There is nothing wrong with nationalism, but there is something very wrong by 
those who would want nationalism to end. The United States was deemed to be the 
nation to carry out the NWO scheme when WW II ended. So it did. The US, with 
the exception of President John F. Kennedy, did everything that the Illuminati 
wanted to achieve the NWO, i.e. One World Government. It also prevented the 
decent American people from learning this "tidbit" of information so that 
they'd be able to prevent their own demise.

Maybe this is the reason why Howard Zinn doesn't send me money any more. He may 
be in with those who want to end the nationalistic feelings Americans have for 
our nation. Nationalism promotes the preservation of sovereignty.


Arlene Johnson
Click on the icon that says Magazine.
Password for 2006: message

-----Original Message-----
>From: judson witham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Aug 28, 2006 6:53 PM
>To:, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Arlene Johnson <[EMAIL 
>Cc:, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Arlene Johnson <[EMAIL 
>Subject: [cia-drugs] Beyond Reasonable Doubt  -  "George Bush a WAR CRIMINAL ? 
>judson witham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:20:21 
>-0700 (PDT)
>From: judson witham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Beyond Reasonable Doubt - "George Bush a WAR CRIMINAL ? "
>  Penny Bryman Think SHE IS ?
>  "You Go Girl"
>  A Nuremberg chief prosecutor says there is a case for trying Bush for the 
> 'supreme crime against humanity, an illegal war of aggression against a 
> sovereign nation.' 
>  The extent to which American exceptionalism is embedded in the national 
> psyche is awesome to behold. 
>  While the United States is a country like any other, its citizens no more 
> special than any others on the planet, Americans still react with surprise at 
> the suggestion that their country could be held responsible for something as 
> heinous as a war crime.
>  From the massacre of more than 100,000 people in the Philippines to the 
> first nuclear attack ever at Hiroshima to the unprovoked invasion of Baghdad, 
> U.S.-sponsored violence doesn't feel as wrong and worthy of prosecution in 
> internationally sanctioned criminal courts as the gory, bload-soaked 
> atrocities of Congo, Darfur, Rwanda, and most certainly not the Nazis -- most 
> certainly not. Howard Zinn recently described this as our "inability to think 
> outside the boundaries of nationalism. We are penned in by the arrogant idea 
> that this country is the center of the universe, exceptionally virtuous, 
> admirable, superior."
>  Most Americans firmly believe there is nothing the United States or its 
> political leadership could possibly do that could equate to the crimes of 
> Hitler's Third Reich. The Nazis are our "gold standard of evil," as author 
> John Dolan once put it.
>  But the truth is that we can, and we have -- most recently and significantly 
> in Iraq. Perhaps no person on the planet is better equipped to identify and 
> describe our crimes in Iraq than Benjamin Ferenccz, a former chief prosecutor 
> of the Nuremberg Trials who successfully convicted 22 Nazi officers for their 
> work in orchestrating death squads that killed more than one million people 
> in the famous Einsatzgruppen Case. Ferencz, now 87, has gone on to become a 
> founding father of the basis behind international law regarding war crimes, 
> and his essays and legal work drawing from the Nuremberg trials and later the 
> commission that established the International Criminal Court remain a lasting 
> influence in that realm.
>  Ferencz's biggest contribution to the war crimes field is his assertion that 
> an unprovoked or "aggressive" war is the highest crime against mankind. It 
> was the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 that made possible the horrors of Abu 
> Ghraib, the destruction of Fallouja and Ramadi, the tens of thousands of 
> Iraqi deaths, civilian massacres like Haditha, and on and on. Ferencz 
> believes that a "prima facie case can be made that the United States is 
> guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of 
> aggression against a sovereign nation."
>  Interviewed from his home in New York, Ferencz laid out a simple summary of 
> the case:
>  "The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the 
> United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. 
> Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the 
> permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection 
> with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of 
> self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution 
> essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them 
> come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're 
> going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was 
> all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation 
> of the charter."
>  It's that simple. Ferencz called the invasion a "clear breach of law," and 
> dismissed the Bush administration's legal defense that previous U.N. Security 
> Council resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War justified an invasion 
> in 2003. Ferencz notes that the first Bush president believed that the United 
> States didn't have a U.N. mandate to go into Iraq and take out Saddam 
> Hussein; that authorization was simply to eject Hussein from Kuwait. Ferencz 
> asked, "So how do we get authorization more than a decade later to finish the 
> job? The arguments made to defend this are not persuasive."
>  Writing for the United Kingdom's Guardian, shortly before the 2003 invasion, 
> international law expert Mark Littman echoed Ferencz: "The threatened war 
> against Iraq will be a breach of the United Nations Charter and hence of 
> international law unless it is authorized by a new and unambiguous resolution 
> of the Security Council. The Charter is clear. No such war is permitted 
> unless it is in self-defense or authorized by the Security Council."
>  Challenges to the legality of this war can also be found at the ground 
> level. First Lt. Ehren Watada, the first U.S. commissioned officer to refuse 
> to serve in Iraq, cites the rules of the U.N. Charter as a principle reason 
> for his dissent.
>  Ferencz isn't using the invasion of Iraq as a convenient prop to exercise 
> his longstanding American hatred: he has a decades-old paper trail of calls 
> for every suspect of war crimes to be brought to international justice. When 
> the United States captured Saddam Hussein in December 2003, Ferencz wrote 
> that Hussein's offenses included "the supreme international crime of 
> aggression, to a wide variety of crimes against humanity, and a long list of 
> atrocities condemned by both international and national laws."
>  Ferencz isn't the first to make the suggestion that the United States has 
> committed state-sponsored war crimes against another nation -- not only have 
> leading war critics made this argument, but so had legal experts in the 
> British government before the 2003 invasion. In a short essay in 2005, 
> Ferencz lays out the inner deliberations of British and American officials as 
> the preparations for the war were made:
>  U.K. military leaders had been calling for clear assurances that the war was 
> legal under international law. They were very mindful that the treaty 
> creating a new International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague had entered 
> into force on July 1, 2002, with full support of the British government. Gen. 
> Sir Mike Jackson, chief of the defense staff, was quoted as saying "I spent a 
> good deal of time recently in the Balkans making sure Milosevic was put 
> behind bars. I have no intention of ending up in the next cell to him in The 
> Hague."
>  Ferencz quotes the British deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry who, 
> in the lead-up to the invasion, quit abruptly and wrote in her resignation 
> letter: "I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against 
> Iraq without a second Security Council resolution � [A]n unlawful use of 
> force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree 
> with such action in circumstances that are so detrimental to the 
> international order and the rule of law."
>  While the United Kingdom is a signatory of the ICC, and therefore under 
> jurisdiction of that court, the United States is not, thanks to a Republican 
> majority in Congress that has "attacks on America's sovereignty" and 
> "manipulation by the United Nations" in its pantheon of knee-jerk neuroses. 
> Ferencz concedes that even though Britain and its leadership could be 
> prosecuted, the international legal climate isn't at a place where justice is 
> blind enough to try it -- or as Ferencz put it, humanity isn't yet "civilized 
> enough to prevent this type of illegal behavior." And Ferencz said that while 
> he believes the United States is guilty of war crimes, "the international 
> community is not sufficiently organized to prosecute such a case. � There 
> is no court at the moment that is competent to try that crime."
>  As Ferencz said, the world is still a long way away from establishing norms 
> that put all nations under the rule of law, but the battle to do so is a 
> worthy one: "There's no such thing as a war without atrocities, but 
> war-making is the biggest atrocity of all."
>  The suggestion that the Bush administration's conduct in the "war on terror" 
> amounts to a string of war crimes and human rights abuses is gaining credence 
> in even the most ossified establishment circles of Washington. Justice 
> Anthony Kennedy's opinion in the recent Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling by the 
> Supreme Court suggests that Bush's attempt to ignore the Geneva Conventions 
> in his approved treatment of terror suspects may leave him open to 
> prosecution for war crimes. As Sidney Blumenthal points out, the court 
> rejected Bush's attempt to ignore Common Article 3, which bans "cruel 
> treatment and torture [and] outrages upon personal dignity, in particular 
> humiliating and degrading treatment."
>  And since Congress enacted the Geneva Conventions, making them the law of 
> the United States, any violations that Bush or any other American commits 
> "are considered 'war crimes' punishable as federal offenses," as Justice 
> Kennedy wrote.
>  George W. Bush in the dock facing a charge of war crimes? That's well beyond 
> the scope of possibility � or is it? 
>  VIDEO: 
>  Ferencz addresses the Library of Congress: Calls on Americans to support 
> international law to honor those who died in wars. [Click here to view video 
> online]
>  SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 25 (OneWorld) - A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at 
> Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with  
> Saddam Hussein. 
>  Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their 
> work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million 
> people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting 
> "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 
> invasion of Iraq.
>  "Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime," 
> the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the 
> United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, 
> contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the 
> permission of the UN Security Council.
>  Ferenccz said that after Nuremberg the international community realized that 
> every war results in violations by both sides, meaning the primary objective 
> should be preventing any war from occurring in the first place.
>  He said the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal 
> and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high 
> number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs--were highly 
> predictable at the start of the war.
>  "Every war will lead to attacks on civilians," he said. "Crimes against 
> humanity, destruction beyond the needs of military necessity, rape of 
> civilians, plunder--that always happens in wartime. So my answer personally, 
> after working for 60 years on this problem and [as someone] who hates to see 
> all these young people get killed no matter what their nationality, is that 
> you've got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes."
>  Ferenccz believes the most important development toward that end would be 
> the effective implementation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which 
> is located in the Hague, Netherlands.
>  The court was established in 2002 and has been ratified by more than 100 
> countries. It is currently being used to adjudicate cases stemming from 
> conflict in Darfur, Sudan and civil wars in Uganda and the Democratic 
> Republic of the Congo.
>  But on May 6, 2002--less than a year before the invasion of Iraq--the Bush 
> administration withdrew the United States' signature on the treaty and began 
> pressuring other countries to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not 
> to surrender U.S. nationals to the ICC
>  Three months later, George W. Bush signed a new law prohibiting any U.S. 
> cooperation with the International Criminal Court. The law went so far as to 
> include a provision authorizing the president to "use all means necessary and 
> appropriate," including a military invasion of the Netherlands, to free U.S. 
> personnel detained or imprisoned by the ICC.
>  That's too bad, according to Ferenccz. If the United States showed more of 
> an interest in building an international justice system, they could have put 
> Saddam Hussein on trial for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
>  "The United Nations authorized the first Gulf War and authorized all nations 
> to take whatever steps necessary to keep peace in the area," he said. "They 
> could have stretched that a bit by seizing the person for causing the harm. 
> Of course, they didn't do that and ever since then I've been bemoaning the 
> fact that we didn't have an International Criminal Court at that time."
>  Ferenccz is glad that Saddam Hussein is now on trial.
>  This week, the Iraqi government began to try the former dictator for crimes 
> connected to his ethnic cleansing campaign against the Kurds. According to 
> Human Rights Watch, which has done extensive on-the-ground documentation, 
> Saddam's Ba'athist regime deliberately and systematically killed at least 
> 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds over a six-month period in 1988.
>  Everyone agrees innumerable villages were bombed and some were gassed. The 
> surviving residents were rounded up, taken to detention centers, and 
> eventually executed at remote sites, sometimes by being stripped and shot in 
> the back so they would fall naked into trenches.
>  In his defense, Saddam Hussein has disputed the extent of the killings and 
> maintained they were justified because he was fighting a counter-insurgency 
> operation against Kurdish separatists allied with Iran When asked to enter a 
> plea, the former president said "that would require volumes of books." 
>  Ferenccz said whatever Saddam's reasons, nothing can justify the mass 
> killing of innocents.
>  "The offenses attributable to ex-President Hussein since he came to power 
> range from the supreme international crime of aggression to a wide variety of 
> crimes against humanity," he wrote after Saddam was ousted in 2003. "A fair 
> trial will achieve many goals. The victims would find some satisfaction in 
> knowing that their victimizer was called to account and could no longer be 
> immune from punishment for his evil deeds. Wounds can begin to heal. The 
> historical facts can be confirmed beyond doubt. Similar crimes by other 
> dictators might be discouraged or deterred in future. The process of justice 
> through law, on which the safety of humankind depends, would be reinforced."
>  Benjamin Ferencz (May 2006)
>   Benjamin Ferencz studied jurisprudence under Roscoe Pound at Harvard, and 
> after World War II served as Chief Prosecutor in The Einsatzgruppen Case, a 
> war crimes proceeding held at Nuremberg subsequent to the work of the 
> International Military Tribunal (IMT). In this case, the first to recognize 
> crimes against humanity, Mr. Ferencz stated: "Vengeance is not our goal, nor 
> do we seek merely a just retribution. We ask this court to affirm by 
> international penal action, man's right to live in peace and dignity, 
> regardless of his race or creed. The case we present is a plea of humanity to 
> law." After his work at Nuremberg, Mr. Ferencz returned to private practice, 
> but around 1970 turned increasingly to the cause of world peace. He worked 
> intensively for the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) 
> and taught international law at Pace University Law School. He has also 
> written a number of books and articles, and maintains a website, 
>, where his
> motto is "Law is better than war." The Legal History Project interviewed Mr. 
> Ferencz in May 2006. 
>  How did you come to be involved in the Nuremberg trials? 
>  As a student, my career path was focused on crime prevention. At Harvard Law 
> School I won a scholarship for my exam in criminal law and did research for 
> Professor Sheldon Glueck, America's leading criminologist, who was writing a 
> book on war crimes. Upon graduation, I entered the U.S. Army as a private 
> assigned to an artillery battalion being trained for the invasion of France. 
> When U.S. troops reached Germany, I was assigned to the HQ of General Patton, 
> who had been directed to set up a war crimes program in fulfillment of 
> promises by world leaders that Nazi criminals would be held to account. I 
> investigated murders of allied flyers who had been shot down and beaten to 
> death by German mobs. I entered various concentration camps as they were 
> liberated by the U.S. army and secured evidence of criminality. I witnessed 
> scenes of incredible inhumanity and prepared reports for trials by U.S. 
> Military Commissions that took place in the Dachau concentration camps. On 
> the day
> after Christmas 1945, I was honorably discharged as a Sergeant of Infantry 
> and awarded five battle stars for not having been killed or wounded. 
>  Shortly thereafter, I was urged by the Pentagon to return to Germany with 
> the simulated rank of Colonel, to do essentially what I had done as a 
> Sergeant. I finally agreed to go as a civilian with that simulated rank. The 
> Nuremberg trial by the IMT was then in progress, The decision had been made 
> that there would be another dozen trials at Nuremberg to bring to justice the 
> broad panorama of German society that had supported the Hitler regime that 
> had made the crimes possible. Telford Taylor, one of Justice Jackson's key 
> assistants at the IMT trial, was appointed to head the "Subsequent 
> Proceedings" under U.S. auspices. Taylor persuaded me to join him and 
> assigned me to set up an office in Berlin to find the evidence needed for the 
> planned additional trials. 
>  As Chief Prosecutor in The Einsatzgruppen Case, which involved German 
> officers of death-squads that murdered over a million people during World War 
> II, you obtained convictions for all 22 defendants, plus 13 death sentences. 
> Can you describe your work in preparing and conducting this case? 
>  A Berlin researcher discovered a complete set of top-secret reports by Nazi 
> extermination squads called "Einsatzgruppen" (EG) operating on the Eastern 
> front. They described how more than a million Jews, Gypsies and other 
> perceived enemies of the Reich, including women and children, were 
> systematically exterminated by the EG units. Taylor was convinced that a new 
> trial, that had not been scheduled, was required and named me as the Chief 
> Prosecutor in what was surely the biggest murder trial in human history. 
>  I decided to rely on the official German reports which showed the place and 
> time of the executions, the number of victims, and the SS commander in 
> charge. I did not desire any witness testimony because there were few 
> survivors and because documents were much more reliable. I had 3 assistants 
> and each one was assigned to prepare the case against different defendants. I 
> rested the prosecution's case after 2 days. Each of the 22 defendants was 
> entitled to choose his own German defense counsel plus one assistant. Their 
> denials and alibis took several months and an equal time to be rebutted. 
>  Could you describe the Einsatzgruppen defendants, and what it was like to 
> see them regularly in court? One often reads about the "banality of evil," 
> but how did these men strike you as human beings? Were they all unblinking 
> fanatics, or do you think some had qualms or regrets about their activities? \
>  I never spoke to any defendant outside of the courtroom. I wanted to know 
> them and judge them only on their own records of their deeds. They showed no 
> remorse whatsoever. They were convinced that their deeds were justified. The 
> lead defendant, SS General Dr. Otto Ohlendorf, whose unit killed about 90,000 
> innocent people, sought to justify the slaughter as self-defense. He argued 
> that Germany knew that the Soviet Union (despite the non-aggression pact) was 
> preparing to attack Germany. A pre-emptive strike was therefore necessary. It 
> was "known" that Jews supported the Bolsheviks and that Gypsies were 
> untrustworthy, hence they had to be eliminated. Since the children of victims 
> might grow up to be enemies of the Reich they too had to be killed. It was 
> all very logical, in the eyes of the murderers. Not in mine, nor in the eyes 
> of General Telford Taylor or the U.S. judges. All of the defendants were 
> convicted, and 13 were sentenced to death. 
>  As a Jew born in Eastern Europe, you would very likely have been among those 
> killed in the Holocaust if your family had not emigrated to New York City in 
> the early 1920s. Nuremberg was, moreover, the first time that the mass 
> persecution of Jews could be challenged in a criminal court in Europe. You 
> said in your Opening Statement that vengeance was not your goal, and your 
> desire was clearly for the application of an impartial and ecumenical 
> justice. This being said, however, can you describe your thoughts then and 
> since about your almost unique role in modern Jewish history? Would it be 
> accurate to describe it as a sad honor? 
>  I did not consider my appointment or work as a "sad honor." It was a unique 
> opportunity. I had seen the suffering caused by the Nazi doctrines. I had 
> looked into the remorseless eyes of mass murderers. My career goal had always 
> been crime prevention. I was eager, and ready, for the challenge. 
>  Did you encounter any prejudice at Nuremberg or during your earlier 
> investigatory work on account of your being a Jew? If so, how did it express 
> itself and how did you handle it? 
>  The only prejudice I encountered was during my service as an enlisted man in 
> the U.S. army. I was occasionally taunted by such commands as "Sweep the 
> floor again, a Harvard man can do better than that." The expression "Jew boy" 
> was either muttered or implied. I learned that prejudice and hatred was not 
> merely a German phenomenon. I handled it with the contempt it deserved. 
>  It is probably impossible to appreciate an era fully when one hasn't 
> actually lived through it. For example, I find that the 1961 film Judgment at 
> Nuremberg with Spencer Tracy accurately reflects the urbane and even genteel 
> character of modern international lawyers and their practice. Does it, 
> however, reflect the real nature of the work and lifestyle at Nuremberg, 
> assuming some allowance is made for Hollywood's magic factory? 
>  Judgment at Nuremberg was a good film in that it encapsulated the nature of 
> the proceedings at Nuremberg and some of the difficulties. The dramatization 
> was more emphatic and dynamic than the actual trials. The quiet "romance" 
> between an IMT judge (Tracy) and the wife of a Nazi war criminal (Marlene 
> Dietrich) was pure fiction. 
>  Today's young lawyers seldom get a chance to speak in court, let alone take 
> the lead in major cases. You, on the other hand, were Chief Prosecutor in 
> what has been billed as the "biggest murder trial in history" when you were 
> only 27 years old. In one solitary portrait, you could pass for a modern moot 
> court participant, but in a group photo you look utterly confident and fully 
> in charge of your older co-counsel. How did you handle the stresses of taking 
> on such a case at a professionally tender age, and did you experience any 
> prejudice or condescension on account of your youth? 
>  I was not daunted by my position or my age. Except for Horlick-Hochwald, a 
> Czech, the other members of my team were scrounged from other cases whose 
> chiefs were eager to transfer them out. I was very much in charge and even 
> known as a "hatchet man." If I had experienced any condescension or 
> prejudice, the person responsible would have risked being fired on the spot. 
> I worked harder than anyone else and think I was respected for my experience 
> (at Harvard and as a wartime investigator) and dedication � despite my age. 
>  What do you believe to be the enduring lessons and principles of the 
> Nuremberg trials, both legal and moral? 
>  The enduring lessons and principles of the Nuremberg trials were that 
> aggressive war is "the supreme international crime" since it incorporates all 
> of the other crimes. In addition, Nuremberg held that those responsible for 
> crimes against humanity and major war crimes will also have to answer before 
> the bar of justice. A more detailed response to your profound questions can 
> be gleaned from my books and articles that are readily accessible on my 
> website 
>  Around 1970, you began to turn to scholarly pursuits and advocacy in the 
> cause of world peace. Perhaps your most successful accomplishment in this 
> area has been your work with the Preparatory Commission of the ICC. How would 
> you assess the ICC's political and legal development as a historical process, 
> using Nuremberg as a benchmark? Also, do you believe that the ICC represents 
> a worthy embodiment of the Nuremberg legacy? 
>  I was never employed as a member of the Preparatory Commission but, as a 
> purely private and independent individual, did attend the meetings and write 
> memos and articles dealing with its problems. I may have had some influence. 
>  The ICC is a great step forward in the evolution of international criminal 
> law and is therefore a great historical achievement based on Nuremberg. But 
> it is still a newborn babe and will have to develop slowly before its real 
> significance will be recognized. Knowing how difficult it is to get nations 
> with different legal conceptions and national interests to reach agreement on 
> anything, the ICC is quite a remarkable achievement despite its shortcomings. 
>  I would like to ask you a few questions about the International Criminal 
> Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal 
> Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and get the benefits of your experience and 
> insight on different aspects of their work and operations. To begin with the 
> question of efficiency, Milosevic recently died in prison during his 
> multi-year trial, and the ICTY has indicted only 161 people and convicted 45 
> since 1993. In Rwanda, meanwhile, local gacaca courts have taken up genocide 
> cases in part because the ICTR has handled only 81 cases since 1995, after a 
> genocide that mobilized large groups of killers. In contrast to this, you 
> prosecuted 24 defendants in The Einsatzgruppen Case alone. This represents 
> fully a quarter of the ICTR's total caseload. Can you compare the 
> philosophical and practical approaches to justice and case-handling taken at 
> Nuremberg with those of the ICTY and ICTR? 
>  The ICTY was a precursor to the ICC and the first international tribunal 
> after Nuremberg. The judges and others involved have tried to build a very 
> carefully constructed system of justice which guarantees fair trial and is 
> thorough in its treatment of the offenders and the offenses. Of course, it 
> has moved too slowly for my personal taste. I would have given the accused 
> and the prosecution fixed deadlines to make their presentations � as I did 
> at Nuremberg. But it's a different world now and the ICTY, even with limited 
> jurisdiction, has had to move slowly to make sure that its legal foundations 
> were firm and clear and acceptable. Its decisions on law and procedure have 
> set important precedents for the further development of international 
> humanitarian law. 
>  Rwanda is completely different. First, it is an everlasting disgrace to our 
> civilization that world leaders should have known that it was going to happen 
> and nevertheless let the genocide take place. With about 200,000 killers in 
> primitive "jails," like rats in a box, in a country without courts or lawyers 
> or funds, finding justice was a "mission impossible." In Germany, the 
> denazification system disposed of millions of minor suspects and it was 
> better than nothing � but not much. One cannot possibly bring all 
> wrongdoers to trial under such circumstances. At best, as in Nuremberg, it 
> was symbolic and aimed to present the historical facts and give the victims 
> some sense that their pain has been recognized and that an effort has been 
> made to hold accountable some of the responsible leaders in the hope that it 
> will have some deterrent effect in future. 
>  Which approach, though, do you find to be the better for achieving justice 
> in the end � that of Nuremberg or that of the ICTY and ICTR? 
>  The situations are not really comparable. You can only achieve relative 
> justice under any system. Changing human behavior to stop glorifying wars and 
> crimes that continue to deface the human landscape will require many 
> generations and new institutions of justice in many areas that are not yet in 
> existence. We are slowly crawling toward civilization. Better laws, courts 
> and enforcement methods are slowly being developed. There can be no painless 
> revolution or instant evolution. 
>  Looking at the question of institutional development, it bears noting that 
> the ICTY and ICTR have a combined recommended budget of nearly $600 million 
> for 2006-07, and in 2005 had staffs numbering 999 and 886, respectively. 
> Since their founding over a decade ago, however, the two tribunals have dealt 
> with a total of only 242 cases, some of which consist merely of indictments. 
> By contrast, in 2003 (the last year for which I could find full statistics), 
> the U.S. federal courts concluded 85,106 criminal cases, including the 
> post-trial conviction of 3,216 criminal defendants. This is on top of their 
> massive civil dockets, and all of it was done on a budget of just under $4.9 
> billion, about eight times the tribunals' present budget. I wonder if the two 
> systems can be meaningfully compared, however. What do you think? Also, 
> considering the resources which the Nuremberg courts had on hand, do you 
> believe that the ICTY and ICTR have over time represented good value for 
> money in
> combating international crimes? 
>  We cannot fairly compare the costs of handling ordinary criminal cases by 
> national courts that have been long established with the efforts to punish 
> international crimes by new international tribunals. If the new ICC and 
> similar courts succeed in establishing binding legal precedents that will 
> diminish aggression, genocide and other crimes against humanity they will be 
> seen by history as one of the best buys compared to the cost of waging war 
> and the loss of human lives and dignity. Imagine if we had a functioning ICC 
> when Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq and committed every crime in the book. Would 
> we not have saved all that it is now costing us in war? Our failure to build 
> needed new institutions to enforce the law will cost us more dearly than the 
> current prototypes. 
>  Neither the ICTY nor the ICTR (nor, for that matter, the ICC) impose the 
> death penalty, and their sentences have at times seemed shockingly light 
> given the crimes. One example is the Tadi� case, in which the ICTY imposed 
> a sentence of 10 to 25 years on a man found guilty of personally committing 
> multiple murders and taking lead roles in ethnic cleansing and the brutal 
> running of internment camps. By comparison, at Nuremberg you obtained death 
> sentences against men who were together responsible for over a million 
> murders. Looking back, do you still feel that the death sentences you 
> obtained were just? 
>  Despite the fact that there were 13 death sentences in the Einsatzgruppen 
> trial at Nuremberg, I never asked for the death penalty. It was not because 
> the perpetrators didn't deserve such punishment but because I felt I could 
> not balance a million murders with the lives of a handful of mass killers. 
> Their victims were murdered because they did not share the race, religion or 
> ideology of their executioners. I thought then, and think now, that it was a 
> terrible thing to commit such inhumanities and what was more important than 
> snuffing out a few lives in revenge was to establish a rule of law that would 
> prevent such crimes in future. It was, as I said in my Opening Statement, "a 
> plea of humanity to law." I have been trying to move the world in that 
> direction for the past 60 years. The existence of new international criminal 
> courts in various parts of the world is proof that we are slowly moving in 
> the right direction. 
>  Do you believe that today's lighter approach to sentencing represents a more 
> enlightened state of justice, or is it instead perhaps a retreat from 
> seriousness? 
>  Abolishing the death penalty is not a "retreat from seriousness." It is part 
> of a growing movement toward a more humanitarian view of relations among 
> people of different ideologies. Killing your adversary is really quite 
> barbaric and we should find a better way to deter crimes. Many mass murderers 
> are willing or eager to die and kill for their particular cause. For them, 
> the death penalty is no threat. We cannot kill an idea with a gun or a 
> hangman's noose, but only with a better idea. That requires teaching 
> understanding, tolerance, a willingness to compromise and infinite patience. 
> It cannot be rushed but requires constant effort and determination. 
>  Turning to a completely different topic that takes us further back even than 
> Nuremberg, I was very interested to learn that you studied jurisprudence with 
> Roscoe Pound while at Harvard, at a time when jurisprudence was beginning to 
> move firmly away from a history-based approach. Pound was a legal modernist, 
> but he had a deep knowledge and appreciation of legal history. Were you 
> exposed to legal history in his courses and, if so, how did he present it to 
> you? Also, what was he like as a professor and a person? 
>  I was a great admirer of Roscoe Pound (even before he gave me the top grade 
> in his class). As a classroom professor he was rather dull since he read his 
> notes, which had been carefully honed for years. But he was a man of 
> prodigious memory and fantastic capacity to amalgamate information for a 
> world view of legal evolution. I think I acquired my sociological view of 
> jurisprudence from him, although I had a college degree in social sciences. 
> As a person he was gentle and kind, and I still retain a warm spot in my 
> heart for him. 
>  Did your jurisprudential training under Pound inform your approach at 
> Nuremberg? 
>  Pound's influence on my thinking probably appears in my Opening Statement to 
> the Nuremberg court and in my closing briefs, which looked beyond the 
> immediate events to a more secure future under the rule of universally 
> binding international law. 
>  In closing, what projects are you working on at the moment? 
>  Although I am in my 87th year, I am still determined to do my best, for as 
> long as I can. I receive about 100 e-mails per day. I lecture, write, appear 
> on TV and radio, and teach wherever I can. My main focus now is on only two 
> "projects." I am trying to tell the American public the truth about the ICC. 
> The current administration, following the insistence of former Senator Jesse 
> Helms and his proteg�s who are still in office, are trying to undermine the 
> ICC or kill the baby in its cradle. The public has been frightened primarily 
> by declarations that the court poses a threat to our service-members because 
> the public is misled into believing that there are no controls over the 
> independent prosecutor. Such pretensions, as well as all the other 
> objections, are absolutely false and misleading. (Please see my website law 
> review article "Misguided Fears About the ICC.") I believe that the American 
> public, if told the truth, will support the ICC. 
>  I also am convinced that the American public, if told the truth, will 
> repudiate the immunity agreements that a hundred nations have been coerced 
> into signing under threat that we will sever all their economic and military 
> aid from the U.S. It is absurd to insist that no Americans, or their 
> employees, can ever be sent to the ICC for trial. That is not merely 
> "shooting ourselves in the foot," to borrow a phrase mentioned by Secretary 
> of State Condoleezza Rice, but more like "shooting ourselves in the head" 
> since the aid we give enables recipients to help us in our "war" against 
> terrorists and narcotic traffickers. It was a fundamental principle of law, 
> articulated by Jackson, Taylor and others at Nuremberg, that "law must apply 
> equally to everyone." 
>  My final goal is to keep alive the main achievement at Nuremberg by Justice 
> Robert Jackson and unanimously affirmed by the General Assembly of the U.N., 
> that aggressive war is not a national right but an international crime. The 
> ICC lists it as a crime but the court cannot exercise its jurisdiction until 
> very onerous conditions are met. There will never be a war without atrocities 
> since war is the biggest atrocity of all, and illegal war-making is the 
> greatest crime of all. Although I am optimistic about the long-range future, 
> I do not expect to see this goal achieved during my lifetime. I hope that 
> others will pick up the torch when it has dropped from my hands. It can 
> illuminate a more peaceful and humane world. 
>Mr. Ferencz was interviewed by Peter C. Hansen
>  Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ 
> countries) for 2�/min or less.
>Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small 

Complete archives at

Please let us stay on topic and be civil. 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to