German Doctor Drugs, Rapes, and Kills Teenager in France Before Fleeing Country . . . Father Arranges Doctor To Be Kidnapped and Dumped in Front of French Courthouse

_51889481__47552719_daughterThere is an interesting (and tragic) case out of France where Andre Bamberski, 76, was convicted for organizing the kidnapping five years ago of retired doctor Dieter Krombach. Krombach was accused at the time of raping and murdering Kalinka Bamberski, 15: the daughter of Bamberski and the step daughter of Krombach. When a German court refused to extradite Krombach for the 1982 murder, Bamberski had him kidnapped and dumped (tied up) in front of a French courthouse in 2009. Bamberski was found guilty and was looking at ten years but was given a one-year suspended sentence.

Krombach was convicted in absentia of “intentional violence that led to unintentional death” in 1995. He give Kalinka a dangerous injection in order to rape her. She died. As another contrast to sentencing in the United States, he was given only 15 years for the crime. However, he fled to Germany and a court ruled that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt and barred deportations. In 2009, Bamberski decided to take action. He insisted that he was only acting as a father and as a citizen in bringing a fugitive to justice. However, prosecutors insisted that in Germany Krombach was viewed as innocent.

Notably, Krombach was suspended from practicing medicine after a 1997 conviction for drugging and raping a 16-year-old girl in his office. Again the sentence was quite light. He pleaded guilty and got only a two-year suspended sentence.

It is very hard to prevail on such a defense in taking self-help measures if it involves violating the laws of another nation. The irony of course is that the United States regularly kills people in other nations who have not been charged let alone convicted — including its own citizens. Such targeted killings are done when the President concludes that an actual charge and trial is not feasible or would not protect the security of the country. President Obama has a formal policy allowing him to order such killings based on his inherent authority. In Bamberski’s case, he did not kill the man and had a conviction to show the court. The Obama Administration would simply say he is not a government and vive la différence.

52 thoughts on “German Doctor Drugs, Rapes, and Kills Teenager in France Before Fleeing Country . . . Father Arranges Doctor To Be Kidnapped and Dumped in Front of French Courthouse”

  1. Karen S aid:
    “Would an American father be so helpless?”

    I’d have to say here’s the short answer:

    “It’s shocking that France would have such a light sentence for a rapist and murderer. Are women and children valued so little there?”

    You mean, as opposed to their value here?

  2. Paul C. Schulte: “With an audience that is living on soundbites, the message has to be repeated and repeated and repeated”

    Right. It’s hard enough to teach tabula rasa. It’s harder to teach the truth when the audience’s minds are cemented by a false narrative.

    While irrelevant to the UNMOVIC finding that triggered OIF, the Duelfer Report is 3 volumes rife with Iraq’s violations. But for me, just the one ISG finding that I quoted at July 28, 2014 at 3:06 pm is dispositive.

    Again: “Saddam had direct command of the Iraqi intelligence services [which] … ran a large covert procurement program, undeclared chemical laboratories, and supported denial and deception operations.”

    Each of those violations by itself justified OIF. Consider the IIS’s particular role in Saddam’s regime and that’s case in point. Yet notice how fiver ignored the ISG finding altogether to re-assert the false narrative that OIF was based on “nothing more than a lie”.

    Well, Shawshank Redemption, right? “Geology is the study of pressure and time. That’s all it takes really, pressure, and time.” One can hope.

  3. fiver: “The Weapons of Mass Destruction/War on Terror excuse was nothing more than a lie – a lie since exposed for all the world to see.”

    Actually, the lie is the prevalent false narrative that Operation Iraqi Freedom was based on a lie.

    Enforcement of the UNSC resolutions, including Operation Iraqi Freedom, was and, by procedure, could only be triggered by Iraq’s noncompliance – which was true on multiple grounds.

    Recall that the Gulf War was only suspended via ceasefire with strict conditions for Iraq. The purpose of the ceasefire was disarming Iraq and rehabilitating Saddam’s regime in order to prove Iraq could be trusted with the peace without regime change. Under the ceasefire, Iraq was on probationary status and held the entire burden of proof.

    In 2003, Saddam failed the compliance test with UNMOVIC, which triggered OIF. After the war, the Iraq Survey Group corroborated Iraq was in violation of its weapons obligations. This is in addition to the violations of Iraq’s non-weapons mandates, which were also triggers for enforcement.

    Excerpts from

    Q: Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq?

    A: No.

    One, President Bush’s presentation of intelligence did not and could not trigger OIF. By procedure, only Iraq’s noncompliance could trigger enforcement, and only Iraq’s compliance could switch off the enforcement.

    The prevalent myth that OIF was based on lies relies on a false premise that shifted the burden from Iraq proving compliance with the UNSC resolutions to the US proving Iraq possessed WMD. In fact, the US as the chief enforcer of the UNSC resolutions held no burden of proof in the Iraq enforcement. Iraq as the probationary party held the entire burden to prove Iraq was compliant and disarmed. The question of “Where is Iraq’s WMD?” was never for the US President to answer; it was always one of the questions Saddam was required to answer to the chief enforcer’s satisfaction in order to pass the compliance test.

    Iraq’s guilt was established as fact from the outset of the Gulf War ceasefire and presumed in the enforcement of the UNSC resolutions. The basic presumption of the disarmament process was anywhere Iraq provided deficient account of its weapons imputed possession. Thus, had Bush presented no intelligence on Iraq’s weapons, the compliance-based enforcement procedure would have been the same because Saddam was guilty until he proved Iraq was compliant and disarmed.

    Two, it is undisputed that Iraq was noncompliant at the decision point for OIF. Inspectors’ reports throughout the inspection period made clear Iraq had failed to sufficiently account for documented NBC stocks and cooperate to the mandated standard along with other violations. On March 7, 2003, UNMOVIC reported to the UN Security Council that Iraq presented “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues”.
    . . .

    Q: Did Iraq failing its compliance test justify the regime change?

    A: Yes.

    One, the “clear and present danger” [Clinton] of Saddam was imputed from Iraq’s noncompliance, not Iraq’s demonstrated possession of WMD stocks. With the broad spectrum of mandates and proven success of Saddam’s “denial and deception operations” [Duelfer Report], which included hidden stocks, Iraq’s compliance with the UNSC resolutions was determined by necessity with measures other than demonstrated possession.
    . . .
    Two, Bush’s decision either way was final. After ODF [Operation Desert Fox] , the credible threat of regime change was the last remaining leverage to compel Saddam’s cooperation. The threat of regime change would no longer have been credible if it had been a dud when triggered by Saddam. President Clinton’s justification for ODF applied to OIF:

    The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act, and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong inspections system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years. Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction. And some day, make no mistake, he will use it again, as he has in the past. Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspections system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

  4. QUOTE:
    Nick Spinelli WROTE

    “If people can’t see the symmetry between this post and the immigration one preceding it, well then you’re not looking. This President is out of control. JT is one of the few pundits who supported this President w/ the courage to call him on his lawlessness. He has done it consistently and w/o pleasure. He has done it even though ridiculed by people who were his friends. It’s difficult to admit you made a mistake in electing someone not worthy. it’s easy to “go along to get along.” The right path is almost always the more difficult one.”

    on 1, July 28, 2014 at 10:38 am Nick Spinelli

    “The killing of US Citizens w/o a trial is against EVERYTHING people who believe in the Constitution. If a Republican President did it you cultists would be calling for impeachment. JT calls out both Dem and Rep Presidents on their lawlessness. That is intellectual honesty. And it is in short supply nowadays.”

    I agree
    I am so disgusted by the hypocrisy of the Democratic party and its voters these days and yes I AM or rather was one until recently.

  5. fiver, Thanks. limey, LOL! I like Brit humor. Your food sucks.

  6. It’s really rather easy to wrap one’s self in 9/11; especially anonymously on-line. I know. On the the internet I’m a porn star/astronaut – and very gifted at both.

    Those New Yorkers I know were quite angry that their tragedy was used by GWB/Exxon/Cheney/Haliburton and ilk for war and oil profiteering in Iraq. The Weapons of Mass Destruction/War on Terror excuse was nothing more than a lie – a lie since exposed for all the world to see.

    Wrapping one’s self in superior grief from 9/11 simply doesn’t make the lie true. It just doesn’t. And Obama’s bombing wedding parties doesn’t make anyone safer – in New York or otherwise. It does, however, create new enemies to drag the Endless War on and on and on.

    Fortunately, more and more Americans are getting sink and tired of it.

  7. As limey just proved, people are insensitive to how this is quite different for those who live in NYC.

Comments are closed.