Punishing war criminals

[Illuminatus Primus]

What mystifies me is the fact that some people seem to think this is a perfectly fine situation, and at times even seem to be cheerleaders for it.

It's called monarchism, Mike.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Why?

Because my pungent little friend, we have signed treaties to that effect. We have set precedent to that effect. Oh, and then there is the little fact that some crimes are too big to ignore. Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me that torture is not a crime, and that setting up death camps is not a crime we should be able to punish people for as a world-body? Are you THAT kind of sociopath?

[Edi]

Bush, both of his administrations, the top echelons of Pentagon and the staff at Guantanamo would all qualify as war criminals if the Nürnberg yardstick was used as a measure.

As I'm sure you're well aware, the Allies prosecuted the leaders of every nation that fought on the side of the germans. So every leader of every original member of the "coalition of the willing" should be tried for crimes against the peace, and they all bear at least some of the responsibility for the 1,000,000 dead civilians as a result of the war.

U.S. was no party to those negotiations and never declared war against Finland, so to hold the Soviet kangaroo court against us as hypocrisy is misleading.

Mostly right wrt Finland. Except we actually tried them ourselves, though it was due to Soviet insistence. None of our leaders actually got anything more than prison sentences and as soon as we got rid of the Soviet oversight commission, they were also pardoned. The Soviets weren't happy about that, but didn't give us too much grief. The whole war crimes trial of President Ryti and his government was retroactively voided sometime in the 1990s.

To be fair, there were things done that would have been legitimate reasons to convict some of our army officers for war crimes, namely the treatment of the population of Karelian Russia during the Continuation War. That's a shameful blot on our record, though fortunately (cold as that comfort is) it was nowhere near the atrocities seen elsewhere in Europe.

[Big Phil]

Why?

Because my pungent little friend, we have signed treaties to that effect. We have set precedent to that effect. Oh, and then there is the little fact that some crimes are too big to ignore. Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me that torture is not a crime, and that setting up death camps is not a crime we should be able to punish people for as a world-body? Are you THAT kind of sociopath?

Hey, look at that. Ask a question and get emotional screeching in return... Not only screeching, but exaggerations and ad hominems, as if I'm justifying Shrub's actions. You fucking dildo... why don't you go back and take basic English grammar again

[Block]

Sorry, again, what death camps?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Sorry, again, what death camps?

Generalized death camps. Sanchez said that Israel didnt necessarily have the right to try certain Nazis...

Hey, look at that. Ask a question and get emotional screeching in return... Not only screeching, but exaggerations and ad hominems, as if I'm justifying Shrub's actions. You fucking dildo... why don't you go back and take basic English grammar again Rolling Eyes

I answered the question. Treaty and precedent. The fact that you do not understand that, or dont think that some crimes are terrible enough to warrant international trials is irrelevant to that fact. You thinking that due to some ephemeral possibility of corrupt business dealings, something that there exists no precedent for, is relevant, and it lets me know that you are a near-sociopath that puts more value in fear about an economic boogeyman than justice for victims of torture and genocide.

Frankly, even if we did not have treaty law and precedent for such things, it should be self-evident that we should be able to use international law to try and convict warm criminals, even IF they win the war in question. Even if we cant actually toss them in prison due to lack of extradition.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

No punishment will take place. Nuremberg was victor's justice; it could have taken place without the victory of the allied powers over Nazi Germany. And no American political faction could try anyone, either, for reasons of remaining in power. The simple fact is that however nice you think Nuremberg was, it's completely impractical to try people for state-level crimes unless their country is either defeated and prostrate in war or another political faction in their country considers it politically expedient to have them punished.

[Beowulf]

How do you decide which crimes are so heinous as to allow universal jurisdiction? Your sense of morals?

[MKSheppard]

We can start with Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, and William Cohen taking the perp walk to the Hague for war crimes committed against Serbia in 1999.

Do any of you remember that little action and the cries of war crimes back then from the usual suspects?

[Darth Wong]

Did that Serbia action actually violate international law, given that it had full UN sanction?

[Edi]

Did that Serbia action actually violate international law, given that it had full UN sanction?

No, and for precisely that reason.

[Jade Falcon]

No punishment will take place. Nuremberg was victor's justice; it could have taken place without the victory of the allied powers over Nazi Germany. And no American political faction could try anyone, either, for reasons of remaining in power. The simple fact is that however nice you think Nuremberg was, it's completely impractical to try people for state-level crimes unless their country is either defeated and prostrate in war or another political faction in their country considers it politically expedient to have them punished.

Marina, do you actually think some of the sentences in Nuremberg were unjust? I'm not just talking about the 'main trial' with Goering, Von Schirach etc, but also the various other trials like the Doctors and Industrialists.

I know there was a bit of a furore over Doenitz's sentence, and he was damned by ordering no help to be given to Allied seamen, but that order was given after the regrettable Laconia incident in which a U-Boat was helping allied survivors. There was also apparently some doubt over the death sentence passed onto Keitel as well. I've recently finished reading Eugene K Birds book on Hess that was published in the 70's and thought a life sentence seemed harsh when you think that he was in Britain for the majority of the war, and apparently flew there on his own volition. Churchill, who was no lover of Nazis even apparently said the sentence seemed harsh, but the Soviets were reportedly the ones who kept him from being released.

Note, I'm not saying none of the Nuremberg defendants deserved to be put on trial, Goering for instance, and if Himmler had been kept alive.

[SirNitram]

How do you decide which crimes are so heinous as to allow universal jurisdiction? Your sense of morals?

Presumably the same way it's decided which crimes are so heinous that they merit the death penalty. Or Federal jurisdiction. And so on.

[Elfdart]

How do you decide which crimes are so heinous as to allow universal jurisdiction? Your sense of morals?

Presumably the same way it's decided which crimes are so heinous that they merit the death penalty. Or Federal jurisdiction. And so on.

Certain crimes are also deemed international if a state goes out of its way to support the crimes, such as the states that gave safe harbor to pirates 200 years ago, or fugitive Nazis 60 years ago, or to plane hijackers 20 years ago, or the Junta's collective amnesty for torturers today.

[Darth Hoth]

Marina, do you actually think some of the sentences in Nuremberg were unjust? I'm not just talking about the 'main trial' with Goering, Von Schirach etc, but also the various other trials like the Doctors and Industrialists.

I know there was a bit of a furore over Doenitz's sentence, and he was damned by ordering no help to be given to Allied seamen, but that order was given after the regrettable Laconia incident in which a U-Boat was helping allied survivors. There was also apparently some doubt over the death sentence passed onto Keitel as well. I've recently finished reading Eugene K Birds book on Hess that was published in the 70's and thought a life sentence seemed harsh when you think that he was in Britain for the majority of the war, and apparently flew there on his own volition. Churchill, who was no lover of Nazis even apparently said the sentence seemed harsh, but the Soviets were reportedly the ones who kept him from being released.

Note, I'm not saying none of the Nuremberg defendants deserved to be put on trial, Goering for instance, and if Himmler had been kept alive.

I thought it was Jodl's hanging that people complained about, not Keitel's?

As for the Hess case, I never understood how they could sentence him for "planning an aggressive war" (or whatever the exact phrasing was); was the declaration of war his responsibility? I always thought he was in charge of the Party administration, not foreign policy. Does anyone know any more on that?

[Jade Falcon]

Apologies, it was Jodl.

[Big Phil]

I answered the question.

I didn't know dildos could walk and talk... or even type. Are you sure you're not those thousand monkeys trying to write the great American novel, and you just happened to put letters in an order that made some sense?

Treaty and precedent. Established
The fact that you do not understand that, or dont think that some crimes are terrible enough to warrant international trials is irrelevant to that fact.

Are you a moron, or a liar? I questioned whether Israel had the right to try Adolf Eichman, not whether there was a right to try him altogether. Glad to see illiterate morons spouting off...

Furthermore, I simply asked a question; you're assuming I don't think international trials are okay, and that's a piss poor assumption, but I'm not surprised someone with his head jammed so far up he ass he's licking his tonsils couldn't tell the difference.

You thinking that due to some ephemeral possibility of corrupt business dealings, something that there exists no precedent for, is relevant, and it lets me know that you are a near-sociopath that puts more value in fear about an economic boogeyman than justice for victims of torture and genocide.

You lost me on this one; what in the fuck are you babbling about?

Frankly, even if we did not have treaty law and precedent for such things, it should be self-evident that we should be able to use international law to try and convict warm criminals, even IF they win the war in question. Even if we cant actually toss them in prison due to lack of extradition.

If there were no precedent, there would be no international law, and in any case your personal opinion is irrelevant.

[Ford Prefect]

How do you decide which crimes are so heinous as to allow universal jurisdiction? Your sense of morals?

As have been mentioned, there are treaties to this effect. If you've signed a treaty, you're supposed to stick to it. For example, the UN Convention on the Preventation and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, defines and outlaws genocide. The Outer Space Treaty* forbids signatories from putting nuclear weapons in space, among other things. The Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances provides for ways to legally enforce some previous UN stuff on drug control, and so on.

*The real name is long.

[Beowulf]

Treaties only apply to those that have signed the treaty. Hence, it's not really universal jurisdiction.

[Elfdart]

Treaties only apply to those that have signed the treaty. Hence, it's not really universal jurisdiction.

Someone forgot to tell that to Hideki Tojo and the other Imperial Japanese war criminals prosecuted for violating the Geneva Conventions, which Japan never signed. Besides, the US signed the Genocide and Torture Conventions, which allow anyone to be prosecuted by any country, no matter the nationality of the perpetrator or victim.

[Beowulf]

The IMTFE has the same legal problems as the Nuremberg Trials: that of being victor's justice. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that Japan was a signatory to the Hague Conventions, which require humane treatment of POWs.

[Dominus Atheos]

Bush, both of his administrations, the top echelons of Pentagon and the staff at Guantanamo would all qualify as war criminals if the Nürnberg yardstick was used as a measure.

As I'm sure you're well aware, the Allies prosecuted the leaders of every nation that fought on the side of the germans. So every leader of every original member of the "coalition of the willing" should be tried for crimes against the peace, and they all bear at least some of the responsibility for the 1,000,000 dead civilians as a result of the war.

U.S. was no party to those negotiations and never declared war against Finland, so to hold the Soviet kangaroo court against us as hypocrisy is misleading. In general though, the Nuremberg precedent clearly condemns Bush and his advisers and subordinates, and probably the Government of PM Blair as well.

If you accept Nuremberg as legitimate, then the Soviet Union had every right to prosecute the leaders of Finland, since they committed crimes against the peace. And even if you think the charges leveled during Nuremberg were ex post facto, charging the leaders of the Iraq Coalition would not be.

[Elfdart]

Maybe Numbnuts and Dick Vader won't retire in Paraguay after all (from Avedon Carol):


LINK

Fernando Lugo has been sworn in as Paraguay's president, ending more than 60 years of the Colorado Party's grip on power in the South American nation.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Isn't there an international law against hiring Mercinaries?

*looks at blackwater*

[Winston Blake]

What mystifies me is the fact that some people seem to think this is a perfectly fine situation, and at times even seem to be cheerleaders for it.

Maybe if a person accepts that greater power means greater irresponsibility, then they can avoid any sense of guilt over screwing their own subordinates to serve themselves.

Isn't there an international law against hiring Mercinaries?

*looks at blackwater*

A convention, yep - #2. Apparently an American Judge Advocate simply concluded 'Yeah but our mercenaries are different'. Strangely enough nobody has tried to make America stop.