Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.culture.german Subject: Basis for Nuremberg Tribunal Summary: Expires: References:
<email@example.com> Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: The Nizkor Project Keywords: Cc: In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com (Joe Weber) wrote: >The U.S. prigs who tallk about 'crimes against humanity ' and war crimes >forget that the U.S. forbids the enforcing of an 'ex post facto' law, >i.e. one past after the fact. The Nuremburg kangaroo court tried people >for 'crimes'defined after they had occured (ergo ex post facto). It also >guranteed that the leaders, military and civilian, of the loser in all >future wars will be tired for these same 'crimes' by the winner. Browsing through Tusas' "The Nuremberg Trial," (58-59) we see discussion of the basis for the charges at Nuremberg discussed, and the conclusion that waging aggressive war was, in and of itself, a crime. The legal basis for this assertion relates to the Pact of Paris, or the Kellog-Briand Pact (1928), in which the signatories renounced war as an instrument of national policy for the solution of disputes. Germany was a signatory to this international pact, along with 62 other nations. While Stimson clearly believed that this pact, and other agreements among various European nations, made waging aggressive war a crime, others did not, as (among other things) the Pact did not list sanctions for those in breech - i.e. there was no punishment to fit the crime. Justice Jackson, however, "...had no doubts that aggressive war was a crime." (See his 1941 paper before the Inter-American Bar Association in Havana, for instance.) In short, the assertion that the crimes only "became" crimes after the end of the war cannot be supported. For an exhaustive discussion of the evolution of the charges, and their legal basis, see Tusa, Ann & John, "The Nuremberg Trial," Birmingham, Alabama: The Notable Trials Library, 1990, pp. 57-90.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor