Too Bad our Current Generation of Politicians Doesn뭪 Remember the Nuremberg Trials

Time for change

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jul-17-09 07:00 PM
Original message

Too Bad our Current Generation of Politicians Doesn뭪 Remember the Nuremberg Trials

Three months ago I met with staff of my Congressperson, Chris Van Hollen, as part of a three-person delegation, to request support for measures to investigate and hold the Bush administration responsible for their crimes. I posted a description of the meeting here. Here are some excerpts from my prepared comments:

Our country has recently suffered through eight years of the most lawless presidential administration in our history. Most important, our president declared that the Geneva Conventions no longer applied to his prisoners. That decision not only went far towards destroying the foundations of international law, but it also led to repeated violations of U.S. law and our Constitution. From that decision, a long series of horrors was unleashed, including torture and the indefinite detention of thousands of men and boys, who were stripped of all their human rights� So, why do we urge the creation of a commission to investigate the Bush administration crimes if we already know about these things?

First of all, too many Americans do not know about them. These crimes have been given way too little attention by our national news media over the past 8 years. The creation of a commission to investigate them would provide much needed attention to some of the worst crimes committed by the U.S. government in our history.

Secondly� We as a nation need to understand how and why this all happened. We owe it to future generations to get to the bottom of this sordid story, so that we can take steps to ensure that it does not happen again.

Finally, it is essential to hold those responsible for these crimes accountable for their actions. If we fail to do that we essentially condone them. That would send a terrible signal to future government leaders and to the American people. Essentially, we would be signaling that such crimes are not very serious and that they may be committed with impunity � as long as the perpetrators are high enough up in the food chain. If we allow this to pass, we should not be surprised to see it happen again in the not distant future. For that reason, we want to make it absolutely clear that in recommending the creation of a commission of inquiry we do not see it as a substitute for prosecutions of the guilty, but rather as an accompaniment to them.

President Obama has spoken of the need to 뱇ook towards the future�. I agree with that. But we cannot look towards the future by ignoring the past and by condoning heinous crimes committed by the highest officials in our government. With that kind of attitude we may as well empty our prisons of all their murderers, on the rationalization that their crimes were committed in the past, and we need to look towards the future instead�

Since our meeting, the leader of our group, Paul Grenier, has maintained intermittent follow-up contact with Rep. Van Hollen뭩 office. Though the response has been generally sympathetic, most recently Van Hollen뭩 staff noted the 뱏uandary re how you prosecute people for doing things that were authorized by people high up in the Justice Dept.�

The Nuremberg trials

That comment suggests either an ignorance or lack of willingness to acknowledge the leading role that our nation played in the Nuremberg trials of 1945-6. In doing so, it plays right into one of the worst character traits of our country � the arrogant attitude of �American Exceptionalism�. That attitude was well summed up when George W. Bush said that 밡o American soldier should ever face trial in anything but a U.S. court.� In other words, screw international law because Americans are above that.

That is very unfortunate because human civilization currently faces two possibilities: international law or a combination of international tyranny, anarchy, and perpetual war. Following World War II, the creation of the United Nations represented perhaps the most comprehensive effort in world history towards the former. Its stated goals were:

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war� to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person꿻o 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�

The Nuremberg �Trial of the Major War Criminals� was considered a major part of that effort. Of the 22 Nazi leaders who were tried by the victorious Allies, 12 were sentenced to death, 3 were sentenced to life in prison, 4 were sentenced to smaller prison sentences, and 3 were acquitted. History professor Richard Overy explains the stated purpose of the Nuremberg trials:

What the Allied powers had in mind was a tribunal that would make the waging of aggressive war, the violation of sovereignty and the perpetration of what came to be known in 1945 as 'crimes against humanity' internationally recognized offences�

Justice Robert Jackson, who led the American prosecution team, saw the trial as an opportunity to lay down clear lines of conduct in international affairs and in the acceptable treatment of a population by its own government.

Senator Christopher Dodd, in his book, �Letters from Nuremburg � My Father뭩 Narrative of a Quest for Justice�, says it even more eloquently:

The argument that eventually prevailed was based on two powerful ideas. By trying those who carried out a criminal war, a complete record of their actions could be shown to the world, therefore announcing once and for all that such behavior would not be tolerated by the community of civilized nations. And, in giving the defendants a chance to hear the evidence against them and to defend themselves, the Allies would take the moral high ground�

밮ictor뭩 Justice�

With a proper understanding of the principles that underlay the Nuremberg trials, the 뱏uandary re how you prosecute people for doing things that were authorized by people high up in the Justice Dept.� noted by Rep. Van Hollen뭩 staff is really no quandary at all. Indeed, the fact that these things were authorized by people high up in the Justice Department (and even higher) is all the more reason for us to undertake a repeat of the Nuremberg trials. In fact, if we don뭪 we are virtually admitting that our role in them was a hypocritical sham.

One of the major criticisms of the Nuremberg trials at the time was the argument of victor뭩 justice�. That is the argument that the Nuremberg trials were not undertaken for the noble reasons that were claimed by the victorious powers, but rather that they were merely a manifestation of the victors taking vengeance upon the losers.

I have always rejected that (and other) argument against the Nuremberg trials. I have always believed that they were not only legitimate but essential. Anyone who commits serious crimes should be held accountable. The fact that some people are able to avoid accountability because they hold positions of power is very regrettable, but that is no reason why we shouldn뭪 hold anyone accountable for their crimes. With that attitude, nobody would ever be tried for any crime.

And as long as those who mete out justice do so out of a sincere respect for justice and the rule of law, justice and the rule of law have a chance to prevail. But when the powerful develop the attitude that the laws that they preside over apply to everyone else but not to them, that뭩 when the foundation and respect for law collapses. That뭩 when law becomes nothing but 뱕ictor뭩 justice� � which is no justice at all.

The hypocrisy and arrogance of American Exceptionalism

Senator Dodd makes the point in his book that our lead in developing a framework for international law was rooted primarily in our moral example. Speaking of the rest of the world, he writes:

They understood that the ability of the United States to help bring about a world of peace and justice was rooted not in our military might alone but our moral authority� Our ability to succeed in spreading values of freedom and democracy and human rights would only be as effective as our own willingness to uphold them�

But seeing how our own country repeatedly showed nothing but contempt for the rule of law during the Bush administration, Dodd asks:

How can we expect developing nations around the world to give credence to the rule of law when our own leaders choose to ignore it? On what moral authority can we tell other countries not to detain unlawfully and torture American citizens when we fail to abide by the same rules? �.

Increasingly, our country is abandoning the moral high ground and the putting aside of weapons that inspire people� Thus I fear that each step we take from presenting ourselves as unambiguously dedicated to preserving the rule of law is a step in the direction of a less secure United States. What good is the information gained from torturing one Iraqi insurgent if doing so causes us to be despised by a million Iraqi children?

Benjamin Ferencz, a member of the prosecution at Nuremberg, makes a similar point. Referring to the Bush administration뭩 contempt for the rule of law, Ferencz says:

What the United States is saying is that we don't want the rule of law. I think that is dangerous, very dangerous, because we cannot lay down a law for the United States and not for the rest of the world. That doesn't fly. Justice Jackson made that clear at Nuremberg. Law must apply to everyone equally or it's not law at all. Those who are pushing the other view have a misguided idea of what law is all about.

The legacy of Nuremberg

Despite the high hopes and the sincere intentions of many of those involved, neither the United Nations nor the Nuremberg trials that accompanied its creation worked out quite as planned. As Professor Overy notes:

The legacy of the trials was nevertheless ambiguous. None of the new legal instruments has prevented the abuse of human rights, racial killing or aggressive war since 1945� Many perpetrators evaded justice entirely�

To a significant extent, the effort was hampered from the beginning by the refusal to address the crimes committed by our own side. And then in the years that followed, prior to the Bush administration, our own country repeatedly engaged in regime changes of democratically elected governments in the cause of keeping the world safe for corporate capitalism; and we engaged in a catastrophic war in Vietnam that was punctuated by numerous atrocities and caused the deaths of some two million Vietnamese civilians. That is not the kind of record that facilitates respect for the rule of law.

Our nation뭩 contempt for the rule of law reached an all time low under the eight years of the presidency of George W. Bush � which explains why historians consistently rate him as the worst president in U.S. history.

Now that Bush and Cheney are out of office we have a chance to get back on the right track. But refusing to prosecute the high officials who are responsible for the kinds of crimes that we prosecuted at Nuremberg will do nothing to restore our reputation, our former leadership role, or respect for the rule of law in the world.

Attorney General Holder is now reported to be considering a criminal investigation of U.S. officials who engaged in or promoted torture. The American people could help sway his opinion on this by letting him know (AskDOJ@usdoj.gov) that prosecuting war crimes is not a matter of 뱇ooking backwards�, but rather is a matter of looking forward to a world where war crimes and crimes against humanity will no longer be tolerated � by anyone. Contacting our Congresspersons about this issue could also be very helpful, in generating support to help Holder withstand the intense pressure we will undoubtedly have to face should he decide to do the right thing.

The world is too small today for us to realistically hope to live in peace without a solid framework of international law. That is the equivalent of living in our country without a solid framework of domestic law. The type of American Exceptionalism that says that Americans shouldn뭪 have to follow the international laws that the rest of the world is obliged to follow is a repugnant idea. That kind of thinking has led in the past and will continue to lead in the future to American imperialism, crimes against humanity, genocide, and an unsustainable world in the long run.