Letters to the Editor
-
@jtompkins
We did indeed put "journalists" on trial at Nuremberg, and one of them, the publisher of Der Stürmer, Julius Streicher, was put to death for crimes against humanity, specifically for the anti-semitism that was the raison d'etre of his rag.
Something that the collaborationists with war criminals of the US corporate media should bear in mind.
-
Nuremberg
I've noted the many mentions of Nuremberg, here. But am I missing something? The US held the Nuremberg trials to try its vanquished enemy. Where is the analogous body that would bring our criminal leaders to trial? Its certainly not any of the international bodies out there, since we pretty much control them. I mentioned the Kosovo trial earlier, but I think anyone who has any hope of an international tribunal bringing an American administration fiend to justice, should check out the outcome of that particular dog and pony show.
-
As I said before
I think the War-Crimes aspect is distracting from the point:
Beginning with the Nuremberg Trials, at least, we have loudly espoused a set of principles regarding things like "aggressive war" and war crimes that we apply to all sorts of other nations but feel no need to abide by ourselves.
Perhaps this is a better expression of the values beuing discussed:
PREAMBLE
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
-
The thing about Nuremberg
Judge Jackson said, more or less, that if we do not hold ourselves to the same standards as we held the Nazis, then our demands for justice are a mockery.
In order to prove that our high words have meaning, if we engage in wars of aggression (like Iraq) then our leaders should be arrested, extradicted to The Hague, and put on trial for their crimes.
Otherwise, our moral authority is shot for good. Our system puts into power monsters just as the German system did in the 30's.
Dealing with our own war criminals is the only way to regain our moral authority. We at least made a stab at it back during Vietnam, although half-hearted at best, as those in command positions (aside from the pathetic Lieutenant on the ground) were given passes for their complicity which is inherent in command.
Frankly, I have little hope that the right thing will be done. It's all too easy to make excuses for sociopaths like Bush and Cheney if they come from "good" families. Although in the case of Bush, it's like being a Corelone.
-
Flasheart, PDA
If someday, the Comet from Deep Impact should ever hit the earth, and there are about a thousand of us left, and some of the people who've predicated the Iraq invasion (and Panama, Vietnam, etc.) we may have a pretty good chance as long as Morgan Freeman is still president.
-
Glenn Greenwald on doing what the US refused to do
But, at least in this case, the Iraqi judicial system has not repudiated those principles, as they ordered Hussein released after doing what the U.S. military refused to do for almost two years ...
One positive consequence of this sort of thing is that it helps establish the legitimacy of indigenous secular jurisprudence. (Not that by itself one such incident is enough to necessarily overcome other countervailing factors.)
The point is significant not because it's whistling in the dark or groping for a silver lining on the stormcloud of degenerate top-level American policymaking in Iraq.
Nor is it credible that the development Glenn Greenwald cites is somehow part of some deliberate effort on the part of the Americans. As much as it would be nice if there were some method to the madness, it would also be, frankly, kind of sick.
Rather, it's significant because it hints at a process that could have been at work this entire time, from the start.
Imagine if the very first thing Garner had done (or been allowed to do) in Iraq was establish an independent court of inquiry into human rights crimes, past and present, deference to which the US could then publicize any time it wanted to shore up support the indigenous government.
A shade opportunistic, maybe, but that just illustrates all the more how the Bush regime's own policies (themselves supposedly so rooted in realpolitik) are ludicrous.
-
Strangely Enough
"collateral damage"
While it is a clinical enough sounding word to toss about and, begrudgingly, admit that, "hey, it happens," it still doesn't hide the fact that it is killing innocent people,
It's interesting you pick on that phrase. I agree it's euphemistic for slaughtering innocents. I debated using slaughtering innocents instead just to avoid anyone assuming I might be trying to gloss over the tragic implications of collateral damage.
You just picked on that though and didn't explicitly answer my question. Is there no such thing as a just war? I would deduce from your response that for you, war is always wrong. But you didn't say so. I don't want to put words in your mouth.
and in the present case, there simply is no good reason
In this we agree completely. The Iraqi civilians slaughtered by our war are victims of a great crime.
Wouldn't that make the 9.11 victims collateral damage, and therefore, nothing to get excited about? Hey, it happens...
Yes it might, if the target were a military target and they simply missed. Or perhaps even if their purpose and intent for attacking were just. I realize that "just intent" is subjective and the 09/11 hijackers were sure their intent was just. I disagree with them.
I know some people argue that we can never know what is just. One person's justice is another's injustice. It's all subjective and what we think is right and wrong is just an opinion and contrary opinions are just as valid. I guess I don't feel as hopeless about our ability to know Right and Wrong.