Nuremberg vs. Guantanamo

On Aug 4, 4:14 pm, "Francis A. Miniter" <famini....RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:
> Nuremberg established that humans are capable, acting as an
> international group, to effect justice against true war
> criminals, persons who engaged in mass murder and similar
> crimes against humanity.  The procedure established and the
> rules of evidence were respected by all, the judges were
> from multiple countries, the trials were open - indeed,
> televised - and the outcomes were, therefore, accepted by
> the world.  The true heir of this court is the International
> Criminal Court, by was of the special criminal tribunals at
> the Hague over the years, such as the current International
> Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
>
> On the other hand, we have the Guantanamo tribunals, which
> try to prove that Bin Laden's driver is a war criminal of
> the magnitude of Goering.  In addition to the pathetic
> comparison of crimes invovled, we have no international
> involvement (far from it, none of our allies would touch
> this from a mile),

Are you sure they wouldn't help? Doesn't
it seem that when one country accuses
citizens of another country of a crime,
an international court should be involved?
Many of our allies sent troops to Afghanistan,
so I don't see why they wouldn't help or
wouldn't have helped in this instance.

C.

>procedure and rules of evidence that have
> been challenged and overturned as unfair, trials that are
> secret, evidence that cannot be viewed by the defendants or
> their attorneys, and outcomes which, therefore, will never
> be accepted by the world.
>
> These Guantanamo tribunals are a farce and should be ended.
>
> Francis A. Miniter
 >> Stay informed about: Nuremberg vs. Guantanamo 

On Aug 9, 7:28 pm, "Francis A. Miniter" <famini... DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote:

> Cheney wanted to use
> "extreme interrogation techniques".  That in itself was more
> than enough reason for the rest of the world to tell us,
> "Count us out.  We will have nothing to do with prosecuting
> people who have been tortured."  

<. . .>

> In these circumstances, what other government would want to
> get involved?

Burma, China, Peru, North Korea, Egypt, Cuba, Syria, Venezuela, Iran,
Gaza, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Argentina, Kuwait, San Salvador, Turkey,
Guatemala, Algeria, Ecuador, Sudan, Nigeria, Mexico, Russia, Russia
and Russia.

But this still doesn't answer the question of what's to be done about
the worst of them all--"Brownie" --you want "war criminals"? How
about weather criminals? Camp X-Ray is nothing compared to a FIMA
mobile home. You want torture?

Just answer this question, Brownie! Did you or did you not cause
Hurricane Katrina?

Arggggh!
--
JM http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://jesusexegesis.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Nuremberg vs. Guantanamo 

laraine wrote:
> On Aug 4, 4:14�pm, "Francis A. Miniter" <famini....RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Nuremberg established that humans are capable, acting as an
>> international group, to effect justice against true war
>> criminals, persons who engaged in mass murder and similar
>> crimes against humanity. �The procedure established and the
>> rules of evidence were respected by all, the judges were
>> from multiple countries, the trials were open - indeed,
>> televised - and the outcomes were, therefore, accepted by
>> the world. �The true heir of this court is the International
>> Criminal Court, by was of the special criminal tribunals at
>> the Hague over the years, such as the current International
>> Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
>>
>> On the other hand, we have the Guantanamo tribunals, which
>> try to prove that Bin Laden's driver is a war criminal of
>> the magnitude of Goering. �In addition to the pathetic
>> comparison of crimes invovled, we have no international
>> involvement (far from it, none of our allies would touch
>> this from a mile),
>
> Are you sure they wouldn't help? Doesn't
> it seem that when one country accuses
> citizens of another country of a crime,
> an international court should be involved?

Yes.

> Many of our allies sent troops to Afghanistan,
> so I don't see why they wouldn't help or
> wouldn't have helped in this instance.


Because they don't believe that most of the charges are
appropriate. First of all, the US took the prisoners
instead of handing them over to the international community.
They did that because, secondly, Cheney wanted to use
"extreme interrogation techniques". That in itself was more
than enough reason for the rest of the world to tell us,
"Count us out. We will have nothing to do with prosecuting
people who have been tortured." Third, with one or two
exceptions, the persons accused are low-level al Qaeda
operatives, at best. The upper levels ones that we have
seized have been taken "by rendition" to undisclosed
countries for severe torture and are not presentable for
trial, at least legally, because of their treatment, and
possibly physically, again because of their treatment.

In these circumstances, what other government would want to
get involved?
 >> Stay informed about: Nuremberg vs. Guantanamo 

On Aug 11, 6:26 pm, The Other <ot....TakeThisOut@address.invalid> wrote:
> "Don Phillipson" <e....TakeThisOut@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> writes:
> > "The Other" <ot....TakeThisOut@address.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:lyhc9xky8a.fsf@circe.aeaea...
>
> > > I'm aware that "crimes against humanity" were defined, but my
> > > point is that they were defined arbitrarily by the victors.  For
> > > instance, they didn't include fire-bombing Dresden or dropping
> > > atom bombs on Japan.

Who were dispensing the "victors' justice"? To be more precise, who
were the judges and how were they selected? Were they from neutral
states?
 >> Stay informed about: Nuremberg vs. Guantanamo 

Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Aug 11, 6:26�pm, The Other <ot....RemoveThis@address.invalid> wrote:
>> "Don Phillipson" <e....RemoveThis@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> writes:
>>> "The Other" <ot....RemoveThis@address.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:lyhc9xky8a.fsf@circe.aeaea...
>>>> I'm aware that "crimes against humanity" were defined, but my
>>>> point is that they were defined arbitrarily by the victors. �For
>>>> instance, they didn't include fire-bombing Dresden or dropping
>>>> atom bombs on Japan.
>
> Who were dispensing the "victors' justice"? To be more precise, who
> were the judges and how were they selected? Were they from neutral
> states?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nuremberg_Trial_judges

Not from neutral countries. That does not mean the judges
were not neutral themselves. But also, what should be noted
is that it is not the judges who bring the charges, but the
prosecutors, and the prosecutors would be expectedly one-sided.


Francis A. Miniter
 >> Stay informed about: Nuremberg vs. Guantanamo 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Nuremberg vs. Guantanamo