-Caveat Lector- >From originalsources.com > > > <Picture: Original Sources Scroll> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > > Former Nuremburg Prosecutor has Sharp Words about Clinton's Attack on > Serbs > > "The triumph ...is to undermine the UN Charter and destroy a > substantial part of the Nuremberg judgments directed at Nazi war > criminals > > By Walter Rockler, Former Nuremberg Prosecutor > > Some 60 years ago when I was relatively young, a well-known German > woman film director produced a film, which I believe was called, "The > Triumph of Will." This was a film dedicated to the glory, heroism and > military power of Nazi Germany. We have over the past few days been > faced with a new triumph, which in many respects has some of the same > characteristics. This triumph is a triumph of credibility. > > In my country, my president, my secretary of state assured the Serbs > and the rest of the world that if they did not comply with our orders > to them, we would bomb them and we would bomb them until they would > give up, and this is occurring. The Serbs did not comply immediately. > When we said "jump," they did not jump; therefore, we have bombed them > for almost three months. I think the current statistics are something > like 35,000 airplane sorties and something like 20- 25,000 bombs have > been dropped on Serbia. Now you have to congratulate all the NATO > powers because this was quite a demonstration. Of course the Serbs and > the Yugoslavs did not have great anti-aircraft defences that would > reach up to 30,000 feet; therefore, with these heroic sorties we > ultimately y accomplished what we sought to do, although it was not > quite as comprehensive and complete as represented. > > We maintained throughout the splendid diplomatic posture of holding a > non-negotiable position. In other words, whatever we told the Serbs to > do we would not vary from one inch. Bombing itself was represented to > be a demonstration of credibility. Now the American authors of this > campaign actually in personal terms lacked some credibility but that's > neither here nor there. The bombing campaign itself proved to be > credible and, of course, I regard that as a great success. > > What have we accomplished? What is this triumph? The triumph, in my > judgment, is to undermine the UN Charter; destroy a substantial part > of the Nuremberg judgments directed at Nazi war criminals; and reduce > an imperfect international law to something more closely resembling > anarchy and the use of untrammeled power. NATO, which was originally > conceived to be a defensive alliance under the umbrella of the > Security Council of the U.N., has been transformed into an instrument > for aggression and that is my primary thesis. > > The thing that I find particularly offensive to this campaign is that > I am a citizen of the United States and it's being done in my name. I > object to that. I just don't have the characteristics used to describe > a "good German." A "good German," for those of you who do not know > what>the expression means, was someone who did whatever his government > told him to do. > > Why do I say that this war is essentially, from the standpoint of law, > a criminal enterprise? Because when the Nazis were tried at Nuremberg, > the primary count was launching a war of aggression against their > neighbors: invading Poland, invading Belgium, Holland, invading > France, invading Norway, invading Denmark, invading, amongst other > countries, Yugoslavia where their opponents were the Serbs, invading > Greece. I don't want to go through the whole list because it's even > longer. > > But why were they charged? At that time they were defenders of the > defendants who said well, war has been the experience of the human > species since almost its inception. Well, the Germans had, among other > things, signed a treaty in 1928 called, it was the Pact of Paris - > along with about 75 other countries of the world including all the > major powers. In that instrument, which Canada and the United States > signed as well, the countries involved, represented that they would > renounce war as an instrument of policy and you can match that up > against the bombing campaign as see whether that pledge was honoured. > The Germans as well as the Western powers have entered into a series > of non-aggression treaties from time to time, which are essentially > repudiated by this act. > > The tribunal at Nuremberg - which was not a tribunal; it was a > four-power court - held that the ultimate crime in international law, > the ultimate war crime, is launching an unprovoked attack upon another > state, another country. What is "unprovoked?" "Unprovoked" means when > the other country has not attacked you, when it's not a defensive war > - a defensive war under the Charter is permissible - but obviously > Yugoslavia or Serbia has not gone outside its borders to attack > anybody, never did at any point in the last 10 years. So, you read the > classic definition of what is a war of aggression and this in the > opinion of the tribunal, as I said, was the supreme crime. In other > words, that launching a war carries with it every crime that may be > committed in that war. That's what war is basically. It happens to be > a sanction essentially of criminal activity inherently. > > The UN Charter actually does not even give the Security Council the > power to intervene in any state's domestic affairs. There are > provisions in the Charter - Article 2, Sections 4 and 7, which > prohibit interference in the domestic jurisdiction of any state; which > prohibit the threat of military force; which prohibit the use of > military force. Now on what basis could the U.N. act? It would have to > be if you had a state of affairs, which truly threatened peace. That > COULD arise out of a civil war but there is no provision in the UN > Charter, which says, 'any country may invade any other country to > uphold what it represents to be human rights.' There just is no such a > provision. There is no treaty, which provides that. The United States > was one of the authors of the UN>Charter and it insisted on veto-power > for the major powers in the Security Council. This was a > characteristic of the Security Council which we wanted - so did the > Soviets - for self-protection. In other words we could not be attacked > in the Security Council over our veto. So this was the procedure set > up. > > NATO was created, as I said, as a defensive alliance but if you look > at the treaty terms, it purports to be totally under the U.N. It's a > defensive alliance subject to the control and oversight of the > Security Council of the U.N. Obviously in this attack, which has > always been labeled NATO, and which I regard as primarily American > (and I regret to say that), the Security Council was deliberately > bypassed. Now, you say, that's because we might have run into a veto > on bombing. Yes, we might have, and that was the conception of the U.N > - the U.N. essentially required that there be no veto with respect to > military action. And we might have had that. > > We never explored non-military means. In fact we didn't even utilize > at the outset a pretext of humanitarian violations in the Kosovo case. > That was batted around at some length with respect to Bosnia, but at > the outset of the Kosovo crisis when the KLA [Kosovo Liberation Army], > labeled by the United States earlier as a terrorist organization, was > murdering Serb policemen and Serb officials in Kosovo - and let me say > that I am not inherently pro-Serb or anti-Albanian but these are the > facts - at that time the grounds on which the United States urged > action to solve this situation were not widespread human-rights > violations, it was a somewhat preposterous reading of history to the > effect that (and I remember a speech by President Clinton along these > lines), to the effect that the Balkans were always a source of all the > world wars and we had to step in to make sure that they weren't > troublesome. We would determine what would happen there. > > The humanitarian violations, or alleged humanitarian violations, in > effect followed the bombing; they were not the basis on which the > bombing was undertaken. There was virtually no expulsion of Albanians; > there were no murders, except essentially murders by the KLA of Serb > policemen, 5 or 10 at a time in ambushes, which furnished the pretext > for this military invasion. > > So, why the military invasion? I have a lot of trouble explicating the > reasons. For some reason, which is not clear to me ever since the > Yugoslavian civil war began, we adopted essentially an anti-Serbian > position everywhere. Why there should be this hostility to the Serbs, > I do not know, but this very quickly became something else. We were > going to determine the conditions under which this country would live > thereafter and this will, the "triumph of will" of Ms. Riefenstahl > statement, is to me what is really involved. > > Now this triumph involves the shredding to me of international law. It > involves substituting anarchy for an imperfect system of international > law. It avoided any diplomatic negotiations of any kind between the > NATO aggressors and the Yugoslav government. All our demands were > non-negotiable and that to me is the key element of the situation. > What does "non-negotiable" mean? It means you do as we say or we'll > bomb you. And we'll bomb you endlessly and of course our bombs are not > perfectly accurate so we will kill a certain number of civilians. We > know that. We'll bomb bridges; we'll bomb factories; we'll bomb > sanitariums; we'll bomb hospitals; we'll bomb roads; we'll bomb > waterways; we'll bomb electric plants; we'll bomb your country out of > existence. That is the triumph which has been achieved. > ______________________________________ > > Walter Rockler served four years in the US military - one year in the > US Navy, three years in the US Marines - during the Second World War. > He was then prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunals following > the Second World War. He served for two years in that capacity at > Nuremberg. On his return to the United States he practiced law. He was > the first director and set up the Office of Special Investigations in > 1979. This was a US Justice Department programme to track down Nazi > war criminals in the United States with the view to denaturalization > and deportation. Mr. Rockler is a senior counsel in one of the largest > law firms in Washington, DC. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > > To E-mail Original Sources - Click Here > > > Website: http://www.originalsources.com > To E-Mail Mary Mostert, Analyst - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Fax # (530) 642-8710 > > > Return to Original Sources > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > > Webpage designed by > Unlimited Chances > > > You are visitor #118. Please visit us again! > > A<>E<>R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller, German Writer (1759-1805) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." --- Ernest Hemingway + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
