What does it mean that justice was done? It means that
someone who committed an offense, was condemned to make restitution to the
victim, or was given a punishment that fits the offense or was dealt the double
whammy.
That's what happens in simple cases where the culprit is
usually a single person. But there can also be complex cases in which several
individuals would have played a role in an offense that could not be traced
directly to a single person. What happens in most democracies is that the least
obvious of the offenders are given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted. As
to the other offenders, they are given a punishment that's proportional to
their degree of participation in the crime.
While this approach is followed in America most of the time,
another approach is also followed some of the time. When a crime involves
people in high places, and the case becomes a public concern, those in charge
of justice deal with it differently. They bargain with the suspected “small
fishes,” giving them immunity or promising them reduced sentences for testimony
that would implicate the “big fishes” higher up. Effective or not, this
approach makes ordinary citizens wonder if it serves justice or if it
constitutes a travesty.
In fact, the question was asked long ago and has been
debated ever since. The pros and cons on both sides of the issue were put on
the table, but the matter was never resolved because it always came down to
choosing between imposing a partial justice on every player that's guilty of
something, or punishing the small fishes to the fullest extent of the law while
letting the big fishes escape justice for “lack of evidence”.
While doubt continues to hover over the integrity of
America's system of justice, the Jews brought another kind of oddity to that
system. An actual case study is discussed in the article that came under the
title: “The long road to Nazi labor-camp guard Jakiw Palij's removal,” written
by Brian Allen Benczkowski, and published on August 26, 2018 in the New York
Post. The writer began his dissertation with the following introduction:
“The removal of a longtime resident and former labor-camp
guard, is a triumph of justice for the victims of Nazi atrocities. After the
war, he unlawfully immigrated to the U.S. … A judge ordered him removed in
2004. It took 14 years to carry out that order. What took so long? The answer
begins with a painful history but ends with the triumph of justice”.
Brian Benczkowski went on to tell the history of the case,
and closed his argument with the following:
“No European country would take him, and he was in his 90s.
The odds of being able to carry out his removal seemed slim. Trump ignored
those odds and commenced discussions with Germany to secure his readmission.
Germany agreed to accept him. His removal makes clear that participants in Nazi
crimes will find no safe haven on American soil, even in their old age”.
The troubling question that's imposed by that logic comes
down to this: It is clear that Jewish hunger for revenge was the factor that
motivated the meaningless removal of that prison guard from one setting that
wasn't luxurious to another setting that's comparable, and may even be more
accommodating. Therefore, it cannot be said that justice was served or even
that it was meant to be served.
People who defend an action such as that (aside from the
fortune in public money that's spent to bring these cases to conclusion,) argue
that the legal approach followed in this case, was valid as much as getting Al
Capone on tax evasion. This was done when it became evident that Al Capone was
so well protected by circumstances and his minions, the prosecutor could not
make the criminal case against him stick.
Those who make that argument choose to ignore an important
factor. It is that Al Capone did commit heinous crimes, but the responsibility
fell on the shoulders of underlings that served as scapegoats. And so, to get
him on another charge, such as tax evasion, though odd, was not exactly a
miscarriage of justice.
But a prison guard that served only in that capacity without
participating in the torture or murder of the inmates, is more innocent than
those who instigated a 14-year effort to accomplish nothing but push the
reputation of America's legal system and its democracy deeper still into the
cesspool of Jewish uselessness.