Today's Article
'The concept of a
fair trial is part of our
tradition,' prosecutor
of Nazi war
criminals reminds
Bush Administration.
fair trial is part of our
tradition,' prosecutor
of Nazi war
criminals reminds
Bush Administration.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Nuremberg Prosecutor Declares Gitmo Trials Violate Geneva
Conventions
By Cliff Montgomery - June 14th, 2007
The controversial war crimes tribunals at Guantanamo Bay have shredded the principles of law which made
the Post World-War II Nuremberg trials a judicial landmark, according to one of the remaining U.S. Nuremberg
prosecutors.
"I think Robert Jackson, who's the architect of Nuremberg, would turn over in his grave if he knew what was
going on at Guantanamo," said Nuremberg prosecutor Henry King Jr. to Reuters in a telephone interview on
Monday.
"It violates the Nuremberg principles, what they're doing, as well as the spirit of the Geneva Conventions of
1949," he added.
King, 88, worked under Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court justice who served as the chief prosecutor at the war
crimes trials created by the Allied powers and held in Nuremberg, Germany. The trials prosecuted a number of
Nazi leaders after World War II for crimes against humanity.
"The concept of a fair trial is part of our tradition, our heritage," King told Reuters. "That's what made
Nuremberg so immortal--fairness, a presumption of innocence, adequate defense counsel, opportunities to
see the documents that they're being tried with."
King, who interrogated infamous Nuremberg defendant Albert Speer--one of the principal leaders of the Nazi
Third Reich--finds it inconceivable that the "rules" for Guantanamo trials allow the possible use of
so-called-evidence obtained through the unreliable--and wildly unethical--practice of torture.
"To torture people and then [declare] you can bring evidence you obtained into court? Hearsay evidence is
allowed? Some evidence is available to the prosecution and not to the defendants? This is a type of 'justice'
that Jackson didn't dream of," said King.
He adds that for a fair trial, every suspect held at Guantanamo must be tried in either the court-martial system
or the U.S. federal courts, and under fair, equitable rules that allow the possibility of acquittal. Three
Nuremberg suspects were actually acquitted, King told Reuters.
The Bush Administration claims that it needs to hold such questionable tribunals at Guantanamo to 'protect
national security'--in essence arguing that his administration must break the law in order to uphold the law.
Last year the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with such inconsistent reasoning, declaring the initial round of the
Gitmo trials illegal.
The 2006 Military Commissions Act was supposedly intended to revise the rules for the trials of suspects held
at the American naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; but King said that the act instead "turns its back on
Nuremberg."
"I don't think it's a credit to us to have this thing," he told Reuters.
"The United States has always stood for fairness. That's the important thing. We were the ones who started
war crimes tribunals and we're the architects. I don't think we should turn our back on that architecture," King
said.
King, who now teaches law at Ohio's Case Western Reserve University, also said that former Guantanamo
prisoner David Hicks probably shouldn't have been tried as a war criminal. After serving as a prisoner for more
than five years at Guantanamo, Hicks pleaded guilty in March to having provided material support for terrorism.
The Australian will serve the remainder of his nine-month sentence in his homeland.
"He's not an arch-criminal type, just a guy who was disaffected from the system," King told Reuters.
Hicks apparently acknowledged to having trained with al-Qaeda, and even to briefly fighting for the terrorist
group in Afghanistan. But Hicks is an obvious exception on one essential point: so far he is the only person
actually convicted by the Guantanamo war crimes tribunals.
It's interesting to note that the Nuremberg trials, which frankly prosecuted individuals even more dangerous to
America and the world, apparently enjoyed a much more successful conviction rate--and did it while following
the rules of common sense, morality, justice, and natural law.
Perhaps the success of the former was due to diligence for the latter. Perhaps the former Nuremberg
prosecutor is on to something after all.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
Conventions
By Cliff Montgomery - June 14th, 2007
The controversial war crimes tribunals at Guantanamo Bay have shredded the principles of law which made
the Post World-War II Nuremberg trials a judicial landmark, according to one of the remaining U.S. Nuremberg
prosecutors.
"I think Robert Jackson, who's the architect of Nuremberg, would turn over in his grave if he knew what was
going on at Guantanamo," said Nuremberg prosecutor Henry King Jr. to Reuters in a telephone interview on
Monday.
"It violates the Nuremberg principles, what they're doing, as well as the spirit of the Geneva Conventions of
1949," he added.
King, 88, worked under Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court justice who served as the chief prosecutor at the war
crimes trials created by the Allied powers and held in Nuremberg, Germany. The trials prosecuted a number of
Nazi leaders after World War II for crimes against humanity.
"The concept of a fair trial is part of our tradition, our heritage," King told Reuters. "That's what made
Nuremberg so immortal--fairness, a presumption of innocence, adequate defense counsel, opportunities to
see the documents that they're being tried with."
King, who interrogated infamous Nuremberg defendant Albert Speer--one of the principal leaders of the Nazi
Third Reich--finds it inconceivable that the "rules" for Guantanamo trials allow the possible use of
so-called-evidence obtained through the unreliable--and wildly unethical--practice of torture.
"To torture people and then [declare] you can bring evidence you obtained into court? Hearsay evidence is
allowed? Some evidence is available to the prosecution and not to the defendants? This is a type of 'justice'
that Jackson didn't dream of," said King.
He adds that for a fair trial, every suspect held at Guantanamo must be tried in either the court-martial system
or the U.S. federal courts, and under fair, equitable rules that allow the possibility of acquittal. Three
Nuremberg suspects were actually acquitted, King told Reuters.
The Bush Administration claims that it needs to hold such questionable tribunals at Guantanamo to 'protect
national security'--in essence arguing that his administration must break the law in order to uphold the law.
Last year the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with such inconsistent reasoning, declaring the initial round of the
Gitmo trials illegal.
The 2006 Military Commissions Act was supposedly intended to revise the rules for the trials of suspects held
at the American naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; but King said that the act instead "turns its back on
Nuremberg."
"I don't think it's a credit to us to have this thing," he told Reuters.
"The United States has always stood for fairness. That's the important thing. We were the ones who started
war crimes tribunals and we're the architects. I don't think we should turn our back on that architecture," King
said.
King, who now teaches law at Ohio's Case Western Reserve University, also said that former Guantanamo
prisoner David Hicks probably shouldn't have been tried as a war criminal. After serving as a prisoner for more
than five years at Guantanamo, Hicks pleaded guilty in March to having provided material support for terrorism.
The Australian will serve the remainder of his nine-month sentence in his homeland.
"He's not an arch-criminal type, just a guy who was disaffected from the system," King told Reuters.
Hicks apparently acknowledged to having trained with al-Qaeda, and even to briefly fighting for the terrorist
group in Afghanistan. But Hicks is an obvious exception on one essential point: so far he is the only person
actually convicted by the Guantanamo war crimes tribunals.
It's interesting to note that the Nuremberg trials, which frankly prosecuted individuals even more dangerous to
America and the world, apparently enjoyed a much more successful conviction rate--and did it while following
the rules of common sense, morality, justice, and natural law.
Perhaps the success of the former was due to diligence for the latter. Perhaps the former Nuremberg
prosecutor is on to something after all.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!