BACKGROUND
The HIGHEST Money Market Rate
Among Major Financial Institutions
in the Detroit Metropolitan Area for
304
HELEN DAVIS
Special to The Jewish News
Consecutive Weeks
INSTANT LIQUIDITY
INTEREST RATES AS OF: 1-10-90
MONEY MARKET RATES'
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
6.65
Franklin Savings
National Bank of Detroit
6.50
Manufacturers
6.30
6.30
Comerica
Michigan National of Detroit
6.15
6.20
Standard Federal
6.00
First Federal of Michigan
6.00
5.40
First Federal Savings Bank & Trust
First of America
• Based on $10,000 deposit. Some minimum deposit requirements may be lower.
Higher rates may be available for larger deposits.
18 MONTH QUARTERLY ADJUSTED HIGH INCOME C.D.
8,25%
837%
Effective Annual Yield
Annual Percentage Rate
Monthly check may be issued or reinvested to another
Franklin Savings Account
Variable Rate Certificate adjusted quarterly at the 90 day T-bill plus .50";. Balance
of $500 or more. Additional deposits to the account allowed at any time
Limited time offer Early withdrawal subject to penalty.
Franklin
Bank
SAVINGS
SOUTHFIELD
26336 Twelve Mile Road
GROSSE POINTE
BIRMINGHAM
WOODS
479 South Woodward
20247 Mack Avenue
(313) 358-5170. (3-13) 881-5200
Call Toll Free
FDIC-Insured
1-800-527-4447
(313) 647-0000
Cr
ARE YOU PAYING TOO MUCH FOR INSURANCE???
1 HOME
AUTO 1--------
save 15%
multi-car
save 18%
AARP member
save 10%
over 55 years old
•save 20%
clean record
(last 3 years)
you save 63%
save 9%
• safety
save 10%
• non-smoker
• Over 50 (AARP) save 39%
you save 58%
FOR MORE INFO — OR A FREE QUOTE
Michael Mostyn
Marc Tamassi
Call
471-0970
Griffin-Smalley, Inc.
INSURANCE AND BONDS
3 8
.
FRIDAY JANUARY 19, 1990
Brits Eye War-Crimes Trial;
Jews Debate Its Judiciousness
T
hree alleged Nazi war
criminals who found
refuge in Britain after
the World War II will go on
trial within a year if a
timetable being considered
by the Cabinet in London is
adopted.
Meanwhile, amid concern
that judicial action against
war crimes suspects could
provoke a wave of anti-
Semitism in Britain, a fierce
public debate is developing
over the impending trials.
Curiously, the major pro-
tagonists on both sides of the
debate are Jews.
The three criminals have
not been named, but they
are understood to head a
"hit list" of alleged war
criminals who flooded into
Britain from Eastern Europe
almost unscreened in order
to relieve an acute post-war
labor shortage and to assist
British intelligence ac-
tivities in the .Baltic
republics.
One of the three is alleged
to have commanded a bat-
talion which murdered
50,000 Jews and Commu-
nists in the Soviet Union,
while the other two are
believed to have been
members of Ypatinga Buras,
the Lithuanian death squad
that butchered more than
10,000 Jews in Eastern
Europe.
The three suspects, all in
their 70s, are expected to be
indicted on charges of
murder and, according to the
timetable, their trials will be
swiftly followed by homicide
charges against 75 other
suspects.
It is understood that a fur-
ther 46 individuals are being
investigated, while allega-
tions of war crimes against
several hundred more in-
dividuals are likely to be left
on file for lack of firm
evidence.
A senior political source
said in London this week
that the advanced years of
the suspects "make it all the
more imperative to speed up
the judicial process."
News of the plans was
warmly greeted by members
of the parliamentary All-
Party War Crimes Group,
who spearheaded the cam-
paign to change the law and
allow war crimes trials to go
ahead in Britain.
"We are talking about
justice under British law,"
said one senior member of
the group at week's end,
"not lynch law which was
meted out to so many vic-
tims during the war. Those
victims are still crying out
for justice."
In the Jewish debate over
the judiciousness of the trial,
Greville Janner, a leading
figure in Britain's Jewish
community and a veteran
Labor Party parliamen-
tarian, wholeheartedly sup-
ported the action while
Greville Janner:
Age no excuse.
Jewish Canadian Barbara
Amiel, a regular columnist
for the Times of London, was
in opposition.
Janner noted this week
that "there have been war
crimes trials in France,
Germany, Belgium, Holland
— everywhere in Western
Europe except Britain."
He dismissed the conten-
tion that too much time had
elapsed since the offenses
("In British law, there is no
minimum period within
which murderers must be
prosecuted") or that the
suspects were now too old
("Age has never been an ex-
cuse for evil . . . if they are fit
to enter pleas, then they
should be tried").
He also dismissed the
assertion that evidence from
the Soviet Union would
necessarily be unreliable
("Evidence has always come
from the country where the
crimes have been com-
mitted, and it has been for-
midable").
Writing in the Sunday Ex-
press newspaper, he called
for the swift prosecution of
war crimes suspects who had
found a refuge in Britain: "It
was people like these
murderers who took half of
my family from their
Lithuanian homes, locked
them in a synagogue and set
it alight.
"I want these people to get
the fair trial denied to my
relatives and to millions of
others who were murdered
because they were Poles or
Russians or non-Aryans,
physically or mentally han-
dicapped, gypsies or gays,
trade unionists or political
opponents."
In the meantime, Amiel
characterized Janner's sen-
timents as "understandably
emotional" but vigorously
opposed the planned war
crimes trials.
She argued that documen-
tary evidence from the
Soviet Union raised many
questions, but, "more troubl-
ing still," were the
difficulties with procedures
of identification.
Amiel disputed a claim by
Neal Sher, director of the
U.S. Office of Special In-
vestigations, that key
witnesses could accurately
recall facts because of the
horror of their experiences.
She noted that in the late
1970s, 12 Polish Jews
positively identified Frank
Walus, a Pole living in
Chicago, as a "vicious Nazi,"
but after an investigation
the case was dropped and
Walus was compensated.
"Many people believe that
the moral issues relating to
war crimes trials are sim-
ple," she wrote. "I think
they are quite complex.
"We may have to deal with
accused men who genuinely
believed the official Nazi
view of the 'Jewish menace'
propagated by their supe-
riors. Does this aggravate
their crimes or mitigate
them? Do we propose to hold
people in a totalitarian state
as responsible for their
choices as those in a free
state?"
How, she asked, would
society deal with men who
have led blameless lives for
the past 45 years? Were they
to be regarded as
"rehabilitated" or "cured?"
And if they were, how could
those who belived that
retribution was a part of
justice come to terms with
leaving them unpunished?
"For some of us, the im-
ponderability of these ques-
tions, coupled with the
evidence difficulties, leads to
one conclusion: that these
(