Witnesses returned to an oak-paneled courtroom in Nuremberg to reflect on the legacy of the trial of Germany’s Nazi leaders which, 60 years ago Sunday, broke new ground in holding government leaders responsible for wartime atrocities and human rights abuses.
In Courtroom 600 of the Nuremberg Palace of Justice on November 20, 1945, Hermann Goering, Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop and 18 other high-ranking Nazis pleaded innocent to a panel of judges representing the victorious allies — the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France.
Participants recalled that they realized even then that the then-new offenses of crimes against peace, waging a war of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity were a key step in establishing an international system of justice.
“It set the precedent for the establishment of the international criminal court, which was needed,” said Johann-Georg Hschaetzler, Hess’ defense attorney.
An important standard in justice as much as jurisprudence. One that is recognized by most nations — and should be by all.
Sen. Taft at the time complained that Nuremberg was a travesty of justice, and he was right. This concept of a fair trial for war criminals is silly, and certainly not equal. Do you think if Saddam had been indicted, he would have just shown up in court? The only people who would ever go on trial are those that can first be defeated in battle. They should have either shot everyone directly, or had military tribunals, and not used some vague claims of ‘international law’ or ‘crimes against humanity.’
An interesting footnote to this story is that the standard for what qualified as a war crime was determined by the behavior of allied forces during the war. For example, if an axis defendant was accused of a war crime but could find an example where allied forces had acted similarly in similar circumstances he was off the hook. Sounds as fair a standard as any considering the circumstances.
“International Law” only exists in the form of treaties that countries have entered into with each other; and treaties can withdrawn from nearly as easily as they were entered into. In the United States, treaties have the same legal weight as statutory law, which is inferior to constitutional law (therefore, no treaty can ever supercede the Constitution). If, for example, a country did not ratify the geneva conventions, it should not be expected to abide by them in war. What this really boils down to is: who won the war and what standard are the victors going to impose on the losers. There really isn’t anything new here, except that in this case, we tried to put a noble spin on what has always happened.
The idea that as of 1945, waging a war of aggression could be considered a crime is laughable. And who exactly made it a crime?
Mike — most folks recognize crimes against humanity like genocide as a bit more than a “vague claim”. Even lawyers.
So murdering a million innocent people is worse than murdering one? I would have to disagree with you. This is in the same vein as the absurd argument that a hate crime is worse (and therefore warrants a harsher penalty) than committing the same act under a different pretext. Murder is murder, and the motive or scale do not make one more heinous than another.
But as I said, the dealing out of punishment by the victors of war has happened throughout history; nothing new here. But by creating these new crimes such as “waging a war of aggression” we were able to feel more noble in administering that punishment.
Mike, I don’t think murder is murder. That’s why I’m not a pacifist either. Fortunately, I’m not alone — not even a minority — in differentiating crimes rooted in bigotry from economics and greed. Since you don’t — then, I imagine we’ll see you out there demonstrating against a wide variety of militarism. Or have you a separate set of rationales for that?
Concerning this internation criminal court that many are so keen for us to join into — I don’t believe that the United States could legally enter into that treaty without first amending our own Constitution, as it establishes a court which would be superior to our Supreme Court (within its area of jurisdiction).
Killing an engaged enemy during war is not murder, nor did I imply that it was.
Nice Dodge. Does it have a Hemi?
“So murdering a million innocent people is worse than murdering one?”
Um, yes. That’s exactly why we have habitial offender statutes in our country. The more felonies you commit, the worse off you are. Do you really think that one kid who breaks into a car to steal something is EXACTLY equal to someone who did it every hour of every day of his entire life?!
If criminal behavior is wrong, then it necessarily follows that the more you do, the more wrong you are.
That was quite a clever retort, did you think of it all by yourself?
Nope, not dodging anything, I just didn’t feel like wasting more time responding to your strawman. Just because I don’t feel that motive makes one murder worse than another, does not mean that I am an anti-military pacifist.
Ima Fish, the problem is that you are then adding more weight to different instances of the same act being committed. The penalty for murdering ten people people should, individually, be the same as if I murder one person. If I would be sentenced to 20 years for a single act of murder, I should be sentenced to 80 years (20 x 4) for murdering 4 people. Otherwise, you are making the life of one victim to be more valuable than that of another. Another way to look at it is: if you wouldn’t execute a man for murdering one person, you shouldn’t execute him for murdering 10 people.
While these habitual offender laws may feel like the right thing to do, I do not believe there is a rational justification for applying different punishments for commiting the same crime.
Actually, Mike, I thought I was quoting you from a previous post.
Questions of genocide, racism and bigotry may be thought of as a strawman in some ivory tower or other; but, for most of the rest of the world — the questions deserved to be asked — and answered. After all, you’re the one defending those crimes as “ordinary”.
Mike, you didn’t answer my question. Is the kid who commits one break-in EQUAL to the person who committed a hundred thousand?
And using your logic, criminals have an INCENTIVE to commit more crimes. If you get the exact same punishment for one crime as you would for a million crimes, you might as well commit a million crimes!
And let’s explore this. You say that if I kill one person or a million, my sentence should be the same. Ok, let’s say I kill one person and get a sentence of 20 years. I get out and kill a second time. Do I get a second 20 years sentence? Nope. According to your logic I get nothing. How is it different if I kill them a week a part or two decades a part?! According to your theory, murders who get out of prison should be able to kill with absolute immunity. God, what nonsense!
Face it, while you have every right to your belief, it’s without any factual or logical support.
Imafish, umm, did you read my reply? I’ll quote it for you:
“If I would be sentenced to 20 years for a single act of murder, I should be sentenced to 80 years (20 x 4) for murdering 4 people.”
Of course you would get a second 20 year sentence if you murdered a second person. What I did say is that the murder of the second person should not garner a greater punishment than the murder of the first. The same would go for your larceny scenario. One act of theft should not be met with a more severe punishment than another.
Eidard, your attacking me as a pacifist who must demonstrate against militarism based upon my statement that “murder is murder” was a strawman; I don’t live in an ivory tower.
Now, you are absolutely correct, I do not distinguish between murdering a man to steal his wallet and murdering a man because you don’t like his skin color. Murder is murder and should be punished both severely and, most importantly, equally. Justice should not be administered based on emotion; which is precicely what has happened with the creation of these “hate crimes” which are are really the same as what have aready been crimes.
“Attack”, Mike? Chuckle. There’s no need to “attack” someone whose analysis of genocide, racism and bigotry is that they don’t exist, they play no special role in the range of hatred from lynchings to Auschwitz — which, as some will recall, was the kind of thing the Nuremberg trials were about. Not controlling aggression.
How do you think that kind of ideology is received by the average person — anywhere? Most educated folks, with no cultural or political blinders on, have looked at the world around them and have already seen enough bigotry and self-deception to have formed a very different opinion. Doubtless, the crowd visiting here includes a wide range of analyses about cause-and-effect, about what might be done to make this challenging life a better place. Damned few would deny the challenge exists.
That’s why I differentiate between, say, a traditional American Conservative and someone hooked on Right Wing ideology because of the open-mindedness and objectivity I usually meet from the former. That’s a different kind of conversation.
Eideard, you have a habit of putting words into my mouth. I never said that genocide, racism and bigotry do not exist (although racism is a very much over, and improperly used term these days). What I have said is that one life is not less valuable than another, and the punishment for murder should be administered equally and that justice should be void of emotion. Assigning different punishments to the same crime based on a perceived motive is not equal justice.
Feel free to make other claims about things I have not said, as that seems to be your preferred debating technique.
You probably will never get it, Mike. Though not universal, when push comes to shove, humanity really does divide into being part of the problem — or part of the solution — over a number of issues.
The intellectual cul-de-sac you choose to advance is more than partisan on the questions affecting exactly the qualities of bigotry that continue as rationales for genocide and hate crimes. Just because you consider yourself safe and above all that doesn’t lessen your complicity.
Mike
It seems Ed and Ima are doing pretty good at ganging up on you. The only point I would add is that the punishment should fit the crime, not having a universal set of sentencing guidelines that do not reflect individuality or uniqueness.
As Ima was pointing out, which is worse, or deserves the stronger punishment, one who creates one murder / break-in or someone who commits multiple murders / break-ins. In my opinion, it depends. If all the murders were committed in the same act, then I would not agree that the punishment should reflect each individual death. If the multiple murders were committed repeatedly, over time, such as a serial killer, then I think the punishment should reflect that.
The Nuremberg trials were less about revenge then about gaining some sense of justice for the millions killed in the concentration camps. If the concentration camps had not happened, then I doubt if the trials would have happened. Even though the allies committed atrocities as well, it is always the victors that write the history.
The current International Court of Justice is another step in the civilization of man. It’s sole purpose is to bring to justice those that would not otherwise face a judge for their crimes. It is only when there is not a functioning judiciary or a willingness to hold a trial will the person be brought before the court. Although Saddam Hussein is a good candidate for the court because Iraq does not have a functioning government or judiciary. George Bush, regardless of any crimes he might be accused of, would not be brought before the court because the U.S. has a fully independent, functioning judiciary.
“The intellectual cul-de-sac you choose to advance is more than partisan on the questions affecting exactly the qualities of bigotry that continue as rationales for genocide and hate crimes. Just because you consider yourself safe and above all that doesn’t lessen your complicity.”
Do you even understand what this means? Please be more succinct for us slow folks..
What does party affiliation (something again that I have never mentioned) have to do with this debate? But since you apparently believe that it does, I’ll humor you and announce that I am libertarian in most regards. Sorry to disappoint you if you had assumed I was some sort of fanatical right-wing Republican extremist. As I’ve alluded to several times now, my mind rules over my heart when I form my opinions of what is justice… which is how I believe it should be.
So what exactly is my complicity in genocide and so-called “hate crimes”? Is that like saying that because I believe in capitalism, I am somehow complicit in the low-wage employment of poor Indonesians?
No, Mike — it’s like saying, “I oppose any societal efforts recognizing lynching, hate crimes, genocide as unique and deserving of attention.”
That is your position, isn’t it.
If you give one person a life sentance for murdering a man for his wallet and another a life sentence for a lynching, exactly what was all the hoopla over? The fact remains that two people were still murdered. Or are you saying that the life of the guy who was murdered for his wallet was worth less, therefore the punishment for his murder should be less?
And furthermore, “hate crimes” are rediculous because they are not determined by the actual crime committed but by what the offender was thinking at the time he committed it. This is an absurd basis for a system of justice.
If I were to spraypaint “I hate Jews” on a bridge, should I be charged with a hate crime, when “eat me” would only be vandalism?
Back on topic, murder is already a crime which warrants a severe punishment, there is no need to codify in law that one is worse than another because of the motive behind it.
Mike, the differences between manslaughter, second degree murder, and first degree murder have to do with ‘what the offender was thinking at the time he committed” the killing. Hate crimes are generally premeditated, even if the victim is selected at random.
Gentlemen, you are all forgetting a fundamental concept. The purpose of law is to change behavior. Thus, when you have someone commit the same crime multiple times, it shows that standard attempts at curbing that behavior have failed. It has nothing to do with one crime being “worse” than another. Thus, the reason committing 20 murders is and should be punished more severly than committing a single murder.