Churchill wanted Hitler killed in electric chair

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Another Churchill story today.

http://za.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-01-01T120610Z_01_BAN143663_RTRIDST_0_OZATP-BRITAIN-CHURCHILL-20060101.XML

LONDON (Reuters) - British wartime leader Winston Churchill wanted Adolf Hitler to be summarily executed like a common gangster in a U.S.-supplied electric chair, according to previously secret documents released on Sunday.

Churchill also believed that putting Hitler and other Nazi German leaders on trial after World War Two would be a farce and they should instead be treated as outlaws and promptly executed.

The fresh glimpse into history was revealed in newly declassified records from British war cabinet meetings.

The notes, officially released by the National Archives after a gap of 60 years, were taken by cabinet secretary Norman Brook.

In cabinet discussions on what they might do with Hitler if he was captured, Churchill said in December 1942: "If Hitler falls into our hands we shall certainly put him to death."

"This man is the mainspring of evil," he added.

The British leader even suggested the Nazi dictator could be executed in an electric chair from the United States -- just like a gangster meeting his end.

"Execute the principal criminals as common outlaws," Churchill also said, voicing his objections to a war crime tribunal which he believed would be a farcical mock trial.

[Felix the Cat]

This is in character, though of course in 1942 it was still more likely that he would be the one who would end up "summarily executed"

[daisy]

oh i think hitler escaped the electric chair
i saw elvis and hitler alive and living well in los angeles lol
tell the world where you saw elvis
tell the world where you saw hitler

[DeathtoPrejudice]

Churchill, was one of the most 'evil' leaders of WWII. In my opinion.

The pointless, and meaningless bombing of Dresden is enough to show that.

[Totenkopf]

he also praised Stalin, after he visited him.
And after Hitler was besieged he said "We butcherd the wrong pig"

[Sinclair]

Pretty bloody stupid, I'd say. If this had happened, Hitler would have become far more of a "martyr" figure than he is now.

Honestly, Churchill is hardly the great figure he seems to often be seen as...

[Lenny]

Churchill also believed that putting Hitler and other Nazi German leaders on trial after World War Two would be a farce and they should instead be treated as outlaws and promptly executed.He was right about the trials being a farce that's for sure. While the Nuremberg trials were going on, even George Orwell said the same many times in a column that he had in a British newspaper

It would've been better to just execute the top nazi leaders after speedy military trials, or at very least shoot Hitler in that manner, the honorable thing would've been to spare all of them and only shoot Hitler. This is what the US did after they defeated the Confederacy in 1865. Some Northern newspapers were calling for Jeff Davis and others to be hanged but Lincoln and the other Union leaders would not hear of it. The only Confederate who was actually executed after the war was Henry Wirz, who ran the infamous Andersonville prison camp. Anyone who knows the first thing about Andersonville knows that Wirz was executed for very good reason

[Felix the Cat]

I largely agree Lenny

IIRC, the defendants at Nuremberg were blamed for the Katyn affair...

And of course no mention was made of the Allied campaign of strategic bombing (which was completely unjustified after c. Sept. 1944)

Fortunately (some) sanity prevailed in the case of Doenitz

[Sulla the Dictator]

Another Churchill story today.

http://za.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-01-01T120610Z_01_BAN143663_RTRIDST_0_OZATP-BRITAIN-CHURCHILL-20060101.XML

I have no objection to Hitler being electrocuted. Though hanging would have been just as good, maybe even better because he would have been killed in the same way as his henchmen.

Though the idea of him being fitted with a rubber diaper does hold some amusement.

[Sinclair]

And then he would have become a huge martyr figure.

[Kodos]

It would've been better to just execute the top nazi leaders after speedy military trials, or at very least shoot Hitler in that manner, the honorable thing would've been to spare all of them and only shoot Hitler.

Surely Kaltenbrunner and Sauckel should have been killed?

[Sulla the Dictator]

And then he would have become a huge martyr figure.

You mean, more so than if he stayed in his bunker in Berlin until the end, and shot himself?

[Kodos]

And then he would have become a huge martyr figure.

He was more a martyr dying honorably by his own hand then being hanged like a common criminal.

[Lenny]

Surely Kaltenbrunner and Sauckel should have been killed?I think a lot of them deserved to be killed, yeah, although it would've been particularly honorable on the part of the Allies to spare all of them except Hitler, having any others serve time in prison as war criminals instead of just having them all swing from a rope.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Certain members where doomed from the get go. Even Hess.

[cerberus]

I have often wondered how Hitler , Himmler and Heydrich would have done had they made it into the dock.
My money would be on Heydrich being the most impressive.
As far as Hitler goes , death by his own hand only after saying the German people who surived deserved no consideration.
Yes a great guy all round , self centred to the last he was going to go out as he wanted and to hell with everyone else.

Had he been captured I would not have wept for him. Hanging , he would have deserved it.

[Felix the Cat]

Most of the defendants were simply mindless sheep, who would have been equally loyal to the Allied occupying authorities if they had been left alive

Though, I can understand why the Russians wanted them dead

Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler should have been shot on capture. No trials necessary. But most of the others should have been turned loose

I'm uncertain about Goering, since he seems to have had little involvement in running the war after Stalingrad

The prosecution of Doenitz was a scandal

[Ambrosio Spinola]

I would have gased Roosevelt in his wheel chair. Churchill hanged, Stalin quartered. :D

[cerberus]

Russia would have hanged all the defendants and more if they had been given half a chance , pure revenge was what they wanted.
I agree that Donitz was given a raw deal perhaps even Jodl.
Streicher was a quarter wit , Rosenberg to what extent was a capital punishemtn deserved ?
When you look at the people in the dock with rare exceptions few were impressive , people whom Hitler could either use or control , people who had power only at Hitler's will / whim.

[Kodos]

Certain members where doomed from the get go. Even Hess.


Hess and Doenitz got fucked they weren't war criminals. Sauckel and Kaltenbrunner otoh definitely had it coming.

[Fade the Butcher]

LONDON (Reuters) - British wartime leader Winston Churchill wanted Adolf Hitler to be summarily executed like a common gangster in a U.S.-supplied electric chair, according to previously secret documents released on Sunday.It would have made more sense than the Nuremburg farce.

[cerberus]

The Russians found themselves playing judge thorugh circumstances only.
When they demanded that their account of what took place at Kaytn Wood be accepted without question they were taken aback when the other powers said , " Don't think so".
Farce , it may not have ben perfect but it was better than nothing. The ral farce came later when major criminals were allowed to work for the US as intelligene sources.
Cold war mentality allowed many criminals to get away.

[Fade the Butcher]

Nuremburg was a ridiculous show trial based on ex post facto law.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Nuremburg was a...trial based on ex post facto law.

So what? Allied nations were so numerous as to form a legitimate quorum. :p

[Thomas777]

So what? Allied nations were so numerous as to form a legitimate quorum. :p

Its a Due Process issue.

Furthermore, warfare is not a legal proceeding...an enemy that breaches the peace can be justly vanquished with violent force, but he is not guilty of "crimes". Crimes are acts that violate the will of the sovreign as codified within the laws of a polity.

Its perverse to suggest that an executive staff that oversees the invasion of its neighbors are guilty of "crimes".

The case could be made (convincingly IMO) that Gaulieiters who oversaw the killing of civillians in occupied territories could be hailed into court by the post-occupation governments of those territories, but the USA and the UK had zero standing to place Axis leaders on trial.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Its a Due Process issue.


Nations are entitled to American constitutional protections?


Furthermore, warfare is not a legal proceeding...an enemy that breaches the peace can be justly vanquished with violent force, but he is not guilty of "crimes".


Actually if 'warfare is not a legal proceeding', then there is NOTHING the vanquished can NOT be found guilty of. :p


Crimes are acts that violate the will of the sovreign as codified within the laws of a polity.


Then consider international treaty violations to be punishable by an International court.


Its perverse to suggest that an executive staff that oversees the invasion of its neighbors are guilty of "crimes".


Its perverse to say that there is no law which governs German behaviour but there are laws which govern Allied retribution. :p

Its laughable to suggest Germany can own and operate death camps across its "Reich" without legal sanction while we're prohibited from punishing those responsible.


The case could be made (convincingly IMO) that Gaulieiters who oversaw the killing of civillians in occupied territories could be hailed into court by the post-occupation governments of those territories, but the USA and the UK had zero standing to place Axis leaders on trial.

Sure we do. The law is ours to make. And the nation which those fellows governed no longer existed.

[Thomas777]

Nations are entitled to American constitutional protections?
the Nation of Germany was not hailed into court at Nuremburg. Rather, members of Hitler's executive staff as well as military commanders were charged with a litany of "criminal offenses". The Allied authorities claimed that the Nuremburg proceedings were being conducted in accordance with commonly accepted principles of fundamental fairness. The polestar of such fairness is the right to Due Process of Law...absent Due Process, a defendant cannot be said to have been afforded a fair and impartial hearing. Hence, by the Prosecution's own reasoning, the Nuremburg trials failed to live up to commonly accepted principles of fundamental fairness in criminal proceedings.





Then consider international treaty violations to be punishable by an International court.
International courts are not legitimate courts. Courts derive their legitimacy from popular consent of citizens of a polity...not by arbitrary declarations of infinite jurisdiction.



Its perverse to say that there is no law which governs German behaviour but there are laws which govern Allied retribution. :p
There is no law which governs German behavior. Germany declared war on America and America defended herself against German aggression. As enemy combatants, it would have been legitimate for American forces to kill Hitler's executive staff and generals who commanded men under arms. Warfare is not policework...Armies are not in the business of arresting people and hailing them into court. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of 1,000 years of Western legal precedent.

Its laughable to suggest Germany can own and operate death camps across its "Reich" without legal sanction while we're prohibited from punishing those responsible.
If Poland decided to place Rudolf Hoess on trial for murdering Polish citizens under the auspices of an illegal government, they would have had standing to do so. America and the UK did not.



Sure we do. The law is ours to make. And the nation which those fellows governed no longer existed.

Arbitrarily issuing edicts of "law" to foreign countries based on political expediency is the opposite of law and order.

By your reasoning, stronger countries can issue binding "laws" to weaker countries and enjoy complete legitimacy. Such reasoning betrays a lack of knowledge and insight into legal theory.

[cerberus]

That may be Fade but what was the choice ?
Are you going to tell us that slave labour and the murder of civilian and soldier alike was reasonable ?

"By your reasoning, stronger countries can issue binding "laws" to weaker countries and enjoy complete legitimacy. Such reasoning betrays a lack of knowledge and insight into legal theory." Thomas (777).
Think you will find that this might have been written to describe law as per Herr Hitler.
"There is no law which governs German behavior" ( Thomas 777)
War does not give a blank cheque to murder and enslave - you will find that German forces did both and that orders issued via the OKW which came from Hitler were from time to time illegal e.g. "Shoot captured soldiers" .

[Thomas777]

"There is no law which governs German behavior" ( Thomas 777)
War does not give a blank cheque to murder and enslave - you will find that German forces did both and that orders issued via the OKW which came from Hitler were from time to time illegal e.g. "Shoot captured soldiers" .

As I said, the occupied territories in which the NSDAP and the Wehrmacht established illegal governments which proceeded to murder citizens had standing to hail the perpetrators of these acts into court...the USA and the UK did not...for the same reason as if my client commits a homicide in Chicago, Illinois, the Alaska State's Attorney's office has no standing to indict him for murder.

[Kodos]

I don't care much about the legalities of it, there is no greater law then force of arms.

But when you talk about justice Sauckel, Kaltenbrunner( most of the really bad people like Hitler Himmler and Heydrich were already dead) deserved to die. Doenitz certainly did not.

[Sinclair]

You mean, more so than if he stayed in his bunker in Berlin until the end, and shot himself?

I believe so, yes. He would be more a martyr figure.

[generic neo-Nazi]"GREAT AND NOBLE ADOLF HITLER, FRIED BY THE (JEW) ALLIES, FOR SPEAKING THE TRUTH THEY DID NOT WANT TO HEAR! 1488!" [/generic neo-Nazi]

Think about it.

[Kodos]

I believe so, yes. He would be more a martyr figure.

[generic neo-Nazi]"GREAT AND NOBLE ADOLF HITLER, FRIED BY THE (JEW) ALLIES, FOR SPEAKING THE TRUTH THEY DID NOT WANT TO HEAR! 1488!" [/generic neo-Nazi]

Think about it.

In the honor code of old Germanic knights it was far less shameful to kill yourself then be taken alive... Hitler would be less of a martyr if he was captured.

[Thomas777]

I don't care much about the legalities of it, there is no greater law then force of arms.

But when you talk about justice Sauckel, Kaltenbrunner( most of the really bad people like Hitler Himmler and Heydrich were already dead) deserved to die. Doenitz certainly did not.

That may be, but the proper way to deal with enemy combatants is to target them with military forces...not erect a quasi-judicial tribunal that purports to enjoy unlimited jurisdiction. The latter is offensive to notions of national sovreignty that are absolutely indispenisble if liberty is to be maintained in any nation.

[Sinclair]

In the honor code of old Germanic knights it was far less shameful to kill yourself then be taken alive... Hitler would be less of a martyr if he was captured.

Does the average neo-Nazi today really give a rat's ass about the honour code of old Germanic knights?

Helll, even those who claim to think it's the cat's pyjamas, probably know very little about it.

[Fade the Butcher]

Thomas is absolutely right.

[Fade the Butcher]

I once had a debate with Sulla about Nuremburg on the old Phora. He cited Richard Overy's Interrogations: The Nazi Elite in Allied Hands, 1945 in that debate. The dubious legality of Nuremburg is discussed in that book.

"When the Acting Dean of the Harvard Law School, Edmund E. Morgan, was invited in January 1945 to pronounce judgement on the merits of using conspiracy theory to prosecute war crimes, he unambiguously rejected the idea on the grounds that it violated the spirit of 'Anglo-American legal thought' by making up the offence after it had been committed. Morgan urged the War Department to reconsider charges he regarded as 'unwise and unjustifiable', or risk losing the 'reasoned approval of civilized communities'. Jackson was well aware that conventional international law not only failed to embrace the idea of conspiracy, but did not even regard aggressive war as a distinct crime. War was a relationship regarded in law as morally neutral, in which both parties enjoyed the same rights. The laws of war might well be broken during the course of the contest, but war itself was not illegal."

Ibid., pp.49-50

[Fade the Butcher]

That may be Fade but what was the choice ?It would have made more sense to execute the German defendants than to put them on display in a ridiculous political show trial whose conclusion was predetermined.Are you going to tell us that slave labour and the murder of civilian and soldier alike was reasonable ?There were no 'crimes against humanity' recognized and punishable in international law prior to WW2.

[Fade the Butcher]

Does the average neo-Nazi today really give a rat's ass about the honour code of old Germanic knights? Hitler often talked about such matters.

[Niko Bellic]

That may be, but the proper way to deal with enemy combatants is to target them with military forces...not erect a quasi-judicial tribunal that purports to enjoy unlimited jurisdiction. The latter is offensive to notions of national sovreignty that are absolutely indispenisble if liberty is to be maintained in any nation.

Correct, and I would extend that to any notion of international law. Once you cross borders, strength is the only thing that counts.

[Kodos]

Hitler often talked about such matters.

Hitler just feared being tortured and exhibited by the Russians... Himmler talked about that stuff a lot though( in the end he was trying to make a deal though LOL).

[Sinclair]

Hitler often talked about such matters.

And the average modern neo-Nazi has how much knowledge of what Hitler actually said and wrote...?

[Fade the Butcher]

And the average modern neo-Nazi has how much knowledge of what Hitler actually said and wrote...?I thought this discussion was about Hitler?

[Sinclair]

I thought this discussion was about Hitler?

And I'm talking about how he would be a martyr.

That being captured and executed gives you less martyr points than shooting yourself in the head in German knightly tradition, that Hitler talked about German knightly tradition, etc, is a non-issue to most modern neo-Nazis.

The average neo-Nazi knows about as much about National Socialism, as the average devotee of any political movement knows about that movement. Possibly even less, because, y'know, modern neo-Nazism hardly attracts the cream of the crop of any group, hm?

Therefore, executing him would have made him a martyr. German knightly tradition matters not.

[Sulla the Dictator]

the Nation of Germany was not hailed into court at Nuremburg.


Good. We've got that settled.


Rather, members of Hitler's executive staff as well as military commanders were charged with a litany of "criminal offenses".


They were criminal offenses. Are the members of Hitler's executive staff as well as military commanders entitled to American constitutional protections? :p


The Allied authorities claimed that the Nuremburg proceedings were being conducted in accordance with commonly accepted principles of fundamental fairness.


Uh huh.


The polestar of such fairness is the right to Due Process of Law...absent Due Process, a defendant cannot be said to have been afforded a fair and impartial hearing.


You mean like how they had their own lawyers, and were allowed to make statements and call witnesses?

What are the due process violations you're referring to?



International courts are not legitimate courts.


According to you. Most of the world, however, has acknowledged the legitimacy of an International court.


Courts derive their legitimacy from popular consent of citizens of a polity...not by arbitrary declarations of infinite jurisdiction.


Thats actually rubbish. By your argument no non-democratic state can have any legitimate courts. So until 1700 you would have us believe there wasn't a single legitimate legal body since Athens.



There is no law which governs German behavior. Germany declared war on America and America defended herself against German aggression. As enemy combatants, it would have been legitimate for American forces to kill Hitler's executive staff and generals who commanded men under arms. Warfare is not policework...Armies are not in the business of arresting people and hailing them into court.


So then we have a right to execute them out of hand but not to arrest them and JAIL them or execute them depending on the finding of the court? :p

Thats actually a rather remarkably long stretch.


To suggest otherwise flies in the face of 1,000 years of Western legal precedent.


To suggest that the victors of war cannot punish the vanquished flies in the face of human history.


If Poland decided to place Rudolf Hoess on trial for murdering Polish citizens under the auspices of an illegal government, they would have had standing to do so.


That doesn't make much sense, since the victims of Auschwitz wern't just Polish. But since your argument against Nuremberg is pretty eclectic, lets leave that aside.

Poland has every right to CEDE its right to try Hoess to whoever it wants, in this case the International community. Which is what it did. The Poles tried plenty of war criminals on their own in any case.


America and the UK did not.


So we can't try Hoess, but the UK can put Goering on trial and the US can put Ribbentrop in the dock? :p

But WHATEVER WE DO, we can't POOL our prisoners and try them together?

Supposedly you believe in national sovereignty over all other considerations. Yet here you say that it doesn't lie within the rights of nation states to try their criminals in conjunction with other offended nations and other offending criminals?


Arbitrarily issuing edicts of "law" to foreign countries based on political expediency is the opposite of law and order.


International law is meant to govern the conduct between nations, not judge the relative punishment for someone who robs a 7-11. And as those laws were arrived at by the plurality of the world's nations, so your silly requirement for the establishment of legitimate courts is met.

Also, Nuremberg was based on an agreement signed before WWII which rejected war as a means of advancing policy or for profit.


By your reasoning, stronger countries can issue binding "laws" to weaker countries and enjoy complete legitimacy.


By my reasoning, the majority of the world's major nations can issue binding laws to weaker, aggressive despotisms to make them act in accordance with planetary order.


Such reasoning betrays a lack of knowledge and insight into legal theory.

:rofl:

[Sulla the Dictator]

Thomas is absolutely right.

The opposite is true.

[Kodos]

My take in essence on Nuremberg

Laws are what the will of the strong wants. The victor did what he wished with the vanquished as in all war... except this time some of the vanquished had it coming( Doenitz and Hess... no).

[Sulla the Dictator]

I once had a debate with Sulla about Nuremburg on the old Phora. He cited Richard Overy's Interrogations: The Nazi Elite in Allied Hands, 1945 in that debate. The dubious legality of Nuremburg is discussed in that book.

"When the Acting Dean of the Harvard Law School, Edmund E. Morgan, was invited in January 1945 to pronounce judgement on the merits of using conspiracy theory to prosecute war crimes, he unambiguously rejected the idea on the grounds that it violated the spirit of 'Anglo-American legal thought' by making up the offence after it had been committed. Morgan urged the War Department to reconsider charges he regarded as 'unwise and unjustifiable', or risk losing the 'reasoned approval of civilized communities'. Jackson was well aware that conventional international law not only failed to embrace the idea of conspiracy, but did not even regard aggressive war as a distinct crime. War was a relationship regarded in law as morally neutral, in which both parties enjoyed the same rights. The laws of war might well be broken during the course of the contest, but war itself was not illegal."

Ibid., pp.49-50

He was able to argue that as a result of the international agreements made since the First World War, and he had in mind principally the Briand-Kellogg Pact signed in Paris in 1928 which outlawed war as an instrument for the settling of international disputes, there was now a basis in international law on which to found a precedent that 'aggressive war-making is illegal and criminal.'

Ibid, page 50

[Thomas777]

:rofl:

I'm afraid you lack the qualifications to debate this point with me. Do you really want to continue this?

If you do, I'd be happy to deconstruct your ill-conceived points in the morning.

[Thomas777]

They were criminal offenses.
No. A criminal offense is an act or omission that has been codified by legislators on behalf of citizens of a sovreign polity that govern the conduct of individuals who are availed to that polity's proper jurisdiction.

Are the members of Hitler's executive staff as well as military commanders entitled to American constitutional protections? :p
Yes. The Constitution does not "create" rights. It recognizes them. Due Process of Law is an indispensible element of fair play and substantial justice. Hence, the Founding Fathers thought it incumbant to expressly recognize certain indispensible rights that all men are entitled to enjoy, regardless of the infamous or despicable nature of the conduct that they may be accused of by the sovreign.



You mean like how they had their own lawyers, and were allowed to make statements and call witnesses?

What are the due process violations you're referring to?

The Allied prosecution team at Nuremburg participated in the drafting of ex post facto laws with an eye to craft those laws to conform to the conduct of defendants that they had already been alleged. That is grossly offensive to commonly accepted notions of fair play and substantial justice.


According to you. Most of the world, however, has acknowledged the legitimacy of an International court.
Most of the world also does not recognize the indispensibility of Due Process of Law. Most of the world is quite misguided in their treatment of the Accused. Most of the world does not afford people accused of crimes adequate protections against the Sovreign. I do not consider the practices of "most of the world" to be the polestar of what constitutes justice and efficacy in criminal proceedings.



Thats actually rubbish. By your argument no non-democratic state can have any legitimate courts.
This is essentialy correct. England stand out as being relatively fair and balanced in matters of property and equity, but their treatment of people who ran afoul of the Crown was utterly abysmal. That is one of the reasons why there was a Revolution in the colonies in 1776.



So then we have a right to execute them out of hand but not to arrest them and JAIL them or execute them depending on the finding of the court? :p
The goal of armed forces in war is to kill the enemy's armed forces and neutralize their commanders' ability to command. Criminal Courts exist to adjudicate the fate of people who are availed to the jurisdiction of a sovreign polity and who violate the codeified laws of that polity. The two things are categorically different.





To suggest that the victors of war cannot punish the vanquished flies in the face of human history.
Warfare is not a means of "punishment". Warfare is the resolution of political disputes by violent force. Establishing kangaroo courts in which heads of foreign states are charged with "crimes" is offensive to justice and odious to sovreignty.



That doesn't make much sense, since the victims of Auschwitz wern't just Polish.
It makes perfect sense. If you kill a Chinese national who is visiting the state of Illinois outside of a barroom in Chicago, the office of the State's Attorney, county of Cook, Illinois has perfect jurisdiction over the offender and the offense. Jurisdiction for a sovreign to enforce its properly codified laws are not contingent upon the national origin of the victim...as both actors (accused and victim) are availed to its jurisdiction and the matter is properly before the court.
But since your argument against Nuremberg is pretty eclectic, lets leave that aside.
Its not eclectic, you're just out of your league.

Poland has every right to CEDE its right to try Hoess to whoever it wants,
No it doesn't. Jurisdiction is not arbitrarily transferable...a sovreign either has jurisdiction or it does not. To suggest otherwise is offensive to law and order.


So we can't try Hoess, but the UK can put Goering on trial and the US can put Ribbentrop in the dock? :p

I don't think that waging war at the behest of the Chief executive constitutes a "crime". Do YOU think that the People's Republic of Vietnam has standing to try Henry Kissinger? Did Japan have standing to call for the trial of Curtis LeMay?
But WHATEVER WE DO, we can't POOL our prisoners and try them together?
No, we can't. Its arbitrary and offensive to Due Process.

Supposedly you believe in national sovereignty over all other considerations.
That is correct.
Yet here you say that it doesn't lie within the rights of nation states to try their criminals in conjunction with other offended nations and other offending criminals?
There is clearly a lack of shared premises here...and I have already addressed the substantive points of your argument.



International law is meant to govern the conduct between nations,
Which is really not realistic...states have radically divergent security interests and by definition what is good for one state is bad for another state. Completely unworkable...and (I might add) superceded by the US Constitution, as treaty agreements enjoy the same force as Federal law.

And as those laws were arrived at by the plurality of the world's nations, so your silly requirement for the establishment of legitimate courts is met.
Due Process is not "silly"...you are out of your depth here. Anybody who would make such a cavaleir statement needs to think twice before they pick fights about legal theory.



By my reasoning, the majority of the world's major nations can issue binding laws to weaker, aggressive despotisms to make them act in accordance with planetary order.
Once again, nations have diametrically opposed security interests...this is not realistic, nor is it just, nor is it workable, nor is it desirable.



:rofl: [/QUOTE]

[cerberus]

As I said, the occupied territories in which the NSDAP and the Wehrmacht established illegal governments which proceeded to murder citizens had standing to hail the perpetrators of these acts into court
Thomas how does it stand when you have your people murdered by those you have in court.
Fade says its after the fact , this may be but some gents in the Hague are being made answerable to international law via the United Nations.
INWT broke the ground for calling the guilty to account.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I'm afraid you lack the qualifications to debate this point with me. Do you really want to continue this?


Sorry sweetheart, you don't have the chops.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Sorry sweetheart, you don't have the chops.

I would have expected a bit better from our resident Holocaust Museum guide :p

[Jimbo Gomez]

Most of the world also does not recognize the indispensibility of Due Process of Law. Most of the world is quite misguided in their treatment of the Accused. Most of the world does not afford people accused of crimes adequate protections against the Sovreign. I do not consider the practices of "most of the world" to be the polestar of what constitutes justice and efficacy in criminal proceedings.

Of course, the part of the world which actually accepts these fundamental legal principles you mention is the same part that is most enthusiastical about the concept of international courts. You won't see North Korea praising the ICJ's functioning.


I do not recognize international courts of law myself, but I'm quite aware that this battle was already lost before I was even born.

In the end, those who have the muscle decide what is due process.

[Sulla the Dictator]

No. A criminal offense is an act or omission that has been codified by legislators on behalf of citizens of a sovreign polity that govern the conduct of individuals who are availed to that polity's proper jurisdiction.


Incorrect.

crime ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krm)
n.
An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.


As you can see you correctly cited the first part, and then made up the second. A crime has nothing to do with being 'codified by legislators on behalf of citizens of a soveriegn' yada yada yada.

This is nonsense of your creation, SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED for your objections to Nuremberg. I can understand why you would object to punishing butchers and murderers, but you need to understand that your objection is a personal one, rather than one of jurisprudence.

If I murder a man on the MOON, I've committed a crime, regardless of the fact that the moon doesn't have a 'citizenry selecting a judicial system'.


Yes. The Constitution does not "create" rights. It recognizes them. Due Process of Law is an indispensible element of fair play and substantial justice. Hence, the Founding Fathers thought it incumbant to expressly recognize certain indispensible rights that all men are entitled to enjoy, regardless of the infamous or despicable nature of the conduct that they may be accused of by the sovreign.


Wrong. The American Constitution does not extend to German Generals in WWII, since it clearly says that its protections are for those who are citizens of the United States or those foreign nationals within the United States.

Are we to assume that the Germans were also denied their right to vote in American elections, another Constitutional guarantee? :rofl:



The Allied prosecution team at Nuremburg participated in the drafting of ex post facto laws with an eye to craft those laws to conform to the conduct of defendants that they had already been alleged.


That a criminal commits a crime that is so unique as to defy classification because past legislators couldn't concieve of his depravity isn't an excuse for allowing murderers free.

And since those laws serve as the model for International law NOW, its clear that they were drafted in response to events rather than individuals.

Moreover, there are no limits other than international agreements as to what the prosecution team at Nuremberg may charge.


That is grossly offensive to commonly accepted notions of fair play and substantial justice.


The Nazis didn't subscribe to fair play or substantial justice. They got better than they deserved, and more than they practiced. Its amusing to see you thrash and flail about the injustice done in trying the Nazis when they routinely executed men, women, and children without trial and under secret protocol.

So they DID recieve due process.


Most of the world also does not recognize the indispensibility of Due Process of Law.


Well then, how adorably naive of you to expect them to recognize due process rights for NAZIS when "most of the world" is trying them.


Most of the world is quite misguided in their treatment of the Accused.


The Nazis recieved more judicial consideration than they gave.


Most of the world does not afford people accused of crimes adequate protections against the Sovreign.


The Nazis were given lawyers, witnesses, allowed to testify on their behalf, and present their case.


I do not consider the practices of "most of the world" to be the polestar of what constitutes justice and efficacy in criminal proceedings.


Who cares? Your choice of 'polestar' is arbitrary and self serving. You don't want to see Nazi warcriminals brought to justice, so you have chosen the most rigorous protective judicial system for the accused.

It isn't incumbant on the entire world to follow the American judicial system.


This is essentialy correct.


LOL Thats spectacularly stupid. Judicial history doesn't begin with the American revolution.


England stand out as being relatively fair and balanced in matters of property and equity, but their treatment of people who ran afoul of the Crown was utterly abysmal. That is one of the reasons why there was a Revolution in the colonies in 1776.


Ok. Well give me an international finding on the subject. Otherwise we'll recognize it as your own bizzarre opinion and leave it at that.


The goal of armed forces in war is to kill the enemy's armed forces and neutralize their commanders' ability to command. Criminal Courts exist to adjudicate the fate of people who are availed to the jurisdiction of a sovreign polity and who violate the codeified laws of that polity. The two things are categorically different.


The Nazis wern't tried at a national criminal court. They were tried in an INTERNATIONAL criminal court, where the INTERNATIONAL BODY had laws whose violations needed to be punished.


Warfare is not a means of "punishment".


Warfare is a means of achieving an objective, and it isn't YOUR decision what that objective may be.


Warfare is the resolution of political disputes by violent force.


But I thought you said the acts of the Nazi high command was 'warfare' not 'crime'?


Establishing kangaroo courts in which heads of foreign states are charged with "crimes" is offensive to justice and odious to sovreignty.


There is nothing 'sovreign' about an occupied state. And the true offense is justice denied.

Indeed, lets take a closer look at what Thomas is saying here. Since the only 'justice system' that can be legitimate is one chosen by a democratically approved leadership, there was no legitimate judicial system in Germany. Hence, there was no justice in Germany.

NOR COULD THERE BE after Allied Occupation because he doesn't believe international agencies can be legitimate, either. So there was, in fact, no legal right for the Allies to arrest looters, murderers, or rapists in Germany unless it reestablished Weimar courts!


It makes perfect sense. If you kill a Chinese national who is visiting the state of Illinois outside of a barroom in Chicago, the office of the State's Attorney, county of Cook, Illinois has perfect jurisdiction over the offender and the offense.


The Chinese could try him themselves if the US agreed to the extradition. OR if he was captured in China.

The United States can seek to extradite anyone who kills an American national, if it chooses to. And the nation in question has every right to GRANT that request for extradition if it so chooses.

Nations are entitled to make their own decisions about the system of justice their criminals face.


Jurisdiction for a sovreign to enforce its properly codified laws are not contingent upon the national origin of the victim...as both actors (accused and victim) are availed to its jurisdiction and the matter is properly before the court.


The enforcement of laws isn't restricted to a nation's borders, either, and jurisdiction CAN be conferred depending on the national origin of the victim. That you take the abstract idea of American jurisdiction to a hyper-extreme and attempt to apply it across the board is your problem, and has no basis in law.

Unfortunately for you, International law exists whether you like it or not.


Its not eclectic, you're just out of your league.


You're right, your argument isn't eclectic. I was being generous. Its idiotic.


No it doesn't. Jurisdiction is not arbitrarily transferable...


There's nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Jurisdiction IS transferable, and if you don't know that then you're simply ignorant.


To suggest otherwise is offensive to law and order.


To suggest Nazi criminals should walk because they're allowed American Constitutional protections is offensive to law and order and even worse, plainly stupid.


I don't think that waging war at the behest of the Chief executive constitutes a "crime".


Shooting women and children is waging war? Goering is involved in the Holocaust. And Ribbentrop is responsible for treaty violations. To suggest that the vanquished of a war they themselves began are entitled to IMMUNITY from the crimes they perpetrated is laughable.


Do YOU think that the People's Republic of Vietnam has standing to try Henry Kissinger? Did Japan have standing to call for the trial of Curtis LeMay?


Nope.


No, we can't.


Yes, we know. We can't put the Nazis on trial but they can murder as many people as they want. Your suggestion that Poland has the authority to execute Nazi warcriminals is another canard, since the Poles didn't have a government which reflected the will of their citizenry, so your argument against an International Court with a large amount of Democratic input applies even moreso to the Poles.

Of course, Thomas has every desire to see Nazi butchers walk.

Nazis are allowed to murder indiscriminately but no one is allowed to try Nazis.

What Thomas doesn't seem to get is that if there is nothing to govern Nazi conduct, there are no legitimate restraints on our conviction of Nazi warcriminals.


Its arbitrary and offensive to Due Process.


LOL It isn't arbitrary, its precedent. And Nazis aren't entitled to American Constitutional protections of due process. If you ACTUALLY knew what you were talking about, you would be familiar with the difference between international due process and American due process.


That is correct.


Well then since you don't believe in the concept of international law, there can be no reasonable legal objection if the Allies had simply executed the entire roster of the Nazi party.



Which is really not realistic...states have radically divergent security interests and by definition what is good for one state is bad for another state.


International law has nothing to do with governing security interests. Its meant to limit the scale, brutality, and methods in which those interests are achieved. That you do not seem to understand the GOAL of international law goes a long way to explaining your problem with it.


Completely unworkable...


Except that they have worked just fine, as International law and international bodies have severely cut down on European conflict over the past 60 years.


and (I might add) superceded by the US Constitution, as treaty agreements enjoy the same force as Federal law.


LOL Superceded as the Constitution recognizes it as coequal? :p


Due Process is not "silly"...


Nope, YOU are ridiculous, not due process.


you are out of your depth here.


Like I said, you don't have the chops.


Anybody who would make such a cavaleir statement needs to think twice before they pick fights about legal theory.


Learn about it before you lecture.


Once again, nations have diametrically opposed security interests...


Most nations DO NOT have diametrically opposed security interests, actually. Some do.


this is not realistic


Except that it exists, and has existed, and will exist.


, nor is it just


Except that it punishes those who commit terrible war crimes, rather than leaving their perpetrators in power, brutalizing their civilians.


, nor is it workable


Except that its resulted in bringing war criminals to the dock, and has resulted in a thorough cataloging of atrocities, and has brought pressure on nations to end regional conflicts, and maintained peace in industrialized nations.


, nor is it desirable.


Yes, the current international status quo is ONE OF THE WORST in human history. :p

Incredibly violent. Torn apart by war after war.


This stands:

:rofl:

[Sulla the Dictator]

I would have expected a bit better from our resident Holocaust Museum guide :p

LOL I went to sleep mid reply last night. :p

[Sulla the Dictator]

Thomas is absolutely right.

I'd like to get Fade on the record saying he believes that democratic nations are the only ones capable of forming legitimate legal bodies. :D

[cerberus]

Pehaps the "Sugar Babes" wrote a song with Hitler and the chair in mind. " Push the button".:)

[Basil Fawlty]

If anyone it should have been Churchill.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I'd like to get Fade on the record saying he believes that democratic nations are the only ones capable of forming legitimate legal bodies. :D

Fade? C'mon......be a doll and say it for me. :D

[cerberus]

Maybe even a "Sugar Babe" ?:)

[Fade the Butcher]

I'd like to get Fade on the record saying he believes that democratic nations are the only ones capable of forming legitimate legal bodies. :DI never said that. I said ex post facto law was illegitimate.

[Thomas777]

Incorrect.

crime ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krm)
n.
An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.

The Dictionary is not controlling authority here.


As you can see you correctly cited the first part, and then made up the second. A crime has nothing to do with being 'codified by legislators on behalf of citizens of a soveriegn' yada yada yada.
Shit you're right. All I did was practice criminal law for four years...you read the fuckin dictionary for God's sake...I'm way outclassed here.

Wrong. The American Constitution does not extend to German Generals in WWII, since it clearly says that its protections are for those who are citizens of the United States or those foreign nationals within the United States.
Where did you go to law school, SullatheDictator? You have a curious account of the source(s) of Constitutional Law and its fundamentals.

Are we to assume that the Germans were also denied their right to vote in American elections, another Constitutional guarantee? :rofl:
You don't understand the concept of Due Process, and you don't understand the impetus/philisophy behind the codeification of the bill of rights. You're just a layman who fancies himself an authority on matters of law. You don't know what you're talking about.

That a criminal commits a crime that is so unique as to defy classification because past legislators couldn't concieve of his depravity isn't an excuse for allowing murderers free.
See above...then go to law school...then practice law for a few years, then I will discuss this with you further.

In the meantime, go pick a fight with a surgeon and educate him about contemprary medical techniques...or indulge in one of your famous "armchair General" tirades.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Last word.


Good for you. Except that no one confuses that with a reply to my post.