"The. prostitution of a judicial system
for the
accomplishment of criminal ends
involves an element of evil to the State
which is not found in frank atrocities
which do not sully judicial robes."
"In spite of all that he had done he still bore an unmerited reputation as the last of the German jurists and so Hitler gave him his blessing and 100,000 RM as a parting gift.We are under no misapprehension. Schlegelberger is a tragic character He loved the life of intellect, the work of the scholar. We believe that he loathed the evil that he did, but he sold that intellect and that scholarship to Hitler for a mass of political pottage and for the vain hope of personal security. He is guilty under Counts two and three of the indictment."
The Defendant Schlegelberger
for the
accomplishment of criminal ends
involves an element of evil to the State
which is not found in frank atrocities
which do not sully judicial robes."
"In spite of all that he had done he still bore an unmerited reputation as the last of the German jurists and so Hitler gave him his blessing and 100,000 RM as a parting gift.We are under no misapprehension. Schlegelberger is a tragic character He loved the life of intellect, the work of the scholar. We believe that he loathed the evil that he did, but he sold that intellect and that scholarship to Hitler for a mass of political pottage and for the vain hope of personal security. He is guilty under Counts two and three of the indictment."
The Defendant Schlegelberger
Let's not think about this too much. Let's realize that in the United States of America, any JUDGE, any legal personage who is complict in WAR CRIMES is GUILTY.
Perhaps the most salient moment was in the eleventh programme entitled 'Knowledge or Certainty' when Bronowski visited Auschwitz, at which many members of his family had died.
We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to touch people.
Bronowski published his last poem, on the Watergate scandal, in the Listener magazine (see left margin),
Ascent was to be his last project, as it was completed shortly before he died at East Hampton, Long Island, New York from a heart attack in 1974, at the age of 66. He is buried at Highgate Cemetary, north London.
1 comment:
This link well illustrates the challenge of Nuremberg: The prosecutors were required to create new laws. Never before had judges been prosecuted. Similarly, it appears Members of Congress -- in an unprecedented manner, as was the case with Nuremberg in re the Judges -- have engaged in alleged malfeasance. Congress has the power to appropriate money, but this is only for two years.
That appropriation is not a blank check; the Congress shares responsibility: To ensure the funds are spent for lawful wars. Arguably, the illegal war in Iraq attaches to each Member of Congress. This may be a new legal principle; and it may be a "new" requirement which has never before been attempted. But is it not reasonable to impose a legal duty -- attached with some sort of enforcement mechanism -- on Members of Congress: The duty to oversee, investigate, and refuse to continue providing funding for what is illegal?
To suggest that war crimes liability only attaches to the primary actors -- only in the Executive branch -- would ask that Congress need not engage in any oversight; nor review any laws: Just write the checks; and "trust" the President to do what he wants. It appears this blind deference to the President has been the problem: Blind in that the Congress refuses to see where it should open its eyes; and deferential where confrontation is lawfully required, especially on grave breaches of Geneva, which it appears the Congress well knew the President's advisers were well concerned with.
The crime isn't just in the primary actor; but in those who had a shared duty to oversee. America's government isn't a single Executive Branch; power is divided. The Judges in Nazi Germany were held liable. Similarly, the US Members of Congress, relying on this Precedent of Nuremberg, must be lawfully challenged for their alleged malfeasance in re US war crimes, breaches of Geneva: Alleged failure to investigate, failure to timely gather facts, and failure to timely bring charges. These charges, in theory, should attach to the leadership in Congress who had a duty to keep all lawful options on the table. This speaker appears to have defied the House precedents, and pretended that the Vice President wasn't involved; or that the acts were from another era. No, these acts were under this Speaker's watch while the VP was in office. Inaction isn't a defense. The Nazi Judges had a duty to enforce the law. Similarly, Members of Congress had the legal obligation to read it, then oversee whether it was or was not being followed before appropriating additional funds for the alleged war crimes in Iraq, Eastern Europe, and Guantanamo.
The Nazi judges were found liable because they failed to act, and did not enforce the law; and refused to resist illegal laws of the Nazi. Congress went one step further than the Nazi Judges: It passed illegal laws, was silent while those laws of war were violated, and continued paying pretending that they were subject to "superior" orders from the President. No, they had a duty to -- as a faction -- challenge that President, not become a staff agency to the Oval Office. Game on for expanding the Justice Trial precedents of Nuremberg against Member of Congress alleged breach of their oath of office in re the laws of war.
Post a Comment