Nuremberg Set a Valid Precedent for Trials of War-crime Suspects in Iraq's Destruction

[Echo In Light]

Nuremberg Set a Valid Precedent for Trials of War-crime Suspects in Iraq's Destruction By Cesar Chelala

May 27, 2009 "Japan Times" -- NEW YORK — The Nuremberg Principles, a set of guidelines established after World War II to try Nazi Party members, were developed to determine what constitutes a war crime. The principles can also be applied today when considering the conditions that led to the Iraq war and, in the process, to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, many of them children, and to the devastation of a country's infrastructure.

In January 2003, a group of American law professors warned President George W. Bush that he and senior officials of his government could be prosecuted for war crimes if their military tactics violated international humanitarian law. The group, led by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, sent similar warnings to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

Although Washington is not part of the International Criminal Court (ICC), (**Gee, I wonder why?**) U.S. officials could be prosecuted in other countries under the Geneva Convention, says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Ratner likened the situation to the attempt by Spanish magistrate Baltazar Garzon to prosecute former Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet when Pinochet was under house arrest in London.

<snip>

Perhaps one of the most serious breaches of international law by the Bush administration was the doctrine of "preventive war." In the case of the Iraq war, it was carried out without authorization from the U.N. Security Council in violation of the U.N. Charter, which forbids armed aggression and violations of any state's sovereignty except for immediate self-defense. As stated in the U.S. Constitution, international treaties agreed to by the United States are part of the "supreme law of the land." "Launching a war of aggression is a crime that no political or economic situation can justify," said Justice Jackson, the chief U.S. prosecutor for the Nuremberg Tribunal.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22719.htm

*my emphasis

[Echo In Light]

1. Info re US Opposition to the International Criminal Court

"The United States government has consistently opposed an international court that could hold US military and political leaders to a uniform global standard of justice..."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/us-un-and-international-law-8-24/us-opposition-to-the-icc-8-29.html

"First of all, the United States has by no means set that precedent. That goes as far back as you like in history. Preemptive attack is just a euphemism for aggression. Everyone who attacks - you know, Hitler attacked Poland… it was all preemptive. They claim that there was some potential threat that they were defending themselves against. We don’t take that seriously, and we don’t take it seriously in the case of the United States. It’s open aggression, not preempting anything. It’s in gross violation of international law, and is what was called the supreme international crime that encompasses all the evil that follows; that’s the Nuremberg judgment. So, if the United States does it, then it might set a precedent, because it’s so powerful; but others do it all the time. If others do it, sometimes we accept it if they happen to be clients of the powerful, otherwise we are opposed if they are enemies of the powerful. But unfortunately this is the way that lawless states behave. Suppose, for example, Iran had decided to invade Israel, saying it was a preemptive attack because Israel has nuclear weapons and missiles and is threatening Iran openly as it is. Would we say that is legitimate? No, because someone we don’t approve of is doing it. But if Israel attacked Iran, we would say yes, that’s legitimate." ~ Chomsky

http://www.washprofile.org/en/node/3397

[L. Coyote]

2. Pres. Reagan On Torture Prosecutions = Prosecute w/ 'universal jurisdiction.'

24 Apr 2009 - http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/reagan-on-torture-prosecutions.html
Reagan On Torture Prosecutions

From his signing statement ratifying the UN Convention on Torture from 1984:

"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."

Reagan was admant about prosecuting torture, but also prosecuting inhuman treatment that some might claim was not full-on torture.

[Echo In Light]

3. Interesting - do you suppose it was merely rhetoric/lies on his part?

[kenny blankenship]

4. While there is no doubt Reagan spoke the words

there's no way to be certain that he knew, when he said it, where he was or who was President.

[Echo In Light]

5. "I...think...I don't remember."

[Echo In Light]

6. Bump