[Peace-discuss] War crime

[Jenifer Cartwright]

The problem is, of course, that those in power in the US would like to recuse the US and chosen allies from Geneva Convention, International War Crime Standards, Kyota Accords, Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, the UN Charter, the US Costitution (including and especially the Bill of Rights), etc etc without getting all this noise about it... 
   
  Jenifer

"John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:
  At 05:44 PM 9/26/2007, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>But it shouldn't be.
>
>Chomsky remarked years ago, "If you assume that there's no hope, you
>guarantee that there will be no hope. However, if you assume that such
>a thing as an instinct for freedom exists, then hope may be justified,
>and it may be possible to build a better world. That's your choice."
>
>And I think Justice Jackson did realize what he was doing. He said at 
>Nuremberg, "If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are 
>crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, 
>and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against 
>others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us .... We 
>must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is 
>the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these 
>defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."
>
>--CGE


No, it shouldn't be.

But as Laurie has pointed out, talk is cheap. And it's not an instinct for 
freedom he's talking about here; it's an instinct for self-preservation and 
double standards of "justice", which I submit is an even stronger instinct 
in human beings.

I haven't read the entirety of Jackson's words re Nuremburg, but I'm 
guessing that he did NOT say, "Hey, I have a great idea! As long as we're 
convened here, trying war crimes, why don't we just try the United States 
for its role in the Spanish-American War? We can round up a few old 
veterans of that war and FRY their asses!"

Anyway, it's a pity that the estimable Justice Jackson is dead, and no one 
in any of the three branches of the current administration is taking the 
same high moral tone. Didn't I read somewhere where Bush has refused to 
even subject the United States to the jurisdiction of the International War 
Crimes Tribunal?

John Wason



>Laurie at advancenet.net wrote:
>
>>Statements are so easy to make and good quotes are so very easy to come 
>>up with; but it comes clear in the light of historic actions that they 
>>are mainly rationalizations and legitimizing explanations that people use 
>>to justify their own behaviors while condemning others' behaviors. One 
>>should have asked Jackson why the U.S. government and its officials were 
>>not taken to take under the law for starting many of the Indian wars. It 
>>couldn't have been because the
>>white man won or could it?
>>
>>To further play devil's advocate, one could questionably make a case for 
>>the fact that the Allies at the conclusion of WWI set the conditions that 
>>provoked the start of WWII, although not necessarily the strategies, 
>>tactics, and inhumane behaviors. How again did the indiscriminate 
>>inhuman violence perpetrated against certain classes or populations of 
>>civilians by the Germans differ from that the Americans against the 
>>American Indians, the Japanese-Americans, against Mexican-Americans and 
>>the Chinese in America, the residents of Dresden, or the cities on which 
>>the atomic bombs were dropped? One does not have to restrict this to the 
>>U.S.; one can turn to the Spanish Inquisition, the UK in Northern Ireland 
>>or India, the French in Algeria, etc.
>>
>>It is all about power politics where the winner defines the rules of 
>>right and wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message----- From: 
>>>peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss- 
>>>bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook Sent: 
>>>Wednesday, September 26, 2007 3:16 PM To: Peace Discuss Subject: 
>>>[Peace-discuss] War crime
>>>
>>>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. --U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, U.S. 
>>>representative to the international Conference on Military Trials, 
>>>August 12, 1945
>>>
>>>To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international 
>>>crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other 
>>>war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the 
>>>whole. --Nuremberg War Tribunal regarding wars of aggression

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss


       
---------------------------------
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070927/1624bbd4/attachment.htm