A literary explanation of the US housing bubble.

Posted on 2011-01-11 by Andreas Moser

I am currently reading – among other books – “Parrot and Olivier in America“, a novel by parrotPeter Carey which is based on Alexis de Tocqueville‘s travels to the early United States of America and his research for “Democracy in America”.

I would like to share the following excerpt which is a nice literary explanation of (some of) the reasons behind the recent housing bubble and ensuing credit crisis in the US.

It is a conversation between Olivier de Garmont, the visiting French aristocrat, and Mr Peek, a New York banker, taking place while they are riding through Manhattan in Mr Peek’s coach and recounted from M. de Garmont’s perspective. Mr Peek just explained to the surprised Frenchman that he would loan money to anyone who wanted to buy or build a house, which M. de Garmont finds rather foolish.

“The business of land in Manhattan,” Mr Peek said, “is mathematical. I am a mathematical man. It is my hobby and my interest, and I do not mean arithmetic. Do you read Mr Newton’s calculus, sir?”

“I know of it.”

“Well, first the A plus B. Arithmetic. Immigration to America increases thirty thousand persons annually. Seventy per cent of these immigrants come through New York.”

“I understand.”

“Then you understand too quickly. The workers stay close to jobs, the people with the money are moving out, here and here, farther from the city. Now can you read what I have written?”

It was follows: h(t) = Xitß.

“The first equation,” he said, “expresses the quantity of housing (in logs) as a linear function of the attributes X of housing unit i.”

Blah-blah, I thought. What this means I do not know except it has a nasty smell of freemasonry – the strange symbols, the mathematics, their use in the service of a prophecy.

“You could predict the price – Xit – of a Manhattan lot in any given year.”

A farmer spouting calculus. That is what it is like with Americans. The moment you think you understand a man’s character, then you are a foreign fool.

Ph(t) = -δt   ßT = 0.

“It is Greek to me,” I joked.

“Ah but it is Greek,” he said, the autodidact.

“But no matter what the equation, it makes no sense to lend money to a debtor who will almost certainly default.”

“Ah,” said he, “spoken like a banker. Spoken like my good friends who are busy lending money to each other, but your painter will pay me back for a year, for two years, for three years. I will do very well. The moment she defaults why it is back to Ph(t) = -δt   ßT = 0. The land is worth a fortune. I have a house on Sixteenth Street and then I make money again.”

And there you have both the explanation for the credit crisis, and an example for the witty tone in which this novel is set. I have tried to find anything about this subject in Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America”, but have been unable to do so. If you know of a chapter where M. de Tocqueville addresses the issue of banking or of loans, please let me know.

Posted in Books, Economics, History, USA | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Mossad’s Ark

Posted on 2011-01-05 by Andreas Moser

Given the Arab countries’ continuing contest to outdo each other with their suspicions against Israel, it was only a matter of time until someone would try beat Egypt’s claim that the Israeli security service Mossad was behind lethal shark attacks:

"You are hereby recruited for the Mossad."

“You are hereby recruited for the Mossad.”

Now the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has detained a bird and is investigating if it might be an Israeli spy. The vulture was found in Saudi Arabia and aroused suspicion not only because it had a tracking device, but this equipment even bore the name of Tel Aviv University. Israeli scientists were quick to explain that a number of birds had been equipped with tracking devices to study the travels and the behaviour of the endangered vultures.

Saudi officials have neither been able to explain why Israel, the Middle East’s most technologically advanced country by far, would resort to the use of unpredictable birds instead of drones or satellites, nor why a “spy-bird” would carry the insignia of Tel Aviv University. The anti-Israeli reflexes seem to cloud any Arab counter-intelligence agency’s judgement.

If this is symptomatic for Saudi thinking, you don’t have to wonder why no Nobel Prize has ever been awarded to a Saudi (while 9 Nobel Prizes have gone to Israel). But it rather adds to my worries about what will happen with Saudi Arabia once the oil reserves will have been depleted.

Posted in Israel, Politics | Tagged , , | 11 Comments

FAQ on German Citizenship Law – updated 2022

Posted on 2010-12-29 by Andreas Moser

I am a German lawyer, specializing on German citizenship law. These FAQ are supposed to give you an overview of the basic principles governing this area of law, so you can decide whether a paid consultation is worth it.

Before asking a new question, please read through the many comments which may already answer your question. And if you find these FAQ useful, or if you ask a new question, it would be very nice of you to support this blog. Thank you!

1. Does Germany have a system of ius sanguinis or ius soli?

Germany has traditionally always been a ius sanguinis country, meaning that citizenship is passed on to the next generation by birth, irrespective of the place of birth. Only recently (1999) has the law been amended to incorporate ius soli, giving German citizenship to a child born in Germany to two parents of foreign citizenship.

I will explain these different ways of obtaining citizenship in more detail below.

2. Does ius sanguinis mean that I am entitled to German citizenship if I have German great-great-grandparents, even if they left Germany generations ago?

Possibly, but not automatically. You are a German citizen under ius sanguinis if your ancestors had German citizenship at the time of the birth of the next generation and passed on this citizenship respectively. It is therefore necessary to find out the exact timeline of events to determine if your ancestors might have lost their German citizenship (e.g. by giving it up voluntarily, or by accepting a foreign citizenship) or if they still had it and could thus pass it on.

You see that this requires a lot of research into your family history and into the respective laws of the relevant points in time. But if you are lucky, you might have German citizenship even if your parents never knew about it and neither you or them have ever been to Germany.

3. Is there any chance to obtain German citizenship for someone without German ancestors?

Yes. You can become a German citizen trough the ius soli option (more about this below), through adoption by a German citizen and through naturalization.

Please note that German citizenship cannot be obtained through marriage with a German citizen, although this does increase your chances of naturalization.

4. So what is the ius soli component of German citizenship law?

Ius soli means the acquiring of a citizenship based on being born in a country’s territory. Germany’s ius soli law is much less far-reaching than that of the USA or Mexico for example. Since 2000, a child born to foreign parents in Germany is born a German citizen if at least one of its parents has been a legal resident of Germany for at least 8 years and has a permanent residence status (§ 4 III StAG).

Because these children usually also receive the citizenship(s) of their parents, they will have dual or triple citizenship.

5. Does German law allow dual citizenship?

Germany disapproves of dual citizenship, but cannot completely prevent it, especially in cases where only one parent is German and the child receives two different citizenships at the moment of its birth. In these cases, both citizenships are of equal standing and nobody could be forced to give up one of them.

In cases of naturalization however, Germany requires the foreigner to give up his or her original citizenship in order to obtain a German passport (§§ 9 I Nr. 1; 10 I Nr. 4 StAG). There are quite a number of exceptions to this requirement (§ 12 StAG), for example if your home country does not allow you to renounce citizenship, or if the loss of your original citizenship would result in the loss of economic rights in your home country, and for all citizens of another EU country. Restitution cases are also exempt from the requirement to renounce your existing citizenship.

Lastly, the current government has announced that it will relax the rules on dual citizenship. If you follow this blog, you will automatically hear about it as soon as it happens. Or maybe a few weeks after, if I will be travelling at the time.

6. How long do I have to live in Germany before I can get a German passport?

For the spouse of a German citizen, the residence requirement is usually 3 years (of which you need to have been married for the last 2 years).

For other foreigners, it is between 6 and 8 years, depending on your language skills.

After 8 years of residency, a German passport can no longer be denied, you have acquired an entitlement to it (if you fulfill the other requirements, e.g. German language skills, no criminal record, no dependency on welfare).

7. Is it possible to obtain German citizenship although I don’t live in Germany?

Yes. § 14 StAG opens this possibility if you can show that you have close ties to Germany despite your residence in another country. Due to the number of questions about this possibility, there is now a special set of FAQ on naturalization from abroad.

8. How do you lose German citizenship?

There are several ways how German citizenship can be lost (§ 17 StAG): The main cases are applying for another citizenship (§ 25 StAG), renouncing German citizenship if this does not render you stateless (§ 26 StAG) and adoption by a foreign parent (§ 27 StAG).

9. Are there special rules for victims of the Nazi-regime and descendants of these victims?

Yes. The Nazis stripped a number of Germans of their citizenship for political, racist and anti-Semitic reasons. These former German citizens or their descendants have a right to have their German citizenship reinstated (Art. 116 II GG).

Please see the FAQ on reclaiming German citizenship for more on this.

10. If I don’t meet any of the legal requirements, is there still a chance for me to get a German passport?

Do you play football very well?

If all of this text is too much for you, please check out my infographic on German citizenship law.

Posted in German Law, Germany, Immigration Law, Law | Tagged , , , | 2,078 Comments

Das war die Wehrpflicht.

Posted on 2010-12-22 by Andreas Moser

Das war es also mit der Wehrpflicht: Zum Juli 2011 wird nach 54 Jahren die Wehrpflicht in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland ausgesetzt, was einer praktischen Abschaffung gleichkommt. Man wird wohl nie klären können, ob dieser Eingriff in das Leben junger Männer gerechtfertigt war. Ich vermute, daß die zu immer kürzeren Diensten eingezogenen Wehrpflichtigen der Bundeswehr weit weniger zur Abschreckung der Sowjetunion und des Warschauer Paktes beigetragen haben, als die in Westdeutschland stationierten Truppen der USA, Großbritanniens und Frankreichs und die Vollmitgliedschaft in der NATO.

Juristisch fand ich es immer zweifelhaft, ob der Staat junge Männer zur Drangabe eines Jahres ihres Lebens, noch dazu in der Zeit dessen beginnender Blüte, zwingen kann, ohne überhaupt versucht zu haben, den Bedarf an Soldaten durch Freiwillige zu decken. Dies gilt selbst dann, wenn eine Freiwilligenarmee mehr kostet, denn Grundrechte werden nicht aufgrund von staatlichen Einsparungswünschen verwirkt, sondern allenfalls aufgrund von zwingenden Notwendigkeiten. Auch wurden die Begründungen nach dem Ende des Kalten Krieges zunehmend konstruierter, bis zuletzt klar war, daß die Wehrpflicht nur mehr aufrecht erhalten wurde, weil Krankenhäuser und Altenheime auf die durch die Kriegsdienstverweigerung gewonnenen Zivildienstleistenden nicht verzichten wollten. Wenn ein Grundrechtseingriff aber deshalb aufrecht erhalten wird, weil der Staat von denjenigen profitiert, die sich diesem Eingriff unter Bezugnahme auf ihr Gewissen nach Art. 4 III 1 GG verweigern, beginnt die fehlende Notwendigkeit der Wehrpflicht evident zu werden. (Ich will bei alledem nicht verleugnen, daß die Frage der Verfassungsmäßigkeit der Wehrpflicht durch deren Verankerung in Art. 12 a GG und damit in der Verfassung selbst nicht vereinfacht wird.)

Spätestens jetzt ist aber auch die Zeit gekommen, mit dem Mythos der Wehrpflicht aufzuräumen: Sie war in den letzten Jahrzehnten keine Pflicht mehr, die die gesamte männliche Bevölkerung betraf. Die Wehrgerechtigkeit war nicht mehr gewährleistet, weil durch Ausmusterung und Ausnahmetatbestände mehr als die Hälfte eines jeweiligen Jahrgangs weder Wehr- noch Zivildienst leisten mussten.

Vollkommen unempirisch vorgehend, möchte ich dies an meiner eigenen Geschichte darstellen:

  1. Die Verweigerung aus Gewissensgründen nach Art. 4 III 1 GG wollte ich nie in Anspruch nehmen, weil (a) ich keine wirklichen Gewissensgründe gegen das Töten in bestimmten Situationen habe und dies nicht vortäuschen wollte, und weil (b) der Zivildienst auch nicht unbedingt mehr Spaß gemacht hätte. Mein Hauptanliegen war es, kein Jahr zu verlieren, sondern unmittelbar nach dem Abitur mit dem Studium beginnen zu können.
  2. Um zu versuchen, in der Musterung als körperlich untauglich eingestuft zu werden, war ich zu stolz. Und obwohl nach Auskunft einiger meiner Altersgenossen weit weniger Schauspielkunst als einstmals bei Felix Krull gefordert war um überzeugend zu hypochondrieren, traute ich mir dieses Talent nicht zu.
  3. Als angehender Jura-Student wälzte ich stattdessen das Wehrpflichtgesetz (WPflG) und stieß auf § 13 a I 1 WPflG, der die Zurückstellung vom Wehrdienst vorsah wenn man sich zur Mitwirkung im Katastrophenschutz (z.B. THW oder Rotes Kreuz) verpflichtete und dieser Verpflichtung (damals) sieben Jahre nachging. Der Vorteil bestand darin, daß diese Mitarbeit im Katastrophenschutz – außerhalb von tatsächlichen Katastrophen natürlich – nur am Wochenende stattfand und somit dem sofortigen Studienbeginn nicht im Wege stand. Da Erdbeben und Tornados in Deutschland selten sind, hielt ich dies für eine im Vergleich zur täglichen Anwesenheitspflicht in der Kaserne zeitsparende Variante.
  4. So bewarb ich mich also beim Roten Kreuz und wurde auch tatsächlich in den Katastrophenschutzdienst aufgenommen. Mein Studium konnte ich ohne Verzug beginnen. Jedes zweite Wochenende mußte ich für ein paar Stunden zu einem Kurs oder einer Fortbildung. Die Katastrophen blieben wie gewünscht aus.
  5. So ging dies das erste Jahr; das erste von vorgesehenen sieben. Zwei Semester meines Jura-Studiums hatte ich schon absolviert, während ich als normaler Wehrdienstleistender zu diesem fortgeschrittenen Zeitpunkt erst mit dem ersehnten Studium beginnen hätte können.
  6. Nach Ende dieses ersten Jahres wartete ich geduldig auf Zusendung des Zeitplans für Kursen und Fortbildungen des zweiten Jahres. Diese Zusendung erfolgte nicht. Sie erfolgte nie. So ging ich das Risiko ein, passiv gegenüber meiner staatlich auferlegten Dienstpflicht zu bleiben, wobei ich nicht versäumte, dies mir gegenüber selbst durch gesteigerte Aktivität im Studium zu rechtfertigen.
  7. Trotz meines Fernbleibens erging weiterhin keine Einladung, weder durch Brief, noch durch einen Anruf, oder gar einen Besuch. Langsam aber sicher geriet diese Art des Ersatzdienstes in Vergessenheit, wie anscheinend auch ich in Vergessenheit beim Roten Kreuz geraten war. So ging das zweite Jahr ins Lande, und ich wurde kein einziges Wochenende aus meinem Studentenleben gerissen.
  8. Mit zunehmender freudiger Überraschung konnte ich die folgenden Jahre feststellen, daß sich dies auch in den Jahren 3, 4, 5, 6 und 7 fortsetzte. So hatte ich also tatsächlich nur an ca. 25 Wochenenden einen Art Erste-Hilfe-Kurs besucht und war damit einem Jahr in der Kaserne entkommen.
  9. Bis ich eines Tages, im siebten Jahr, ich hatte nicht nur schon lange mein Studium sowie mein anschließendes Refendariat (ironischerweise zu einem erheblichen Teil und auf meinen eigenen Antrieb beim Juristenkorps der US-Armee) vollendet, sondern war mittlerweile als Rechtsanwalt selbständig, einen Brief der Wehrbehörde erhielt. Schlagartig wurde mir mein negativer Saldo der dem Staat gegenüber erbrachten Dienstzeit bewußt, und ich sah mich schon im fortgeschrittenen Alter von 27 Jahren in die Kaserne einrücken.
  10. Ich öffnete diesen Brief mit dem fatalistischen Gefühl desjenigen, den die gerechte Strafe einholt, und las: “Mit Vollendung Ihrer siebenjährigen Dienstzeit beim Katastrophenschutzdienst des Deutschen Roten Kreuzes ist Ihre Verpflichtung zum Wehrdienst erloschen. Wir bedanken uns für den von Ihnen geleisteten Dienst.”

Das war also die Wehrpflicht.

Posted in Military, Politics | Tagged , | 11 Comments

Emancipation of women in Iran

Posted on 2010-12-21 by Andreas Moser

The Islamic Republic of Iran is again at the forefront of social progress (see my previous posts about scientific and academic progress): This time, it’s women’s rights, something very dear to the Mullahs.

All over the world, women are victims of oppressive laws that do not allow them to get married as early as they want. In some countries, the poor girls even have to wait until they have reached the age of consent. What a wasted youth, spent dreaming of the forbidden fruits of marriage.

But girls in Iran must no longer despair: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has emphatically invited Iranian women girls to get married when they are 16 or 17. The idea behind this plea is to increase the population from 75 million to 150 million, because Iran has enough space, enough resources, enough jobs, enough of everything.

I have only been to Iran twice, but I must have been in the wrong parts of the country, because I mainly met young people in their 20s and 30s still living with their parents for lack of housing and even skilled academics without jobs.

Maybe a smarter population policy would not only consist in a sensible economic policy and in a foreign policy that doesn’t deliberately provoke crippling sanctions, but also stopping to drive young and smart Iranians out of the country through the oppression of all freedoms, personal as well as political?

This Iranian lady was still unmarried at 27. Shocking!

Posted in Human Rights, Iran, Islam, Politics | Tagged | 12 Comments

Death to the Conifers!

Posted on 2010-12-21 by Andreas Moser

Deforestation speeds up climate change in two ways: First, the loss of trees reduces the forests’ capacity to convert carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. Second, if deforestation is not carried out for the production of timber, but for the winning of arable land, it is often done by burning down forests, which in turn sets free even more carbon dioxide.

In the past years, there has been some progress in slowing down and even reversing this development through so-called REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) initiatives.

All the progress in the rainforests of Brazil and Sumatra is however in danger of being undone by the strange environmental policies of another country: Iran.

The Iranian military is reported to have set forests in the Kurdish region of the country on fire, arguing that these forests have served as a cover for Kurdish rebels.

With only 6.8 % of Iran’s area covered by forest, the Iranian government should maybe think of more sophisticated measures. But sophistication is the last thing we expected from the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, isn’t it? Or maybe Iran is simply jealous of the massive tree-killing taking place in other places at this season?

Posted in Iran, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

What do the Students want?

Posted on 2010-12-19 by Andreas Moser

Ever since the UK government announced its plan to raise the cap of tuition fees that British universities are allowed to charge and to introduce changes in the student loan scheme, British students have filled the streets with protests,

"To pay? For education? No way!"

have gone on “strike” (whatever that is supposed to mean for a student) and have staged “sit-ins” at their universities. To no avail in the end, as the British parliament passed the amendments to higher education funding on 9 December 2010.

Although I am a student in the UK myself (of Philosophy and Economics), I have refused to participate in these protests, as it is not clear to me exactly what the students want. The are very outspoken about what they don’t want, but don’t seem to offer any alternatives.

Let’s examine the grievances in detail:

  1. The increase of the cap from 3,290 £ to 9,000 £: An increase in the cap of what universities are allowed to charge for undergraduate degrees does NOT equal an increase in fees. It signals only a potential increase to anywhere between 3,290 £ and 9,000 £. When students (and indeed university staff and media) keep on speaking of a ” rise in tuition fees to 9,000 £ per year”, that is simply wrong. We don’t know yet if universities will make use of this higher cap and which universities will do so at what level. I assume that the more sought-after universities like Oxford, Cambridge and LSE will most likely raise their fees quite high. But I also assume that many other universities won’t do so. Even now, not every student can attend the university of his or her choice, not only for financial reasons, but simply because places are limited.
  2. The burden of debt after graduation: Continuing with that error from argument # 1, students now always claim that everyone will graduate with a debt of 27,000 £. That is of course just as wrong. It might be that some students will have that debt-load upon graduation, but most students will have much less debt. And the new law actually increases the minimum salary that has to be attained before anything needs to be paid back from 15,000 £ to 21,000 £ per annum. Above this income threshold, repayment is capped at 9 % of the income. This is in fact a progressive graduate tax, which is only officially not a tax because then emigration from the UK would allow graduates to avoid the repayment. If part of the tuition fees still have not been paid back 30 years after the student’s graduation, his outstanding balance will be waived.
  3. The deterrent effect on students from lower income families: Because fees will not necessarily be higher, depending on the university of your choice, and because repayment will only set in once you reach a certain income, I fail to see any deterrent effect. If at all, the deterrent effect is caused by the distorting propaganda of the protesting students about “mountains of debt”. Higher income for universities should actually lead to more available places in higher education which will benefit those who so far would not have had a chance to enter university.

As a student myself, I find it absolutely fair to pay for my education, as I will be the one who will reap the (intellectual and financial) benefits of it. I wouldn’t want people who never want or will become students to have to pay for my personal advancement with their taxes.

Posted in Economics, Politics, UK | Tagged , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Film Review: “The Specialist” about the Eichmann Trial

Posted on 2010-12-18 by Andreas Moser

Last night, I attended a screening by the Birkbeck Law Society of the film “The Specialist” about the trial of Adolf Eichmann in an Israeli court in 1961. The film, by Israeli director Eyal Sivan, works with original footage from the trial, most of which had been televised, plus some technical tricks (which I found wholly unnecessary).

I found the film quite good as it showed some key points of Adolf Eichmann‘s testimony, the questioning by the prosecutor Gideon Hausner and by the three judges. It also included some very moving witness testimony by victims of the Holocaust, including one scene of a witness who enumerates all members of his family, his parents, uncles, aunts, grandparents, brothers, sisters, cousins, with their respective ages and upon the question who of his family is still alive today has to answer “I am the only one.”

When confronted with the evidence of the defendant’s role in the Holocaust, which was well documented due to the Nazis’ obsession with bureaucracy, protocols and reports, time and again Mr Eichmann replies “That is correct. I was following orders. I had to do it.” He still seemed proud of his “organisational talent” that he used for organising the transports of millions of Jews (and other victims of the Nazis’ racist policies) to the concentration camps in Eastern Europe. Mr Eichmann didn’t even claim to not have known that he sent millions to their deaths, as he recounted four of his visits to concentration camps where he saw, and wrote reports about, how the killing was done. In some of his testimony, he still referred to Jews as “transport material”. When asked by the judges if he felt any remorse, Mr Eichmann responded “Remorse is pointless. Remorse is for children”. He clearly didn’t even attempt to win any sympathies.

Mr Eichmann’s only defence was that he was obeying orders. He in fact claimed that he didn’t like the nature of his job and had asked to be transferred (something which no documentary evidence exists about). He claims that he was a small part in a large machine and that he was bound by his oath to follow orders.

I found it shocking and disturbing to hear from one of the organisers of the Holocaust himself and to listen to his banal explanations of administrative responsibilities, showing flow-charts of intra-ministerial organisation. But listening to his voice and words, the story of a bureaucrat just following orders didn’t convince me. If even 16 years after the end of the Holocaust, you still cannot utter a word of remorse, and if this time and the developments since have not forced you to rethink your past actions, then you were not only a cog in the wheel, but you were truly evil.

I applaud the film for showing this. Or applauded, I should maybe say. Because the subsequent discussion at the Birkbeck Law Society revealed to me that the film might not be too helpful if you don’t already know a lot of the facts and the background of the Eichmann trial. Thanks to an internship at the German Federal Agency for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes that I did as a law student, I have had the (at times horrifying) privilege of participating in the investigation of small parts of the Holocaust.

Here some points from the discussion at the Birkbeck Law Society:

  1. Many participants dismissed the trial as a “show”, with the verdict known in advance.
  2. Some even thought it worthwhile to discuss if Mr Eichmann was innocent.
  3. Israel was criticised for violating international law.

Let me address these points (in more detail here than I could at the discussion):

  1. It was a very fair trial. The defendant had defence lawyers of his own choosing, he could submit all the evidence that he wanted, his lawyers could cross-examine any witness (but regularly chose not to). The trial was not only interpreted in German, but the prosecutor and all three judges spoke German at times if they felt it was necessary. The judges were even surprisingly polite when questioning Mr Eichmann. I had the impression that they switched to German at times to get closer to the person of Mr Eichmann, to try to find out what drove such a man, what were his motives, his thoughts.
  2. That people can watch this film and believe the “I was only following orders” defence shows that Mr Sivan might not have chosen the best scenes for his film (although I think he chose quite some powerful ones and I admit it is hard to make a 90 minute film of a trial that lasted 8 months). The film fails to mention some important points about Mr Eichmann: (a) He had joined a right-wing organisation in 1927 and became a member of the Nazi Party and the SS in 1932, one year before the Nazis came to power. (b) He volunteered to work for the SD of the SS in Berlin. (c) He set up the authorities responsible for the forced emigration of Jews from the Reich. (d) He was responsible for the rounding up of Jews from all of Europe and their transport to the concentration camp. He was the head of this department. (e) He was regularly visiting concentration camps and witnessed killings himself. (f) He personally attended the Wannsee Conference in 1942 at which the decision was made about how and where to execute the extinction of all Jews of Europe. As the person in charge of deportations and transport, it is unlikely that Mr Eichmann did not play a prominent role at this conference, which was attended by only 15 high-ranking officers and officials. (g) While living in Argentina, Mr Eichmann gave interviews to a former fellow SS member in which he stated “Had we killed 10.3 million Jews, then I would be satisfied and would say we have annihilated an enemy. […] I was not a normal subordinate, […] I was an idealist.” (h) He had the rank of a Lieutenant Colonel and thus was hardly a low-ranking bureaucrat.
  3. International public law does not protect individuals, it protects the sovereignty of states. While the abduction of Mr Eichmann from Argentina did violate Argentina’s sovereignty, Argentina settled this issue with Israel later. The UN decided that Israel should be allowed to retain and prosecute Mr Eichmann. Germany, as his country of citizenship, did also not raise any objections.
  4. Israel caught and tried Mr Eichmann because other countries refused to do so. Both Germany and the USA knew about Mr Eichmann’s fake identity and whereabouts since 1958 and failed to request extradition from Argentina.
  5. Besides Adolf Eichmann, Israel only put one other (alleged) Nazi criminal on trial: John Demjanjuk who was first convicted, but then acquitted by the Israeli Supreme Court. This shows that trials even against Nazis in Israel were not show trials, but fair and thorough. Mr Demjanjuk is currently on trial in Germany for assisting in the murder of 27.900 people.
  6. To those who represent legal positivism and therefore argue that Mr Eichmann was innocent because he did not break the laws of his country at the time, I would like to point out that most of the Holocaust happened in countries that had been attacked and occupied by Nazi-Germany against all international law, including in violation of treaties of non-aggression that Germany was a member to. So even if you think that positive law should be the decisive law (a view which I don’t subscribe to because it reduces law to just another tool of the exercise of power), you can still come to the conclusion of Mr Eichmann’s (and other Nazis’) guilt.

I guess one should neither judge the Holocaust by one trial, nor a trial by one film about it. For those with more time, the full transcripts and even the complete video footage of the Eichmann trial are available online.

Posted in German Law, Germany, History, Holocaust, Human Rights, Israel, Law, World War II | Tagged , , , , , , | 14 Comments

High Expectations

Posted on 2010-12-16 by Andreas Moser

As I am studying Philosophy, I couldn’t resist to share this study that analyses the mathematical and verbal aptitudes of students in different courses and reaches – inter alia – the following conclusion: “Philosophers are the smartest humanists, physicists the smartest scientists, economists the smartest social scientists.”

I hope I will be able to live up to these high expectations. And no, I don’t see any chance of me studying Physics next. Economics maybe.

Posted in Economics, Philosophy | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Iran punishes athlete for standing next to an Israeli.

Posted on 2010-12-14 by Andreas Moser

In a recent post, I had already wondered how Iran’s government would react to an Iranian chess player losing the world record in simultaneous chess to an Israeli player.

Well, now we know how Iran’s sports administration has handled a similar case: An Iranian weightlifter, Hossein Khodadadi was banned from the sport for life for standing next to an Israeli athlete during the playing of the Israeli national anthem. At the World Masters Weightlifting Championships held in Poland, Mr Khodadadi scored the second place behind Israeli weightlifter Sergio Britva. As the respective silver and gold medal winners (bronze went to Germany) Mr Khodadadi and Mr Britva stood next to each other on the podium.

As you see in the video below [or rather on YouTube because I don’t know how to properly embed a video], Mr Khodadadi was clearly puzzled when the Israeli sportsman reached out his hand to congratulate him. He decided to refuse the handshake, but indicated a brief salute and remained standing for Israel’s national anthem, Hatikvah. No blame from my part for Mr Khodadadi personally, who surely knew that he was facing some tough questions upon returning home.

And the questions came indeed: Several Iranian media reported that this was the first time since 1979 that an Iranian athlete had directly competed against an Israeli. Mr Khodadadi had to point out that he had attended the ceremony in civilian attire and with flip-flops instead of the official dress, and that he only did not withdraw himself from the ceremony because otherwise the Iranian team would have forfeited all its medals.

Still, Mr Khodadadi and Mir Rasool Raisi, the head of the Iranian weightlifting team were subsequently banned by the Iranian government from all sport activities for life.

How sad is it that the Iranian regime’s zealous anti-Israel stance goes so far as to deny the basic principles of sportsmanship and to not only disrespect other countries’ athletes but to even punish its own? I don’t think Mr Britva would have had any problem, had Mr Khodadadi won.

Posted in Germany, Iran, Israel, Poland, Politics, Sports | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments