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: kumar who wrote (115028)	9/16/2003 9:17:10 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Was not all of Germany under 1 LEADER - Hitler ? Werent the others soldiers (regardless of rank) "just obeying" the "chain of command"? 1. The Nuremburg trial was unprecedented in the course of history for their intent and breath. 2. And since it was unprecedented, there existed no international law statute which authorized it. But the international political climate demanded it (or was "convinced" we should do it), so the trial went forth. 3. Targeting major leadership and facilitators of the aggression only makes sense because the leadership dictates to the lower rung membership what they must do if they wish to progress to higher positions of responsibility. The leadership of the Nazi party, once seizing the reins of power, however, IS the essence of the political leadership. Hitler could not have controlled the Nazi political/military machine alone. He required active abettors/collaborators, all of whom enjoyed social, financial, and political perquisites as a result. 4. The "most wanted" deck of cards, developed by an acquaintance of mine, take the precedent of Nuremburg in searching out the major facilitators and perpetrators of the Baathist oppression. 4. Even with drug trafficking cases, prosecutors will often give immunity, or refuse to prosecute, lower level members of the government/regime which perpetrated the crime. It's no different with war crimes trials. 5. Finally, it's not feasible to arrest and try every member of a political party responsible for perpetrating a war. However, it only makes sense to limit and/or restrict their participation in any subsequent government. Now that I've said about that possible to be said about Nuremburg (that's relevant to Iraq), why not just get to your point? I'm saying some laws stand the test of time for a few years, some a bit longer. Let's face some facts here Kumar. International law is non-enforceable, except if a particular nation/entity participates in "vigilante" justice... The UN has absolutely ZERO authority/power to compel it's members to enforce its resolutions. Thus, the UNSC can pass whatever binding resolution that it so desires for the purpose of "political drama", without any member of the council ever intending of enforcing those resolutions. After all, Iraq violated over a dozen binding resolutions, each of which constituted a breach of the cease fire agreements, tantamount to a resumption of hostilities from Desert Storm, but no member of the UNSC bothered to enforce them (until last March, that is). Hawk