Maintaing our outrage against Hitler

From First Things:
After printing an evenhanded op-ed on neurology and the paranormal (registration required), the New York Times carries a curious story about science and free will. “Free will does exist, but it’s a perception, not a power or a driving force,” says neurological researcher Mark Hallett. “People experience free will. They have the sense they are free.”
And as for the social and moral consequences of denying free will, the Times found scientists prepared to accept them, as unpleasant as they may be. Harvard’s Dr. Wegner says: “We worry that explaining evil condones it. We have to maintain our outrage at Hitler. But wouldn’t it be nice to have a theory of evil in advance that could keep him from coming to power?” That would be nice. But Wegner never explains how the denial of free will would eliminate Hitlers. For that matter, he can’t say why we should maintain outrage at the evil of Hitler. In the absence of free will, “evil” and “outrage” are emptied of all normative content; they become only preprogrammed brain responses to stimuli.

If Hitler had no free will then isn’t maintaining our outrage against Hitler like the primitive shaking his fist angrily at the sky?