Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Climber who wrote (12010)	11/29/2001 10:17:57 PM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Cool. That link supplied this info about Nuremburg: The Law The International Military Tribunal combined elements of Anglo-American and civil (continental) law. Defendants' rights and the rules of evidence differed in several ways from those in American courtrooms: In contrast to the U.S. system, in which the prosecutors must show evidence suggesting there is probable cause to try a defendant, civil law requires that all proof be presented with the indictment. At the International Military Tribunal, some of the proof was presented at the time of indictment, some was not. In contrast to U.S. practice, defendants were permitted to give unsworn statements at the end of the trial. Hearsay evidence was allowed. This often came in the form of statements by individuals not called as witnesses. The statements were read by prosecutors; defendants, on cross examination, were asked to respond to incriminating allegations. In U.S. courts, unlike at Nuremberg, the accused have the right to confront and question his accuser. At Nuremberg, evidence merely had to be "probative" to be admitted. Note by SR: this is likely the chief rationale for seeking the 2001 tribunals, to protect intelligence sources and witnesses The London Charter did not create a right to a jury trial. There was no right to appeal and no court to which the defendants could appeal. The defendants could ask the Control Council of Germany -- the Allied occupation government, to reduce or change their sentences, and those who were found guilty did seek clemency from the Control Council. Their request was rejected and ten of the eleven defendants who received death sentences were hanged two weeks later. (The eleventh, Hermann Goering, committed suicide several hours before he was to be hanged.) The defendants had a right to an attorney of their choice, although they could represent themselves if they wanted (none chose to do so). The four prosecuting nations paid the attorneys' fees. The defendants also had a right to present evidence in their own defense and to cross-examine any witnesses against them. The law of the London Charter was arguably ex post facto. ------------------------------------------------------------------