Nuremburg & Prisoner abuse

[AdD 1]

Quote

"This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centers, stories of which were spread everywhere among the people, and later by the prisoners who were freed ... were not, as some assumed, inflicted methodically, but were excesses committed by individual prison guards, their deputies, and men who laid violent hands on the detainees."

Most people who hear this quote today assume it was uttered by a senior officer of the Bush administration. Instead, it comes from one of history's greatest mass murderers, Rudolf Hoess, the SS commandant at Auschwitz. Such a confusion demonstrates the depth of the United States' moral dilemma in its treatment of detainees in the war on terror.

In past weeks, we have been treated to a show trial of sorts at Ft. Hood, Texas, starring Cpl. Charles Graner and other low-ranking military figures. The Graner court-martial and the upcoming trial of Pfc. Lynndie England are being hyped as proof of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's explanation for the Abu Ghraib prison tortures: A few "rotten apples" -- not U.S. policy or those who created it -- are to blame.

Graner entered a "Nuremberg defense" -- arguing that he was acting on orders of his superiors. This defense was rejected in Ft. Hood as it was in Nuremberg 60 years ago, when Nazi war criminals were found guilty of crimes against humanity. A misled American public can choose to see in the Graner verdict the proof of the "rotten apples" theory and of the notion that Graner and the others acted on their own initiative. But what it should see is a larger Nuremberg lesson: Those who craft immoral policy deserve the harshest punishment.

Consider the memorandum written by Alberto Gonzales -- then the president's attorney, now his nominee for attorney general. He wrote that the Geneva Convention was "obsolete" when it came to the war on terror. Gonzales reasoned that our adversaries were not parties to the convention and that the Geneva concept was ill suited to anti-terrorist warfare. In 1941, General-Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, the head of Hitler's Wehrmacht, mustered identical arguments against recognizing the Geneva rights of Soviet soldiers fighting on the Eastern Front. Keitel even called Geneva "obsolete," a remark noted by U.S. prosecutors at Nuremberg, who cited it as an aggravating circumstance in seeking, and obtaining, the death penalty. Keitel was executed in 1946.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7086

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[miked10270 0]

I must admit that my first thought is that The Nuremberg War trials were NOT justice. They were a show trial (read Kangaroo Court) inflicted on the defeated by the victors.

As examples, look at some of the "trials" which collapsed; Ajaz Bleichrodt - charged with piracy & the rule that the prosecution could submit evidence by affadavit which could not be cross examined or challenged!! Otto Skorzeny's trial for waging war while not in uniform - He had David Stirling of all people as a defence witness!!

Unfortunately in the case of Graner, since the "Befehl ist befehl" defence was refused at Nuremberg, it has since been refused everywhere!

As I've said before, it's a VERY effective interview technique to initially "beast" prisoners and then to suddenly relax the regime. It makes the prisoners talkative. It works.

And I'll bet that Graner was instructed to beast the prisoners to prepare them for interview.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.