"We hanged Nazis for this...." Nuremberg Prosecutor Commentary

I saw this on several websites, through various news providers, and I waited for it to be posted on ATS. I searched it and it is still not here. Very moving. Another commentary from the greatest generation. I basically feel like we are panzies. I used the German z in place of the s intentionally because the blind lead the bilnd into the ditch. Well they chose to be blind and so do we. Most of us are blind. But here @ ATS we are complacent and we all have blood on our hands.
oWho has blood on their hands?

S+F for you my friend. Thank you for posting that. That man has wisdom beyond his years.

Post that letter everywhere !

Every victim will hate Americans forever and will be willing to die killing as many Americans as possible. Where there is no court of justice wild vengeance is the alternative.

America had a great moral potential but blew it away for profit.
Greed can only go so far. Remember the bolchevik revolution of 1917.

reply to post by sirjunlegun


An intresting read - Thank you for posting it SnF. Since the posters above me agree with the letter, I am going to take the opposite view point so bear with me.

* - The United States is not a Democracy, its a Representative Republic, and contrary to popular belief there is a difference between the two.

* - The US signed the ICC, and the artcle is correct that it was not passed by Congress.
* - The Rome accords came about, which was the time the US removed themselves from the ICC.

The argument being made, and I am going to narrow my point here to that of political bodies - Namely the Government of the United States, and the United Nations.

The ICC, specifically the Rome accords, uses a term called universal jurisdiction, which means even if a crime does not occur within the political boundaries country F, that country could theoreteically bring charges against the people responsible in country E.

It is true there are built in triggers that must occur in the legal process to get the case to the ICC. If the offending country does something that another country viewes as, say war crimes, a complaint must be filed with the offending country. The offending countries judicial takes over.

Whats left out of the letter in the OP is the little caveat in the Rome addition that says if a country refuses to prosecute, or refuses to turn a person over to another country for prosecution, then the ICC can take up the crime.

Reason why the US has reservations about this setup -
* - Again contrary to popular belief, the ICC does not extend the same gaurateed rights that US citizens hold when charged with a crime (trial by jury, no segmnt of the ICC deals with double jeopardy, which means if a charge is brought, and the defendant is not guilty, they can be immediately charged for the exact same crime he was just found not guilty of, no provisions to require the proescutor to turn over eveidence to the defense (in US legal, its called Discovery). The other issue to note is nowhere does it allow you to face your accuser. It says a person has a right to examine witnesses, but thats it.

* - The United Nations is not a democratic entity and has countries that would love to see the US go away (im not condemning those countries btw, they can do what they want). The issue here though is the ability for other countries to go down the road of everytime the US does something in the World, we will have charges leveled against our actions

* - The article is correct in terms of those countries who are not signatories to the ICC (or party to the Rome protocols, which is an addenum but not required unless countries ratify it) are not subject to it.

* - Last and most important is this, and it drives the point home on why the US Government is leary of this, is Libya. Libya has gone on a shooting spree, attempting to kill as many rebels, and many countries are pissed about this. In return for their actions against civilians, Libya was referred to the ICC.

I am going to repeat that
- Libya was referred to the ICC.

Why is that important? Libya is not a signatory to the ICC or the Rome accords.

The ICC / Rome accords only allows ICC jurisdicition when:
A - Country is a member of and ratified the agreement
B - The ICC is designed to be a court of last resort. The protocol is to notify the offending government of crimes, and that Government has jurisdiction.

This did not occur with Libya. The UN Security Council immediately refered Libya to the ICC for their actions.

ICC = A good idea in concept, but can be used improperly, as we are seeing here with Libya.

Theoretically speaking (another reason the US did not sign the treaties) US soldiers could be detained and charged under the ICC for doing their jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The ICC is too broad and undermines national soveingrty of a nation to run their own internal affairs.I have had this conversation a few times now in other threads on this topic, where the counter arguments to my argument was the ICC was drafted in such a manner that would preclude misuse or ambiguity .

Dont look now, but not only was it improperly used, it was violated by those very same countries who are party to it and hold it Supreme by filing charges against a country thats not a signatory, which violates the ICC rules.

I think the ICC is a good idea in the long run, but it needs to be defined / clarified. Im not trying to start a fight with anyone in this thread. I just wanted to point out some of the reasons on the other side of the fense.

Thanks!

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by sirjunlegun

 

Theoretically speaking (another reason the US did not sign the treaties) US soldiers could be detained and charged under the ICC for doing their jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So murdering innocent civilians & stealing a countries resources qualifies as doing their job in your eyes.
Typical US arrogance.

reply to post by acrux


To suggest that all soldiers kill innocent civilians and are stealing oil from Iraq is ignorant. So is generalizing all citizens of the United States as arrogant. I'm against both those wars but I also know that there are good people fighting over there along with the bad and you shouldn't make blanket statements like that.

As for the OP and the letter itself I generally agree, the wars of preemptive aggression and the deaths of innocent only embitter people against the United States further. We have propped ourselves up and puffed ourselves out and stretched ourselves thin and somehow managed to become a bully instead of a good role model for other nations.

Another bash America star and flag fest coming up. Nothing but bleeding hearts glad handing each other and spouting rubbish, while sitting behind their keyboards. grow up.

Originally posted by acrux

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by sirjunlegun

 

Theoretically speaking (another reason the US did not sign the treaties) US soldiers could be detained and charged under the ICC for doing their jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So murdering innocent civilians & stealing a countries resources qualifies as doing their job in your eyes.
Typical US arrogance.

Typical foreign ignorance.. which dragged the US into 2 World Wars because instead of standing up and saying no more, appeasement was chosen.

We know how well that practice works..

So its ok that the Taliban and Al Queida to kill innocent people anytime they want? This is the arrogance I see in people who claim Bush should be charged with war crimes, while they completely ignore dictators throughout the world. If the ICC is so special, then why have they not issues arrest warrants for N. Korea, China, Iran?

Come to think of it people are so busy laying 100% of the blame on our doorsteps, that they ignore everything else.

I would rather take death by arrogance than death by ignorance. At the very end, at least I can say I tried to make a change.

People can extract whatever people want to hear.
Germany was unfairly humiliated, robbed and impoverished after the Treaty of Versailles.
This much is clear even in children's text-books.
German minorities in Poland, Sudetenland and others were harassed and oppressed.
While the Nazis had no right to do what they did to the Jews (which was eagerly supported by many other European nations), Germany had a right to fight for fairness.

I just don't see the US ever being oppressed or being unfairly forced to surrender territory.
So I don't see any correlation.

Originally posted by Xcathdra


Theoretically speaking (another reason the US did not sign the treaties) US soldiers could be detained and charged under the ICC for doing their jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

edit on 10-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Of course we wouldn't sign on when we already have our hands in the genocide cookie jar.
That would be about as smart as the guy who broke into someone's house and called 911 afraid the homeowner had a gun.
If there's one thing the US has it's smart lawyers.
They are also one of our greatest liabilities in that they seem to be able to legally justify anything under the sun including illegal indefinite detention, even for persons acquitted any of crime.
The gist of the article (and I heartily agree) is that the rule of law only works if it can be enforced and the US still refuses to take any part in it.
Justice currently exists in the US to serve government and corporate interests. Equal justice under the law has become a sad farce with most of our Constitutional rights trampled underfoot in the name of "national security".
Where I and others disagree with this is that my idea of national interests are our rights and freedoms being preserved as individuals, not reinterpreted to justify governmental and big business agendas.
Sure, there is risk in signing onto an agreement that will be interpreted and enforced by nations other than our own. The risk is in actually being tried and sentenced by people who the US cannot control.
Those who do not commit crimes against humanity should have nothing to fear from such an agreement.
I suggest we change our National behaviors so that we are above reproach by ending illegal the occupations of foreign countries.
Otherwise pass the yellowcake, I'm ready for dessert.

reply to post by Xcathdra


"Theoretically speaking (another reason the US did not sign the treaties) US soldiers could be detained and charged under the ICC for doing their jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan. "

German & Japinese troops were just doing their jobs, following orders their so called 'leaders' insisted were ok-fine..

Last I checked not one person has ever been charged with the nonexistent crime of "job doing".. however, people do get detained & charged with allegedly violating the law.

If the accused are innocent of criminal wrong-doing, an open fair process should make it obvious..

Oligarchs didn't sign the treaty to avoid accountability for urinating all over international laws.. if there was such a thing a "international law", the GOP & DNC Af-Pak-Iraqistan misadventures would have ended a long time ago with numerous people who call themselves "officials" serving life sentences... that's embarrassing and bad for war profiteers.

While i agree with the sentiments that my friend XCathdra expresses, the one thing that has to be remembered (and it mentioned in the paper) is that the ICC cannot impact the sovereignty of a nation because sovereignty belongs to The People.

Once you get past that, the concept becomes far more workable. Of course, it would have to include basics such as due process, double jeopardy, etc. But those are trivialities in comparison to the issue of sovereignty.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Typical foreign ignorance.. which dragged the US into 2 World Wars because instead of standing up and saying no more, appeasement was chosen.

We know how well that practice works..

Y'know, if Chamberlain had said "Hell no!" Hitler woulda annexed the place anyway. And there would have been jack all anyone else in Europe could do about it, owing to the state of everyone's economy at the time? And if they had tried something, there would have been the same war, the US still would have gotten sucked in, and nothing would have changed.

Maybe if the US hadn't run away yelping from the League of Nations, Hitler wouldn't have been able to bend it over the way he did.

So its ok that the Taliban and Al Queida to kill innocent people anytime they want?

Let's leave the straw men in Oz, please.

This is the arrogance I see in people who claim Bush should be charged with war crimes, while they completely ignore dictators throughout the world. If the ICC is so special, then why have they not issues arrest warrants for N. Korea, China, Iran?

Because the ICC is the International Criminal Court. Emphasis on International. Do you know what international means? In short, this is the court that your country goes to when it has a dispute with another country. Your dictator is your problem, so long as he stays in your borders. When he invades, oh, say, Poland, then it becomes an issue for the ICC. Because then it's International. See how this works? Inter? National? Right.

Come to think of it people are so busy laying 100% of the blame on our doorsteps, that they ignore everything else.

You know people can walk and chew gum, right?

I would rather take death by arrogance than death by ignorance. At the very end, at least I can say I tried to make a change.

That is a very strange argument.

I really dont know how to get this across to you guys about indefinite detentions. There was NO claim of indeifinite detention during WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Panama, or the first gulf war.

The people we captured were involved in military actions against NATO forces on the battlefield. They were captured, which means they can be held indeinfitely, which is to say when the waris overwith and all hositilities on both sides end. We want that, extremist wingnuts dont, which means the people we captured will sit in jail until such time a prisoner exchange is agreed on, or the hostilities end.

So before people try to claim the moral high ground, please learn how the system works, and at least make an effort to remove personal views from your arguments because all they are doing for you is distorting the picture.

My other question I want to ask is what protests have people gone to regarding Iran, Iraq, Pakistan or Afghanitan? Saudi Arabia?

I mean people seem to be such an outspoeken critic of abhorrent behavior that you should also take countries other than the US to task for their actions.

If not, and I make this request with the utmost respect to the mods, can we please create a single forum with one thread that is labeled I hate America because?

At least then we can seperate the legitimate arguments based on facts, and the ones based on blind ignorance.

reply to post by GovtFlu


You read to far into my post. I am pointing out that the ICC specifically says it cannot be applied to countries who are not signatories of it. As we are seeing now, the ICC is ignoring its own rules by entertaining charges against Libya.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Y'know, if Chamberlain had said "Hell no!" Hitler woulda annexed the place anyway. And there would have been jack all anyone else in Europe could do about it, owing to the state of everyone's economy at the time? And if they had tried something, there would have been the same war, the US still would have gotten sucked in, and nothing would have changed.

I disagree because the European powers during WWII did give into the annexation by Germany. Instead of taking a stand and saying no, they ignored it and hoped it wouldnt come to them. Which, if you go back and look, makes them weak in the eyes of hitler. The mindset now is we can take the countries we want for resource base, and then go after the larger countries when we are ready..

Guess what happened?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Maybe if the US hadn't run away yelping from the League of Nations, Hitler wouldn't have been able to bend it over the way he did.

What good is a forum when its blatently ignored? League of Nations, UN, name it whatever you want, but in the end, when country A violates, and country B-F ignore those actions because it was not their country, its problematic.

A body with no teeth and no spine is worthless, as we saw.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Let's leave the straw men in Oz, please.

Absolutely not. Again, its an all facts argument or its not. I am not going to remove segments of the argument other people want to ignore because it undermines their postiion. The Taliban / Al Queida have killed more people than the US has, yet I dont see anyo of the America bashers going after these other regimes, or demanding Omar or bin laden be brought up on ICC charges.

go figure...

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Because the ICC is the International Criminal Court. Emphasis on International.

Which the US is not a signatory to, emphasis on NOT

Amazing how European countries complain about the US acting unilaterally, while at the very same time they do the same thing by enforcing the ICC on non signatories, which btw is a violation of not only the ICC but international and UN laws and charters.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Do you know what international means? In short, this is the court that your country goes to when it has a dispute with another country. Your dictator is your problem, so long as he stays in your borders. When he invades, oh, say, Poland, then it becomes an issue for the ICC. Because then it's International. See how this works? Inter? National? Right.

Do you understand the concept of National Sovereignty and a rule by consent and authority of the people? If you really want to apply international law to the US when we are not signatories to those laws, then be prepared for the US to defend ourselves. The UN is NOT a democratic entity, it DOES NOT represent the intrest of the American People, and ONLY the American people can change our form of Government.

It cant be done by International Law and a cup of tea at noon.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
You know people can walk and chew gum, right?

Sadly they cant remeber facts while doing that.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
That is a very strange argument.

No really its not..

I would rather die because of my arrogance, rather than die because of your ignorance.

If you dont understand the line, then I cannot help you.

Would you rather we kill innocent civilians and steal oil OVER THERE or kill innocent civilians and steal oil on our own soil???

You guys just don't get it!

They're obliterating other nations societies to PROTECT YOUR FREEDOMS! Gosh!


yeah....

reply to post by Xcathdra


The only problem with this argument is that if we are holding them on the assumption that they are leverage from the battlefield, then they must also be afforded the rights under the Geneva Conventions. But it has been said time and time again that they do not qualify (as if human rights are not inalienable).

It is like they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

reply to post by Xcathdra



And this really bothers me. It goes to the point in the OP that sovereignty belongs to The People, not the State.

If the ICC cannot act within its own charter, there is no reason to trust that tyranny will not be an end result. A mockery of truth and liberty.

It is why i am so on the fence with this particular issue.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

The only problem with this argument is that if we are holding them on the assumption that they are leverage from the battlefield, then they must also be afforded the rights under the Geneva Conventions. But it has been said time and time again that they do not qualify (as if human rights are not inalienable).

It is like they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

This is where people fail though in my opinion. We are holding enemy combatents in accordance with US law, IHRC requirements as well as many other "international agreements". The UN Rules of warefare are clear on how enemy combatants are to be treated. The Geneva convention is very clear as to who qualifies as a prisoner of war, and its based on their defintions, not the US.

Since the Taliban / Al Queida dont have recognizable uniforms, no clear chain of command, wear the same clothing civilians do, etc they are not considered POWS, but enemy combtatants. Enemy combatants, if they are charged for a crime, are subject to the judicial system, either military or civilian, to the country who detained them.

If they are charged, then they use the system in place. There is no requirement to charge people who are captured during times of armed conflict. They can be held until such time armed conflict ends, or an exchange of prisoners is agreed upon.

Keep in mind they have American military persons in their custody, yet I dont seen anyone demanding they bring charges against them or release them. I also dont see people throwing a fit because they have told these prisoners that if they dont convert to islam, they will be killed.

So again, I make my same argument that people go after the US not because of anything we did, but because people simply hate the US - plain and simple. If it was not the case, there would not be such a complete and total double standard being used by some people and their arguments.