Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is support for the Iraq 'war' tantamount to supporting war crimes?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 10:08 AM
Original message
Is support for the Iraq 'war' tantamount to supporting war crimes?
The Avalon Project at Yale Law School

Statement by Justice Jackson 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.

The definitions under which we will try the Germans are general definitions. They impose liability upon war-making statesmen of all countries alike. If we can cultivate in the world the idea that aggressive war-making is the way to the prisoner's dock rather than the way to honors, we will have accomplished something toward making the peace more secure.

This, too, is the first time that four nations with such different legal systems have tried to knit their ideas of just criminal procedure into a cooperative trial. That task is far more difficult than those unfamiliar with the differences between continental and Anglo-American methods would expect. It has involved frank and critical examination by the representatives of each country of the other's methods of administering justice. Our discussions have been candid and open-minded.

The representatives of the United Kingdom have been headed by the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General. The Soviet Republic has been represented by the Vice President of its Supreme Court and by one of the leading scholars of Soviet jurisprudence. The Provisional Government of France has sent a judge of its highest court and a professor most competent in its jurisprudence.

It would not be a happy forecast for the future harmony of the world if I could not agree with such representatives of the world's leading systems of administering justice on a common procedure for trial of war criminals.

Of course, one price of such international cooperation is mutual concession. Much to which American lawyers would be accustomed is missing in this instrument. I have not seen fit to insist that these prisoners have the benefit of all of the protections which our legal and constitutional system throws around defendants.

To the Russian and French jurist, our system seems unduly tender of defendants and to be loaded in favor of delay and in favor of the individual against the state. To us, their system seems summary and to load the procedure in favor of the state against the individual.

However, the continental system is the one the Germans themselves have employed and understand. It does not seem inappropriate that a special military commission for the trial of Europeans in Europe, for crimes committed in Europe, should follow rather largely although not entirely the European procedures. The essentials of a fair trial have been assured.

Another price of international cooperation is slow motion. No doubt Russia acting alone, or the United States, or any one country acting alone, could try these defendants in much shorter time than we can do it when we consult with each other and move along together. Our associates, for example, have a claim as good as ours to have the trial proceed in a language which they understand.

This requires a trial rendered into four languages-German, Russian, French, and English. This will be a dreary business, and there is no use trying to dodge that fact. It is a tedious prospect for me and for representatives of all the governments which will engage in it.

But I do not think the world will be poorer even if it takes a month or so, more or less, to try these men who now are prisoners and whose capacity for harm already has been overcome.

I do think the world would be infinitely poorer if we were to confess that the nations which now dominate the western world hold ideas of justice so irreconcilable that no common procedure could be devised or carried out.

The danger, so far as the moral judgment of the world is concerned, which will beset these trials is that they come to be regarded as merely political trials in which the victor wreaks vengeance upon the vanquished. However unfortunate it may be, there seems no way of doing anything about the crimes against the peace and against humanity except that the victors judge the vanquished.

Experience has taught that we can hardly expect them to try each other. The scale of their attack leaves no neutrals in the world. We must summon all that we have of dispassionate judgment to the task of patiently and fairly presenting the record of these evil deeds in these trials.

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.

I therefore want to make clear to the American people that we have taken an important step forward in this instrument in fixing individual responsibility of war-mongering, among whatever peoples, as an international crime. We have taken another in recognizing an international accountability for persecutions, exterminations, and crimes against humanity when associated with attacks on the peace of the international order.

But I want to be equally clear that to make these advances fully effective through international trials is a task of difficulty and one which will require some public patience and some understanding of the wide gulf which separates the judicial systems of the nations which are trying to cooperate in the effort.

Source:
United States Department of State Bulletin.
August 12, 1945
Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1945.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jack02.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DenverDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. America is the Germany of the 21st Century.
Support the Iraq War, support the Abu Ghraib atrocities, support the indiscriminate "collateral damage", support the incredible war profiteering.

Imperialism is criminality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Short answer,
YES.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. In the case of war crimes...
...supporting and ignoring are the same thing. Can anyone in DC and around the US honestly say they're not aware that our country has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
4. i agree. yes.
supporting this war is supporting war crimes.

but add failing to prosecute and you have complicity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Lack of prosecution...
...or investigation by neutral third parties does speak of a coverup and complicity. It's as if no politician wants to inherit this mess so they all just close their eyes and ignore it...depending on the guilty parties to investigate themselves.

- This is why the international community joined together to put the Nazis on trial. Like the Bushies...the Nazis didn't think they even committed a crime and argued that their aggressive wars were 'preemptive' in nature and for self-defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylon_system Donating Member (277 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
5. Nations and people have a right to self-defense
That's why the CIA and all the Bush liars painted Iraq as a threat to the United States. They said, "We have secret evidence of WMDs and Iraq's intent to use them on us. Trust us." That was the only way to justify the war. Those were flagrant lies designed to manufacture consent for an ILLEGAL unjustified imperialist war of aggression.

YES, those who support the US war against Iraq are war criminals.

http://peoplejudgebush.org/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElementaryPenguin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
7. Yes.
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
8. It's disgusting
that any American, never mind liberal Democrats in America, think people should be held criminally responsible for their opinions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. So take it up with those folks privately
I, too, believe that supporting the war is tantamount to supporting war crimes. Can those supporters be held criminally responsible solely for their beliefs, without an overt act? I never said that, and neither did the person who started the thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. What did you think I was doing?
Edited on Wed Aug-25-04 02:21 PM by sangh0
Posts #4, 5, & 6 say that one's opinon makes one a criminal. And in post #14, the thread starter says that pols are war criminals if they don't have the right (ie Q-approved) opinion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Did you happen to read Jackson's statement?
Where in it do you see that "people should be held criminally responsible for their opinions".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. In this thread
Edited on Wed Aug-25-04 02:20 PM by sangh0
I didn't name anyone, and IMO Jackson didn't cross the line between saying it was IMMORAL to support the war, and saying it was CRIMINAL to support the war. However, others in this thread have said that those who support the war are themselves "war CRIMINALS"

You ask "Where do I see DUers saying "people should be held criminally responsible for their opinions"?? In posts #4, 5, 6, & 14. (Note: #14 was by the thread-starter, so I guess I was pretty accurate in claiming that this dicsussion includes categorizing those who "support war" as criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. No I didn't.
I didn't ask "Where do you see DU'ers..".

Nor, do I think that all the people who support the war in Iraq are criminals. Just as all the Germans who supported the war weren't criminals but closed their eyes to the crimianality out of "patriotism" and "supporting our troops".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. You're right. You didn't say DUer's
You asked "where do I see that...?" and the answer is "from DUers in this thread"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
11. how do you define
support for the Iraq "war"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Try this.
"...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."

From the statement above by Justice Jackson
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Justice Jackson talks here about "starting" aggressive wars
he also says that the liability would fall on "war making statesmen".

He nowhere mentions anything about "support" for a war, which hasn't been defined in the context of this thread, IMO.

Justice Jackson's statement would seem to condemn Mr. Bush and his cohorts, but I fail to see how the title of this thread relates to Mr. Jackson's words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. "Support" would seem to be obvious.
Those who are accomplices in the war making process. i.e. the Reichstag members who voted for the enlistment of soldiers, arms manufacture, etc, or endorsed Hitler's aggression. Many of whom ended up in the dock and were convicted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
14. Aggressive war in a war crime...
Edited on Wed Aug-25-04 02:14 PM by Q
...the attack against Iraq was an aggressive war.

- Thus...the politicians (statesmen) who enabled that attack and still support it today are guilty of war crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stone_Spirits Donating Member (586 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-04 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #14
34. YES, YES, YES !!
now if some people will try to grasp that fact that there are many who do not support war crimes and would desire the party draws a distinct line so that we don't feel like continual enablers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
17. I think everyone on this thread . . .
Would profit from reading Daniel Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners". I haven't stayed completely up-to-date on the scholarship and debate over Goldhagen's work, so some of it may now be debunked. But when I read it, I remember feeling floored at the implications of his argument

Generally, Goldhagen takes issue with the previously prevailing trope that "Most Germans didn't know what was going on." Goldhagen (it seemed to me) demonstrated fairly conclusively that, au contraire, most Germans knew what was going on and either actively or passively supported it.

Resistance episodes within Nazi Germany, such as the White Rose and Rosenstrasse, were the exception to the rule. It seems to me for this thread that the connection with Goldhagen is as follows: is ignorance of international law sufficient to excuse supporters of the Iraq War from complicity in its various and sundry crimes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. I'm not sure most Americans ARE ignorant...
Edited on Wed Aug-25-04 04:38 PM by Q
...of what's going on and that war crimes have been committed. There seems to be a conspiracy of silence in an election year...where both parties are willing to overlook wars of aggression and war crimes that would make them look incompetent or complicit.

- The facts are there for everyone to see; a country that didn't threaten us attacked and occupied. Torture and the intentional killing of civilians and bombing of residential areas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. I'm not sure either, but
Could we at least agree that, if most Americans knew we were committing war crimes, they would be opposed?

I'm no big defender of the American body politic, but how many of that group would say they are in favor of us committing war crimes?

I see the principal American problem as ignorance (yes, much of it willful) and not so much malevolence. This is where I think Goldhagen's work is so illuminating. His work demonstrates (I'm reasonably sure) that Germans knew and were enthusiastic about the crimes of the Nazis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
18. Is support for the Iraq 'war' tantamount to supporting war crimes?
Yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
19. W/o a doubt, yes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillZBubb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
22. Absolutely.
Although you cannot blame all of the approving public for doing so. They get only the approved propaganda. When all voices are telling you it is "Operation Iraqi Freedom", opposition there are "a small minority of bitter end militants", and we are "rebuilding Iraq", it's tough to be against those things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
23. It's chilling to read the denunciation of my country by its former
great leaders:

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.

I therefore want to make clear to the American people that we have taken an important step forward in this instrument in fixing individual responsibility of war-mongering, among whatever peoples, as an international crime. We have taken another in recognizing an international accountability for persecutions, exterminations, and crimes against humanity when associated with attacks on the peace of the international order.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. Accountability
The Nazi Hydra in America


"Too many people still believe that fascism can't happen here. It is happening here today. The Gestapo is firmly in place in the form of Ashcroft's justice department. The FBI no longer serves to protect the citizens; instead it is being used to protect this regime, by such means as the gagging of Sibel Edmonds, for instance. The FBI is no longer primarily charged with criminal investigation instead its being used to enforce this regime's policies and finally the FBI, other federal law enforcement agencies and the military are illegally spying on anyone opposed to this regime. Moreover, Representative Porter Goss, Bush's choice to head the CIA has introduced legislation that would allow the CIA to conduct operations inside the United States including arbitrary arrests of American citizens."
______________________________________________________________________

http://madiaq.indymedia.org/news/2004/08/8877.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
26. yes
and voting for any non-Democrat is tantamount to supporting fascism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabelais Donating Member (88 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
27. yes
I agree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-04 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
30. One kick for the 'night people'...
...think about it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-04 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. It's the Vietnam syndrome all over again...close your eyes when your party
...supports war without reason. An entire nation pretending that war crimes don't matter if they're done by the only remaining 'superpower'. A nation deluding itself into believing that war is the answer to terorism.

- The 'war on terrorism' is the invention of the Bush* government...yet too many Dems have signed on because Kerry wants to be president. Democrats have become part of the problem and are actually giving Bush* a chance at winning in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-04 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Spot on Q, spot on
Once again we are forced to choose between two warhawks, with no end in sight to the war in Iraq. I'm afraid that Kerry is going to keep this damn war going for his own political gain, you know, so he doesn't appear "soft on terra". Yet dedicated Dems and leftists will give him a pass, both now and later, because he is ABB. Few recognize the good cop/bad cop game that is being played by our two party/same corporate master system of government.

My only consilation regarding Kerry is that I think he is less likely to expand the war to other ME countries, but that could change too. All in all it is a very depressing election cycle for those of us who are dedicated to ending this illegal, immoral war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-04 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. That Kerry is going to 'internationalize' the war...
Edited on Thu Aug-26-04 08:56 AM by Q
...will mean little to the Iraqis or Americans dying on foreign soil.

- But even with the ABB vote...this election will be close. Many Dems don't realize that the US is full of fascists and partisans that will vote for Bush* for the singular purpose of keeping the RWing in power.

- The problem is not the Iraq occupation...but the 'war on terrorism'. Politicians of both parties put themselves in a corner after allowing Bush* to wage aggressive war against Iraq under the pretense of 'fighting the war on terror'. Every one of them knows that Iraq has NOTHING to do with the war on terror...but must keep up the facade to keep themselves from being prosecuted as war criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-04 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
35. Of police actions, occupations and war
The Bush team has done a lazy job compared to past administrations in trying to gild the excrement. Stubbornly it took quite a while for the "UN Police Action" in Vietnam to be recognized as a "war".

But what they don't want to call this is an "occupation", because that is what anyone can be against since it is against the will of the people AND in theory we were supposed to pack up and leave according to their sovereign wishes. Maybe their soverignity is like that of our native Americans.

Aggressive invasion for no just cause. Lack of fulfilling duties in even being a proper occupying power. Installation of puppets and refusal to go. Warring with resistance fighters as if they were rebels. Killing, of course many innocent or patriotic Iraqi citizens with no clear military plan.

All this is NOT the fault of American forces pushed and abandoned. It is the full responsibility of the war planners- if you can call this wishful arrogance and inattention to 'details" planning.

They should be hung as high as the Nuremberg gallows, but long long imprisonment would suffice.

But let's not go after easy targets, like Congress, your hawkish neighbor etc. who the Bush team then use as cover as we fight among ourselves. The ones directly responsible for turning a clear policy of
dealing with Iraq into this blood-soaked nightmare must be held to direct account.

Our problem was EVER expecting better of them simply because these turds had their butts planted in grand high exalted seats of American power- and NOT by our vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 05:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC