January 20, 2005
NO ONE WENT ON TRIAL FOR THE INTERNMENTS:
A Nuremberg Lesson: Torture scandal began far above 'rotten apples.' (Scott Horton, January 20, 2005, LA Times)
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.
It does teach the lesson of Nuremberg, which is quite different than Mr. Horton imagines: the winners get to decide who was right and who wrong in the war and punish accordingly. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 20, 2005 7:31 AM
Well said. This underscores the exact nature of the war crime--losing.
Posted by: Lou Gots at January 20, 2005 7:49 AMJustice Jackson based much of his argument at Nuremberg on the universal application of morality. The Germans lost the war, so they had to face that argument. But we cannot forget that a German victory (or even a stalemate) would have meant no trial, because there would have been no morality.
The choice now seems to be among an abandonment of any moral force (the Democratic position), a long struggle with halting steps (the Bush position), or the slaughter of the enemy (and whoever happens to be nearby) wherever we find him (which may be the ultimate result of Abu Ghraib).
But if Graner had offered names (his superiors) and dates, one suspects the trial would have never been held.
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 20, 2005 8:31 AMjim:
They were sticklers for order--they might well have held trials. Recall that they transcribed the Wannssee Conference.
Posted by: oj at January 20, 2005 9:01 AMYou may be right - but what would the charges have been? Failure to show obesiance to der Fuhrer? Being a member of an inferior race?
More likely that they would have compiled records on how many bullets they used behind the jailhouse on any given day, and how far the blood spattered on the ground.
With respect to Graner, I'm surprised that no reporter has tried to interview his family to get the names of those who gave him his orders. Even if the names were made up, the press would print them. After all, the media has to validate Biden's statements about Rumsfeld.
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 20, 2005 9:15 AMFire-bombing civilians. Shooting captured German soldiers. Using nukes. Interning the Japanese. Aiding the Soviets. Covering up Katyn. blah, blah, blah.
Posted by: oj at January 20, 2005 9:25 AMHe can't offer names and dates because there are none.
Posted by: Mike Morley at January 20, 2005 9:26 AMoj's correct. We look at cases to find out what to law is. Look at the cases from the 19th and 20th Centuries, and the principle which emerges is that the war crime is losing.
Posted by: Lou Gots at January 20, 2005 10:39 AMMorley is right, If Graner had anything, the media would be all over it 24/7, ergo there is nothing.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 20, 2005 11:18 PM