< < <
Date > > >
|
< < <
Thread > > >
WAR CRIMES LAW APPLIES TO U.S. TOO - former , prosecutor at Nuremberg War Crimes Trial
- Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 01:12:00 -0400 (EDT)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 15:44:26 -0700
From: Sid Shniad <shniad@sfu.ca>
To: ccpa@policyalternatives.ca
Subject: WAR CRIMES LAW APPLIES TO U.S. TOO - Walter J. Rockler, former prosecutor at Nuremberg War Crimes Trial
The Chicago Tribune May 23, 1999
WAR CRIMES LAW APPLIES TO U.S. TOO
By Walter J. Rockler
Rockler, a Washington lawyer, was a prosecutor
at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial
WASHINGTON — As justification for our murderously
destructive bombing campaign in Yugoslavia, it is of course
necessary for the U.S. to charge that the Serbs have engaged in
inhuman conduct, and that President Slobodan Milosevic, the head
Serb demon, is a war criminal almost without peer.
President Clinton assures us of this in frequent briefings, during
which he engages in rhetorical combat with Milosevic. But shouting
"war criminal" only emphasizes that those who live in glass houses
should be careful about throwing stones.
We have engaged in a flagrant military aggression, ceaselessly
attacking a small country primarily to demonstrate that we run the
world. The rationale that we are simply enforcing international
morality, even if it were true, would not excuse the military
aggression and widespread killing that it entails. It also does not
lessen the culpability of the authors of this aggression.
As a primary source of international law, the judgment of the
Nuremberg Tribunal in the 1945-1946 case of the major Nazi war
criminals is plain and clear. Our leaders often invoke and praise that
judgment, but obviously have not read it. The International Court
declared: To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an
international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing
only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the
accumulated evil of the whole.
At Nuremberg, the United States and Britain pressed the
prosecution of Nazi leaders for planning and initiating aggressive
war. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the head of the
American prosecution staff, asserted "that launching a war of
aggression is a crime and that no political or economic situation can
justify it." He also declared that "if certain acts in violation of
treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does
them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to
lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would
not be willing to have invoked against us."
The United Nations Charter views aggression similarly. Articles
2(4) and (7) prohibit interventions in the domestic jurisdiction of
any country and threats of force or the use of force by one state
against another. The General Assembly of the UN in Resolution
2131, "Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention,"
reinforced the view that a forceful military intervention in any
country is aggression and a crime without justification.
Putting a "NATO" label on aggressive policy and conduct does
not give that conduct any sanctity. This is simply a perversion of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, formed as a defensive alliance
under the UN Charter. The North Atlantic Treaty pledged its
signatories to refrain from the threat or use of force in any manner
inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, and it
explicitly recognized "the primary responsibility of the Security
Council (of the United Nations) for the maintenance of international
peace and security." Obviously, in bypassing UN approval for the
current bombing, the U.S. and NATO have violated this basic
obligation.
From another standpoint of international law, the current
conduct of the bombing by the United States and NATO constitutes
a continuing war crime. Contrary to the beliefs of our war planners,
unrestricted air bombing is barred under international law. Bombing
the "infrastructure" of a country -- waterworks, electricity plants,
bridges, factories, television and radio locations -- is not an attack
limited to legitimate military objectives. Our bombing has also
caused an excessive loss of life and injury to civilians, which
violates another standard. We have now killed hundreds, if not
thousands, of Serbs, Montenegrins and Albanians, even some
Chinese, in our pursuit of humanitarian ideals.
In addition to shredding the UN Charter and perverting the
purpose of NATO, Clinton also has violated at least two provisions
of the United States Constitution. Under Article I, Section 8, of the
Constitution, Congress, not the president, holds the power to
declare war and to punish offenses against the law of nations.
Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 69 pointed out one
difference between a monarchy and the presidency under the new
form of government: A king could use his army as he pleased; the
president would have no such unlimited power. Under Article VI of
the Constitution, treaties, far from being mere scraps of paper as we
now deem them to be, are part of the supreme law of the United
States. Of course, these days a supine Congress, fascinated only by
details of sexual misconduct, can hardly be expected to enforce
constitutional requirements. Nor can a great deal be expected from
the media. Reporters rely on the controlled handouts of the State
Department, Pentagon and NATO, seeing their duty as one of
adding colorful details to official intimations of Serb atrocities.
Thus, the observation of a NATO press relations officer that a
freshly plowed field, seen from 30,000 feet up, might be the site of
a massacre has been disseminated as news.
The notion that humanitarian violations can be redressed with
random destruction and killing by advanced technological means is
inherently suspect. This is mere pretext for our arrogant assertion
of dominance and power in defiance of international law. We make
the non-negotiable demands and rules, and implement them by
military force. It is all remindful of Henrik Ibsen's "Don't use that
foreign word 'ideals.' We have that excellent native word 'lies.'"
< < <
Date > > >
|
< < <
Thread > > >
|
Home