apa yang sekarang disebut Polandia, tempat setidaknya 250.000 orang Yahudi dibunuh. Kelompok-kelompok Yahudi dan keluarga para korban mengatakan tidak pernah terlambat bagi keadilan dilaksanakan dan kasus itu merupakan simbolis. “Kita seharusnya tidak salah berpikir bahwa satu kasus terhadap seorang penjahat perang merupakan kasus terhadap hanya satu orang,” kata Rabbi Marvin Hier, Ketua Pusat Wiesenthal di Los Angeles.

Apakah Simon Wiesenthal Center??
“Didirikan sejak tahun 1993 untuk mengkonfrontasikan pengunjung pada Bigotri dan Rasisme, dan untuk memahami holocaust secara historis maupun kontekstual". Simon Wiesenthal Center adalah LSM internasional yang didirikan untuk melindungi umat dan kepentingan Yahudi di seluruh dunia. “Berdiri bersama Israel, membela keselamatan umat Yahudi di dunia, dan mengajarkan penerangan rekayasa holocaust yang secara rapi pada generasi mendatang,” Eksistensi LSM yang bermarkas di Los Angeles tersebut sudah diakui oleh lembaga-lembaga internasional lainnya. Wiesenthal mengklaim berkekuatan 400.000 kader di AS dan sudah terakreditasi PBB, UNESCO, dan Konsul Eropa.
LSM berlogo Bintang Daud yang memiliki aset $ 66.193.619 itu juga memiliki sejumlah program yang mengatasnamakan perlindungan HAM. Mereka bermimpi untuk menciptakan dunia yang lebih baik dari yang sekarang ini. “Simon Wiesenthal Center adalah organisasi internasional HAM Yahudi yang didirikan untuk memperbaiki dunia selangkah demi selangkah.”

Petikan kalimat itu terpampang dengan jelas dalam kolom ‘about us’ situs Simon Wiesenthal Center. Dalam situs mereka, juga diterangkan beberapa kantor cabang Simon Wiesenthal Center yang tersebar di New York, Toronto, Palm Beach, Paris, Buenos Aires, dan Yerusalem.

Simon Wiesenthal Center jelas-jelas memproklamasikan dirinya sebagai LSM pelindung Yahudi dan Perekayasa Holocaust yang dilakukan oleh Nazi. Berbagai program sudah terorganisasi rapi untuk mendukung tujuan mereka.

Para terdakwa yang diajukan oleh Simon Wiesenthal Center

Demjanjuk, yang lahir di Ukraina dan turut bertempur dalam Tentara Merah sebelum ditawan oleh tentara Nazi dan direkrut sebagai seorang penjaga kamp, diekstradisi Mei lalu dari AS. Ia beremigrasi ke AS pada 1951, menjadi warganegara pada 1958, dan bekerja di industri mobil. Ia menyangkal dia terlibat dalam Holocust dan keluarganya bersikeras dia terlalu lemah untuk diajukan ke pengadilan. Putra Demjanjuk mengatakan ayahnya dirawat di rumah sakit selama lima hari dalam sepekan terakhir untuk menjalani serangkaian pemeriksaan dan memerlukan transfusi darah karena menderita penyakit sumsum tulang. “Mereka memaksa sidang pengadilan diteruskan tanpa memperhatikan kondisi ayah saya,” kata John Demjanjuk Jr.

www.wiesenthal.com
www.detik.com
Reuters

The "Enabling Act" (March 24, 1933)

Hitler had decided to build his dictatorship through a largely legal process. His next important step along that road was to emasculate the Reichstag by transferring its legislative authority to the Reich government. Such a fundamental change to the Weimar Constitution required a two-thirds majority, however. When, after eliminating the Communists, Hitler was still 31 votes short, he persuaded the German Center Party to approve this measure. During the Reichstag session in Berlin’s Kroll Opera House on March 23, 1933, Hitler falsely claimed that this new law was not tantamount to the abolition of the Reichstag, since he would use his new legislative authority over the next four years only in emergencies.

Kroll Opera House from front side view

Law to Remove the Distress of the People and the State (The Enabling Act)

The Reichstag has passed the following law, which is, with the approval of the Reichsrat, herewith promulgated, after it has been established that it meets the requirements for legislation altering the Constitution.

Article 1. National laws can be enacted by the Reich Cabinet as well as in accordance with the procedure established in the Constitution. This also applies to the laws referred to in Article 85, Paragraph 2, and in Article 87 of the Constitution.

Article 2. The national laws enacted by the Reich Cabinet may deviate from the Constitution as long as they do not affect the position of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The powers of the President remain undisturbed.

Article 3. The national laws enacted by the Reich Cabinet shall be prepared by the Chancellor and published in the Reichsgesetzblatt. They come into effect, unless otherwise specified, the day after their publication. Articles 68-77 of the Constitution do not apply to the laws enacted by the Reich Cabinet.

Article 4. Treaties of the Reich with foreign states which concern matters of national legislation do not require the consent of the bodies participating in legislation. The Reich Cabinet is empowered to issue the necessary provisions for the implementation of these treaties.

Article 5. This law becomes effective on the day of its publication. It becomes invalid on April 1, 1937; it also becomes invalid if the present Reich Cabinet is replaced by another.

Reich President von Hindenburg
Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler
Reich Minister of the Interior Frick
Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs Baron von Neurath
Reich Minister of Finances Count Schwerin von Krosigk

Cabinet Discussion of the Reichstag Fire and Necessary Changes in the Law (March 7, 1933)

Marinus Van Der Lubbe

On March 7, 1933, two days after the elections, the new cabinet discussed the fate of the arsonist Marinus van der Lubbe. The following excerpt reveals the general contempt that the new government felt for the constitutional state [Rechtsstaat]. But it also shows how limited Hitler’s power still was at this point. At his later trial, van der Lubbe was sentenced to death for treason and arson.



[ . . . ]

The Reich Minister of the Interior [Frick] spoke about the Reichstag fire and the punishment of the culprits, and stated that it was urgently necessary to hang van der Lubbe at once, and that this needed to happen on Königsplatz at that. To be sure, the law that currently applied to arson only provided for a prison sentence, but it had to be possible to impose the penalty of death by hanging for such a heinous crime and to apply it retroactively. The principle of nulla poena sine lege should not be applied without restriction. Professor Dr. Nagler (Breslau), Professor Dr. von Weber (Jena), and Professor Dr. Öttler (Würzburg) had rendered opinions to this effect.

The Reich Minister of the Interior then reported on the substance of the opinions as enclosed.

The Chancellor stressed the fact that, in his opinion also, it was urgently necessary to hang van der Lubbe. The German public absolutely expected this. He could not recognize the doctrine of “the law must be observed,” if the entire national life had to perish as a result.

Reich Minister Göring stated that the Reichstag fire had been previously announced at four different places. Whether the person arrested at the Belgian border had any connection with the deed was still uncertain. In the meantime, however, it had become known that van der Lubbe had already been summoned to court three times in Holland.

He [Göring] had seized the Karl Liebknecht House. A special commission for the struggle against the German Communist party was to be installed there.

The attempt planned on the life of the Chancellor in Königsberg was serious. It had been carefully prepared. Three persons had also been arrested. It was necessary to await the results of the investigation.

The Reich Chancellor stated that, as far as his person was concerned, he had no fears of assassination. The consequences of a successful attempt would, however, be terrible for the public. In that event, 100,000 Communists would probably be killed.

State Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger stated that he agreed entirely with the view of the Reich Chancellor that the law had to be adjusted to the circumstances.

A preliminary investigation of van der Lubbe had opened today (March 7) on grounds of high treason and arson.

He had to refer very emphatically to the doctrine of nulla poena sine lege. Only in Russia, China, and some small Cantons of Switzerland did this doctrine not apply. He would again study carefully the opinion mentioned by the Reich Minister of the Interior. The Reich Ministry of Justice would then, for its part, prepare an opinion and send both opinions to the Reich Ministers for their information.

State Secretary Dr. Meissner said that the statements of the Chancellor were entirely correct from a political perspective. The public was right in demanding a severe punishment for van der Lubbe.

The Reich President [Hindenburg], however, might twice suffer severe qualms of conscience, namely, if he were to sign an order prescribing the death penalty, etc., and then again if he were to decide later on to pardon the condemned man. He asked that the Reich Chancellor, the Reich Minister of the Interior, and the Reich Minister of Justice [Gürtner] submit the matter to the President before there was a final decision by the Cabinet.

Reich Commissar Dr. Popitz stated that he was afraid that the Reich Supreme Court [Reichsgericht] would not recognize the validity of a retroactive order prescribing the death penalty.

The Chancellor stated that he would get in touch with the President of the Reich Supreme Court about this.

It was expected that the Chancellor would first speak alone with the President concerning the matter.

[ . . . ]