Nuremberg War Trials: Aggressive War is Illegal (reminder)

[G_j]

Statement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson
Chief U.S. Prosecutor
at the Nuremberg Tribunals
August 12, 1945
on War Trials Agreement; August 12, 1945

There are some things I would like to say, particularly to the American people, about the agreement we have just signed.
For the first time, four of the most powerful nations have agreed not only upon the principles of liability for war crimes of persecution, but also upon the principle of individual responsibility for the crime of attacking the international peace.

Repeatedly, nations have united in abstract declarations that the launching of aggressive war is illegal. They have condemned it by treaty. But now we have the concrete application of these abstractions in a way which ought to make clear to the world that those who lead their nations into aggressive war face individual accountability for such acts.
<snip>

"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. And we must not allow
ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war,
for our position is that no grievances or policies will
justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced
and condemned as an instrument of policy."
<snip>

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson
Chief U.S. Prosecutor
at the Nuremberg Tribunals
August 12, 1945

READ THE ENTIRE STATEMENT HERE:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jack02.htm

[xchrom]

1. kick

[sweetheart]

2. yet if we shift the frame

that empire targeted and destroyed germany in its march to global
prominence, and that empire eacerbated war to extend its industrial
hegemony.

That the attack of germany was blowback fro previous meddlings by
US administrations.

There is no truth in american policy. It is empire pure and simple.

A different reason served the momentary truth at the end of the
world war 2, that aggressive war was deemed illegal. Now it is
WMD's, tomorrow it will be being gay. The empire has lost touch
with common sense and historical frames of reference that underly
the very culture they are ruling.

In sarcastic refuge, the Germans Were wrong for losing. The
statement tells the truth by its inherent denial

their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the
war, but that they started it

They have to deny the common sense first to promote an endictment.
They were on trial for losing the war. Were the tables
reversed, the same would have been true.

The US march to military-industrial-empire is the only constant
across the last century of behaviour. To take any other foreign
policy ruse risks making the US appear schitzophrenic with different
incoherent reasons for this war or that one.

The truth is we're out to conquor the world, because you little
countries of inferior races can't do it. So the USA has to be there
and fill the gap of big daddy longbottom. Ain't nothing getting in
the way of our global domination of this planet for the next 10,000
years. We own the entire planet, and we'll take away anything
we (the us military) want. We've secured our oil, and will ration
it out in return for disarmament now that we've conquored all
resistance and subdued terrorism in the world.

Mr president, we are the 6 commanders who rule the earth. We each
have over 20 diplomatic staff to communicate military edicts across
our 700+ world bases through the state of forces agreement. All our
conquored republics roll over whenever we need complicity, as it is
impossible to even consider crossing the US military. We will
find you, we will hunt you down and kill you, whoever you are,
for whateveer reason we want. Mister president, just let me know
when you want to launch. The nuclear counterstrike should kill
80% of america's democrats leaving our new nation of god under
one party rule.

[G_j]

9. wow

nothing like stepping back for another look. Did you take the red pill, or is it blue? Whatever, very compelling post, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.
In your opinion, when did the "Empire" pass from the Brits to America?

[sweetheart]

10. The window of empire transition

The moment in time when it was put on public display was the suez
crisis in 1956? It was the first time, that britain has to accept
defeat in an area of the world it had ruled as empire, and that last
fall of british concept of empire, defined the american rise.

You figure that the transition to america in 1898 was spain, not
britain, france, germany, portugal, the netherlands or denmark,
the other colonial powers. Clearly it was not until all these
empires buggered each other by fighting a big war, that the US
emerged, as on the whole, they were larger empires between them.
When you look at the greater overseas affiliations of britain,
these friendly semi-national territories of the commonwealth
are larger than the USA territory.

Yes, the suez crisis put america in opposition to britain AND
france, and israel in a military conflict. This opposition broke
the last sense of empire of the other 2 remaining allies in the
cold war, leaving only 2. That's my pollyanna revisionism.

:-)

peace,

[G_j]

13. ah, I almost forgot Spain

in the equation, the original conquerer of the Americas. Interesting that Britian and Spain were part of the so-called coalition.

Thanks for the history lesson.

Peace

[BiggJawn]

3. But this was not aggressive war...

This was "Pre-emptive War"....

What's the difference? I dunno, go ask Rumsferatu, he's feeling rather chatty today...

[ithacan]

4. "pre-emptive" is a lie

preemptive means that the enemy is about to actually attack you.

This was not the case with Iraq.

What the US did was a preventive war, which is a war of aggression.

But the Bush regime, in its typical orwellian style, has been pushing "preemptive" and of course the media has not questioned that at all.

By the way, this policy of wars of aggression is now written into US foreign policy doctrine, in Bush's National Security Strategy (available at the white house website I think)

[sweetheart]

5. preemptive eternal war

To declare a preemptive eternal war to prevent any nation or people
from ever being strong enough to challenge the power of these USA,
is to declare a war on all other nations, a covert war. This new
cold war is one of theft and disablement, that market monopolies
will cut out nations unfavourable to the military commanders. Monopoly will be granted and with it a stewardship, duke or duchess,
some such role in the new white house.

Needed are people in every country ready to traitor your own people
for the american people (we'll pay you). Then your ethics will prove
as thin as american racists know they are, and you communists will
come grovelling for a job.

Then we'll shoot you or lock you up in prison. The new future is
feudal law of fifedoms.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. For the record

I opposed the war in Iraq since the very beginning. However, I still would say it was legal since the Iraqi military continued to both attack our aircraft and violate terms of the peace treaty.

The stupidity of * administration is that they tried to concoct another reason. They didn't need one.

[Q]

8. It wasn't 'legal' according to international law...

...and your post neglects to take into consideration any other option than war.

- Peace or negotiations were NEVER an option for this government. They INVENTED reasons to attack and spit in the face of our 'allies' when they objected to aggressive war being the only answer.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Again, I disagree

When you are attacked, and we were countless times over a 10-year period, then you can defend yourself. We don't need the UN's OK to do so.

[G_j]

14. but was it necessary?

was our nation's security threatened?
no way!

Mature responsible world leaders don't attack countries just because they "can", or because they can spin it as "justified". Enlightened responsible leaders explore every avenue before engaging in war. Bush didn't even allow the weapons inspectors to complete their job.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Necessary?

Look, I don't think it was smart or necessary. I am just saying we had causus belli of a cause for war.

[G_j]

19. not according to the reason they gave,

which was WMD. Hans Blix says based on this, the war was "unjustified".

[Devils Advocate NZ]

23. So...

If I illegally said that you were no longer allowed to enter your kitchen, and everytime you entered your kitchen I punched you, you throwing punches back would constitute a crime against me?

Of course not. US and UK aircraft were ILLEGALLY operating over Iraqi territory. Iraq had EVERY RIGHT to attempt to shoot down those aircraft.

Thus, the US gave IRAQ a legal cause for declaring war against the US, NOT the other way around. The US was the aggressor and thus in breach of the laws against aggressive war.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

21. Actually, YOU are wrong.

The US was NEVER attacked, Iraq ONLY defended itself against US attacks!

I assume you are talking about US aircraft that were fired on during their illegal penetrations of Iraqi territory (otherwise known as "no-fly zone" operations).

Of course you do know that the "no-fly" zones were actually NOT authorised by the UN, and in fact constituted a breach of the ceasefire agreement which said:

5. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with Iraq and Kuwait, to submit within three days to the Security Council for its approval a plan for the immediate deployment of a United Nations observer unit to monitor the Khor Abdullah and a demilitarized zone, which is hereby established, extending ten kilometres into Iraq and five kilometres into Kuwait from the boundary referred to in the "Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters" of 4 October 1963; to deter violations of the boundary through its presence in and surveillance of the demilitarized zone; to observe any hostile or potentially hostile action mounted from the territory of one State to the other; and for the Secretary-General to report regularly to the Security Council on the operations of the unit, and immediately if there are serious violations of the zone or potential threats to peace;
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

US and UK flights based in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that crossed the demilitarised zone carrying weapons and on bombing missions are a material breach of this resolution by the US and UK.

Iraq and the UN (and at the time the US/UK) agreed to a DMZ along the border, NOT having half of Iraqi territory be effectively occupied by US forces.

There has NEVER been a UN resolution authorising implementation of a "no-fly" zone.

[RichM]

15. Ridiculous.

:silly:

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Care to elaborate

Or at least try sentence form?

[BiggJawn]

7. it sure is.

and I can't even agree that this was a "preventative" war. What did we need to prevent Saddam from doing that was of vital interst to us?
Oh, yeah, we need his oil and a place to stand that isn't Saudi Arabia for when the PNAC gets rolling...

I was being sarcastic in my original post, BTW....

[xchrom]

11. i'm kicking this again

because it one of the most important spokes in the argument that bush should do real jail time.

[iverglas]

16. the problem with "jail time"

There are two kinds of international law in issue here:

- the law that governs nations, which is of some long standing and fairly well developed (and is administered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) between states parties to treaties), and

- the law that governs individuals, which is novel and very incomplete (and is administered by the International Criminal Court (ICC) when it tries individuals on charges under the Rome Statute).

Individual countries also incorporate "international" crimes like genocide and war crimes in their own criminal law, and can try individuals over whom they have jurisdiction.

Hypothetically, Iraq could take the US before the ICJ for violating international agreements to which it is a party, as Nicaragua did in respect of all the acts of aggression committed against it by the US.

To hold Bush, or anyone, personally criminally liable for acts of aggression would require either that there be a "crime of aggression" defined in US law, and that he be tried in a US court, or that there be a "crime of aggression" defined in international law and that the ICC acquire jurisdiction over him somehow.

There is no crime of aggression in US law (although US law does incorporate the crime of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, the other internationally recognized crimes).

And there is also no crime of aggression in international law, because that crime has simply never been defined:

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (which the US has of course not ratified) provides:
http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/52d68d14de6160e0c12563da005fdb1b/fb2c5995d7cbf846412566900039e535?OpenDocument

Article 5
Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court

1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:

(a) The crime of genocide;

(b) Crimes against humanity;

(c) War crimes;

(d) The crime of aggression.

2.  The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

And that has not yet been done. The Rome Statute defines (a), (b) and (c) at great length, but says nothing more about aggression.

So the United States could be brought before the International Court of Justice for committing acts of aggression contrary to specific provisions in international law (treaties), but George W. Bush could not be prosecuted for such acts anywhere.

Now, the definition of "War Crimes" in Article 8 does include these:

(b)  Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives; ...

... and others, but again, the ICC would not have jurisdiction over Bush unless somebody forcibly brought him before that court (and Iraq, which I assume has not ratified the Rome Statute, accepted the ICC's jurisdiction).

The US's own law on war crimes (under which a US president could be charged if he had committed one of the offences in US law) may be read here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/118/sections/section_2441.html

.

[Dirk39]

20. A duty to disobey all unlawful orders

"Lawrence Mosqueda, Ph.D., A list of legal guidelines, 9 March 2003

DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

As the United States government under George Bush gets closer to attacking the people of Iraq, there are several things that the men and women of the U.S. armed forces need to know and bear in mind as they are given orders from the Bush administration. This information is provided for the use of the members of the armed forces, their families, friends and supporters, and all who are concerned about the current direction of U.S. policy toward Iraq."
http://electroniciraq.net/news/265.shtml


"Senator Inouye was referring to the Nuremberg trials in the post WW II era, when the U.S. tried Nazi war criminals and did not allow them to use the reason or excuse that they were only "following orders" as a defense for their war crimes which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent men, women, and children. "In 1953, the Department of Defense adopted the principles of the Nuremberg Code as official policy" of the United States. (Hasting Center Report, March-April 1991)"
(same source)

Principles of the
Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950
No. 82
Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal. Adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950.

Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[proud patriot]

22. A very important reminder

:-)