Thinking of .. War Trials Agreement 1945

[G_j]

Statement by Justice Jackson on War Trials Agreement; August 12, 1945

There are some things I would like to say, particularly to the American people, about the agreement we have just signed.

For the first time, four of the most powerful nations have agreed not only upon the principles of liability for war crimes of persecution, but also upon the principle of individual responsibility for the crime of attacking the international peace.

Repeatedly, nations have united in abstract declarations that the launching of aggressive war is illegal. They have condemned it by treaty. But now we have the concrete application of these abstractions in a way which ought to make clear to the world that those who lead their nations into aggressive war face individual accountability for such acts.


<snip>

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which
their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the
war, but that they started it. And we must not allow
ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war,
for our position is that no grievances or policies will
justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced
and condemned as an instrument of policy."

<snip>

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson
Chief U.S. Prosecutor
at the Nuremberg Tribunals
August 12, 1945

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jack02.htm

[seekerofwisdom]

1. any legal minds around?

Would the Constitution allow a trial in the HAgue or wherever of Bush et al if the Iraq war was found with exacting evidence to be illegal and aggressive?

My understanding is even with the Nuremberg precedent the Constitution would give them immunity from persecution in an international court of law such as the ICC.

[G_j]

2. The International Criminal Court (ICC)

The United States is not a signatory to the document that established the court and they haven't paid it any credence.

on ed: This document may be most useful as a teaching tool at this point, though I do hope that in my lifetime I see this crew go to trial for war crimes.

[oasis]

3. An Iraqi general died in custody while being interrogated by the U.S.

I remember reading that earlier on LBN. This will not endear us to the world community.

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. Iraq was stupid

But not illegal. Saddam gave them all the ammo they needed to attack with an endless stream of provocations in violation of the peace treaty.

[G_j]

6. you left out the part

about all the lying and the fabrication of 'reasons' for the invasion. Powell lied to the world at the UN, Bush lied to the American people in the SOFTU address.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Yep

They justified it in the dumbest of ways and they made them up. But they had legit reasons as well.

[thebigidea]

11. name ONE.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Attacks on American aircraft

That only happened about hundreds of times.

[thebigidea]

16. that were in Iraq. Attacking Iraqi buildings, people, property.

I'd call it self-defense.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. That were in Iraq

As the direct result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Look, I don't care all that much about this damn point. Legal or not, the damn invasion was damn stupid. But there will be no war crimes trials as a result.

[thebigidea]

20. of course you don't care that much.

"Legal or not, the damn invasion was damn stupid. But there will be no war crimes trials as a result."

Uh? So it MAY be illegal, but even if it was... no war crimes? Why?

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Why of course?

Do you think the U.S. would allow a president or former president to be tried for war crimes? No. Not even a cross-party circumstance.

But, since there was clear evidence of Iraqi attacks on American military units for a long time, they have evidence. There is no use in beating this dead horse.

[Iverson]

7. not illegal? you jest.

Not only were there little problems with our Constitution, but also there's the trifling matter of not waging aggressive war against other signatories to the UN Charter.

And yes, it was also stupid.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Wasn't aggressive

OK, we all know it was a joke. But the endless attacks on American aircraft in the no-fly zone were a legit causus belli (sp?).

[thebigidea]

13. the endless attacks on American aircraft?

you mean the one that were systematically taking out Iraqi defensive installations to soften 'em up for war?

Those aircraft?

The no-fly zone was a crock of complete shit to begin with, anyway.

Despicable that you'd mouth these hollow RW talking points in favor of a disastrous war. Rev. King would be proud.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. In case you didn't notice

I said the invasion was stupid. I have been opposed to Gulf II since the very beginning. But countries don't need a whole lot to have justification for war and they had it. So all I am arguing is the fine point of legality -- not one of rationality.

[G_j]

17. some may not THINK

they need a whole lot of justificatin for war. But if you read Justice Jackson's statement, he is saying just the opposite.

"..our position is that no grievances or policies will
justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced
and condemned as an instrument of policy."

This war is far beyond "stupid", it violates the spirit and moral principal put forth at Nuremberg.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. When your military is attacked repeatedly

That is an easy justification.

'Nuff said.

[G_j]

21. I don't recall

the UN SC agreeing with you (&*)

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. They don't have to

Do you think they will attempt to try the U.S. for war crimes? I sure don't.

[G_j]

25. no I don't think so

that doesn't mean that the 'spirit' and intention of Nuremberg hasn't been violated. If the world isn't completely undermined by fascismin and a more just and humanitarian future awaits us, then I believe these people will be called to task.
This remains to be seen of course.

[thebigidea]

10. oh, that's right. It's all Saddam's fault we bombed the shit out of Iraq

I love how fans of the war will bring up UN resolutions against Iraq when it suits their purpose, but then deem the UN "irrelevant" when they don't want to climb aboard America's New War. Or "biased towards Arabs" if the resolution has anything to do with Israel. But when a case for bullshit war needs bolstering, UN UN UN!

hypocritical much?

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Not a fan of the war

And don't try to paint me as one. That would be a lie.

I have been opposed to it since the very beginning. Feel free to search DU and you will find that out.

But was it technically legal? I believe it was. However, it DOES NOT MATTER. The UN won't mess with America that strongly.

The UN is a political organization and often chooses the most expedient course. It will do so here as it does by massively supporting the Arab world against Israel.

[peace4all]

27. whatever happens

I strongly disagree that the war is legal. Just allowing the looting of antiquities alone was illegal, never mind deliberately destroying infrastructure. No, you really have to bend and stretch to attempt to find this war technically legal. sorry..

[newyawker99]

26. Hi seekerofwisdom!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[proud patriot]

4. bush is in direct violation of U.S. Constitution

all of his cabinet members are included

[indepat]

8. But do they give a diddlede-damn for they are not above the law, they are

the law and the Congress and the Supreme Court apparently will do nothing, absolutely nothing.

[Q]

28. It's very interesting that even some on this board...

...have been convinced that George's war is 'stupid' but not illegal. Yet...it fits all the definitions of an 'aggressive' and unilateral war against a country in no position to defend itself or attack the aggressor country.

- But even if you can lie to yourself and say this was was 'legal'...many blatantly illegal actions have happened since the beginning of the hostilities. It's illegal to bomb civilian / residential areas...as George did in several efforts to 'Get Saddam'. It's also illegal to take civilians hostage...as the Bushies have done in attempts to get 'targets' to turn themselves in.

- History shows us why this war is illegal and immoral.

[peace4all]

29. yes there are

many specific issues that beg to be persued in a world court, maybe someday...