NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you agree with Benjamin Ferencz?

Please watch the following video (9:45) and then vote on the poll whether you agree with the position he has taken.

If you don't, I'd like to know where you don't and especially why.

Some background information on Benjamin Ferencz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Ferencz).

And the video of the interview (http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/inhalt/29/0,4070,5254397-5,00.html).

The video was made by the best German investigative journalism political television magazine Frontal21 and televised yesterday by the ZDF (2nd German public TV station).

Frontal21? Your political magazines sound like porn magazines.



Sorry, I'll just slip out now and let the real discussion go on...

can't you just post his most important opinions and stuff?

I do agree with him. Well posted.

can't you just post his most important opinions and stuff?
No. The video is less than 10 minutes long and in English. Go watch it. ;)
I do agree with him. Well posted.
Thanks.

In principle and in general I agree with him, yes. I like his philosophy.


Nice find indeed :)

I'm not sure why, but the video did not work for me. However the Wikipedia article mentioned an interview that he gave where he suggested that George Bush needed to be put on trial for operating without UN consent?

I agree that some of Bush's actions have been criminal, and should the opportunity come, he should be tried in a US court. However, I have not and never will never believe in the virtue of International courts or the UN's ability to 'try' citizens of member or non-member's for any reason. That includes men such as Saddam. I realize the US has violated various UN treaties, but I believe that the congress violated the trust of its people when it signs anything that allows them to be tried under any law but that of the US where they have a vested power in what the laws are.

If UN representatives were popularly elected, I might feel differently, but I will never support the US giving up custody of a citizen no matter what their crime, unless part of their sentence (as in they've already been tried, and perhaps have been declared exiled) includes such.

I think the same follows for every country. No one should submit to international court, and W. certainly didn't have the right to charge Iraq or Saddam internationally.

Of course, in the case of terrorists and other such criminals, I feel any country has a right to detain and try those who commit heinous crimes as long as that person is on their soil when apprehended.

edit: Wait, I had NoScripts on, Im watching it now and I'll give my opinion in a sec.

In principle and in general I agree with him, yes. I like his philosophy.
Nice find indeed :)
It was good to watch last night and I thought I'd share it with NSG.
I'm not sure why, but the video did not work for me. However the Wikipedia article mentioned an interview that he gave where he suggested that George Bush needed to be put on trial for operating without UN consent?
It's a different interview, although he does talk about responsibility of those in charge.
I agree that some of Bush's actions have been criminal, and should the opportunity come, he should be tried in a US court. However, I have not and never will never believe in the virtue of International courts or the UN's ability to 'try' citizens of member or non-member's for any reason. That includes men such as Saddam. I realize the US has violated various UN treaties, but I believe that the congress violated the trust of its people when it signs anything that allows them to be tried under any law but that of the US where they have a vested power in what the laws are.
If we follow this through, on which basis have the U.S. tried the criminals at Nuremburg?
If UN representatives were popularly elected, I might feel differently, but I will never support the US giving up custody of a citizen no matter what their crime, unless part of their sentence (as in they've already been tried, and perhaps have been declared exiled) includes such.
I can agree with this up to a certain point, as long as the perpetrator is tried and justice is served.
I think the same follows for every country. No one should submit to international court, and W. certainly didn't have the right to charge Iraq or Saddam internationally.
How about everyone should submit to international court?
Of course, in the case of terrorists and other such criminals, I feel any country has a right to detain and try those who commit heinous crimes as long as that person is on their soil when apprehended.
As long as the law is followed and those apprehended face a fair trial.
Which is not the case in what is going with the U.S. after 9/11.

i mostly agree with him, but i do think he is a little bit naïve, both about the Nuremburg trials and Bush etc their motivations.
the prosecutor sai that "the law by which we judge these defendants today will be the law by wich we will be judged tomorrow". why were there no allies judged then? you can hardly say that they didn't commit any crimes.
also i don't really believe Bush etc have such noble goals he thinks they have.

[quote]If we follow this through, on which basis have the U.S. tried the criminals at Nuremburg?

One could argue that the defeat in war placed Germany in a position where they could be held responsible for the trouble they have caused. War followed such patterns long before international courts were established.

How about everyone should submit to international court?

Never. I have no trust in anything even resembling a world government. Particularly one where all the representatives are appointed and where laws and taxes could be imposed that the people as a majority do not agree with. Neither the US or any nation should have its internal affairs or policies subject to international approval or review.

As long as the law is followed and those apprehended face a fair trial.
Which is not the case in what is going with the U.S. after 9/11.

We are trying, the limits of power are being strained in many sectors and the subpoenas issue (something that starts in congress, goes to the president, and will likely end at the Supreme Court) will likely force a showdown of the branches like the US has never seen.

If Bush refuses to submit to the Supreme Court...Thats when things will get very. very. interesting in our political circles.

I will never consider a law imposed on my country fair that wasn't approved by the law-making processes of my country.

I had no idea what to expect when I watched the video and was plesantly surprised :) Yes I agree with what was said, however there was a key point toward the end which I felt was very important. This was the pouint that in order for a fair trial to occur an impartial jury was needed, which does not exist at this time.

The only reason that an impartial jury was available for Nuremberg was because time had passed, allowing those involved to become further removed from the situation.

Yes I do feel that some atrocities have taken place through this war, however now is not the time to hold people accountable for it because it can not be done in a fair and just way

i mostly agree with him, but i do think he is a little bit naïve, both about the Nuremburg trials and Bush etc their motivations.
the prosecutor sai that "the law by which we judge these defendants today will be the law by wich we will be judged tomorrow". why were there no allies judged then? you can hardly say that they didn't commit any crimes.
also i don't really believe Bush etc have such noble goals he thinks they have.
The goals set aside, Bush isn't following the laws of the country he leads. Neither was Rumsfeld or other high-echelon figures.
But the question you're asking is a good one!
One could argue that the defeat in war placed Germany in a position where they could be held responsible for the trouble they have caused. War followed such patterns long before international courts were established.
Exactly. And yet the U.S. decided to give the nazis a fair trial nonetheless. Why is it that the principles that they adhered to then do not carry any merit any longer?
(...)
Neither the US or any nation should have its internal affairs or policies subject to international approval or review.
Interesting that the U.S. thought differently when they established the United Nations and the Security Council.
We are trying, the limits of power are being strained in many sectors and the subpoenas issue (something that starts in congress, goes to the president, and will likely end at the Supreme Court) will likely force a showdown of the branches like the US has never seen.
If Bush refuses to submit to the Supreme Court...Thats when things will get very. very. interesting in our political circles.
I'd like to see some results, though.
I will never consider a law imposed on my country fair that wasn't approved by the law-making processes of my country.
Wouldn't signing and accepting the international law be part of the law-making process of your country?
After all, the basis for it were established by your country at Nuremberg.

This may be an interesting point to put through as a UN resolution in game,

or rather several points,

1) the need for an international court
2) an international army (as was mentioned in the video)
3) participants from both sides of a conflict to be held up for war crimes not just the loser.

Is he a teacher? He reminds me of a teacher..

I had no idea what to expect when I watched the video and was plesantly surprised :) Yes I agree with what was said, however there was a key point toward the end which I felt was very important. This was the pouint that in order for a fair trial to occur an impartial jury was needed, which does not exist at this time.
The only reason that an impartial jury was available for Nuremberg was because time had passed, allowing those involved to become further removed from the situation.
Yes I do feel that some atrocities have taken place through this war, however now is not the time to hold people accountable for it because it can not be done in a fair and just way
Glad I could surprise you.
Yet, I disagree with your stance on an impartial jury. The Nuremberg Trials took place between 1945 and 1949 - hardly a long time after WW2 ended in Europe on May 8th '45.
I'd say now is exactly the time to hold those responsible accountable. The injustice that Guantanamo represents has already been going on for far too long to lean back and wait and let it continue.

Exactly. And yet the U.S. decided to give the nazis a fair trial nonetheless. Why is it that the principles that they adhered to then do not carry any merit any longer?

Can you clarify this some more?

I'd like to see some results, though.

Everyone would. This isn't as simple as walking up to him and slapping him on the wrists though. Speaking of standards, we want to be careful about the ones we set up about removing leaders from power. Whether we like it or not, a lot of people voted for him and they have as much right as we do. To charge and remove in needs to have no doubt that crime was committed. Ironically enough, had Clinton actually been removed, W. may have been gone long ago and just as easily.

Wouldn't signing and accepting the international law be part of the law-making process of your country? After all, the basis for it were established by your country at Nuremberg.

Like I said, it was a mistake and a gross violation of trust for any US representative to sign a treaty that creates a pathway for new laws to be applied that are not actually agreed upon by the US public. To say- Not actually and individually agreed upon by both houses of elected congressmen and the president and verified by the constitution.

The Nuremberg trials were nothing new in World history. The losers of the war must always face just about any penalty the winners want to throw out. That the trials were fair and reasoned is the only novel concept.

i mostly agree with him, but i do think he is a little bit naïve, both about the Nuremburg trials and Bush etc their motivations.
the prosecutor sai that "the law by which we judge these defendants today will be the law by wich we will be judged tomorrow". why were there no allies judged then? you can hardly say that they didn't commit any crimes.
also i don't really believe Bush etc have such noble goals he thinks they have.

First of all, they were in the process of creating and codifying international law at the time. It was something that had never been done before, to prosecute a crime of a magnitude which had never been prosecuted before. Simply, it was a start.

Secondly, there's the fact that "Victors justice" still ruled. And the allies probably felt that whatever they had done was eclipsed by the holocaust. (And to some degree they would be correct)

Thirdly, note how he says ..."will be the law by wich we will be judged tomorrow"? I.e., if these men are convicted, our people might be for the crimes they commit from tomorrow on. Let's face it, the tricky part about Nuremberg was that the germans were convicted for crimes against humanity, a legal construct largely unknown before the war. One could argue that the convictions were in violation of the principles of prohibition of ex post facto laws, and as such it could be... problematic... to convict allied servicemen and women.

This may be an interesting point to put through as a UN resolution in game,

or rather several points,

1) the need for an international court

3) participants from both sides of a conflict to be held up for war crimes not just the loser.
There is one that could do just that. Shame the US won't join it...

He's wrong.
The average American doesn't give a fuck about what happens to brown people.

He's right about everything else though.

This may be an interesting point to put through as a UN resolution in game,

or rather several points,

1) the need for an international court
2) an international army (as was mentioned in the video)
3) participants from both sides of a conflict to be held up for war crimes not just the loser.
Indeed.
Is he a teacher? He reminds me of a teacher..
He's a lawyer. But he doesn't remind me of a lawyer... :p
Can you clarify this some more?
You partially answered your own question:
The Nuremberg trials were nothing new in World history. The losers of the war must always face just about any penalty the winners want to throw out. That the trials were fair and reasoned is the only novel concept.
By using the novel concept of a fair trial even for the lowest of people, the U.S. established something better than victor's revenge.
If people like Hermann Göring were treated as innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt - how come that the U.S. doesn't apply the same principle to the inmates of Guantanamo like one would expect from a shining example of justice and democracy that the U.S. considers itself?
Everyone would. This isn't as simple as walking up to him and slapping him on the wrists though. Speaking of standards, we want to be careful about the ones we set up about removing leaders from power. Whether we like it or not, a lot of people voted for him and they have as much right as we do. To charge and remove in needs to have no doubt that crime was committed. Ironically enough, had Clinton actually been removed, W. may have been gone long ago and just as easily.
Yet those who bear the brunt of the decider's decicions did not have any say in granting him those powers.
Like I said, it was a mistake and a gross violation of trust for any US representative to sign a treaty that creates a pathway for new laws to be applied that are not actually agreed upon by the US public. To say- Not actually and individually agreed upon by both houses of elected congressmen and the president and verified by the constitution.
Talking about gross violation of trust (and law?) when it comes to the Iraq war and the global war on terror sounds ridiculous, to say the least.
Then why not let the people's representatives vote on it?

Anyway, how much trust do and can you place in people that sign things like the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, disregard the Constitution, or simply ignore Habeus Corpus?

My answer? None whatsoever.

Indeed.

By using the novel concept of a fair trial even for the lowest of people, the U.S. established something better than victor's revenge.
If people like Hermann Göring were treated as innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt - how come that the U.S. doesn't apply the same principle to the inmates of Guantanamo like one would expect from a shining example of justice and democracy that the U.S. considers itself?

We were on completely different pages. I was defending the US's right to protect their citizens from outside prosecution, I was in no way defending their efforts to deprive other nations of the same thing.

Guantanamo will likely not survive another election cycle, and I personally consider it a stain in America's history.

Yet those who bear the brunt of the decider's decicions did not have any say in granting him those powers.

I don't know what to tell you here, Other than: A world government can only impose and conquer more easily and efficiently than any single super-power ever could. Every threat the US poses to the world could only be magnified by world government.

Talking about gross violation of trust (and law?) when it comes to the Iraq war and the global war on terror sounds ridiculous, to say the least.
Then why not let the people's representatives vote on it?

Many people expected them too. The US congress can end this war anytime they want. People hoped a Democratic majority would change things, and we are still waiting. This isn't as easy as it sounds, but we have made forward movements.

Anyway, how much trust do and can you place in people that sign things like the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, disregard the Constitution, or simply ignore Habeus Corpus?

My answer? None whatsoever.

What do you expect us to do, Start a civil war? Your talking like its as easy as walking up to Capitol hill and demanding they "stop all this nonsense".

He's wrong.
The average American doesn't give a fuck about what happens to brown people.
That is part of the problem the U.S. is facing worldwide.

And I don't care if your average (G.I.) Joe doesn't give a fuck. Those in charge should follow their country's laws, though, which would make them care.

You can't only follow human rights when it seems to suit you.

You can't only follow human rights when it seems to suit you.
Sometimes, that's Democracy.
The will of the people and all that.

We were on completely different pages. I was defending the US's right to protect their citizens from outside prosecution, I was in no way defending their efforts to deprive other nations of the same thing.
Yet, the U.S. abducts other country's citizens illegaly all around the world in the name of securing the rights and freedoms of U.S. citizens.
How does that work out on the same page?
Guantanamo will likely not survive another election cycle, and I personally consider it a stain in America's history.
As you indeed should. ;)
And I really hope that Guantanamo will be shut down shortly. Then again, I fear that the current administration might opt for the scorched earth approach.
I don't know what to tell you here, Other than: A world government can only impose and conquer more easily and efficiently than any single super-power ever could. Every threat the US poses to the world could only be magnified by world government.
Why are we talking world government now when we should be talking International Court of Justice?
Many people expected them too. The US congress can end this war anytime they want. People hoped a Democratic majority would change things, and we are still waiting. This isn't as easy as it sounds, but we have made forward movements.
So far, only a few steps on a long and arduous path have been taken.
I expect more to come.
What do you expect us to do, Start a civil war?
War is not the answer. ;)
Then again, if the average U.S. citizen could see and feel and witness firsthand what waging war actually means, I doubt that they would support going to war as easily as they have in the past.
Your talking like its as easy as walking up to Capitol hill and demanding they "stop all this nonsense".
Actually, that is exactly what I would like to see: 100,000s of U.S. citizens demanding from their elected reprensentatives to "stop all this nonsense".
It can be as easy, because right now what the U.S. is doing is not what its citizens believe it (should) stand(s) for.

You can't only follow human rights when it seems to suit you.
Indeed. That is the crux of human rights.
Why are we talking world government now when we should be talking International Court of Justice?

Psst! You should be talking about the International Criminal Court! ;)

Sometimes, that's Democracy.
The will of the people and all that.
Not following the established laws of your own country doesn't have anything to do with democracy.
The will of the people also led to the Constitution and its amendments.

Yet, the U.S. abducts other country's citizens illegaly all around the world in the name of securing the rights and freedoms of U.S. citizens.
How does that work out on the same page?

I'm on you side on this issue. I don't think the US should do that. I think Germany should be allowed to prosecute the CIA agents as long as they are on German soil when seized. Their leaders should be tried by the US for this breach.


Why are we talking world government now when we should be talking International Court of Justice?


Sorry, alot of concepts have been introduced in this thread.

So far, only a few steps on a long and arduous path have been taken.
I expect more to come.

working on it...

War is not the answer. ;)
Actually, that is exactly what I would like to see: 100,000s of U.S. citizens
demanding from their elected reprensentatives to "stop all this nonsense".
It can be as easy, because right now what the U.S. is doing is not what its citizens believe it (should) stand(s) for.

There are demonstrations in Washington everyday. Right now, you'll just have to give us time, and neither you nor us have much choice in that matter.

It can be as easy, because right now what the U.S. is doing is not what its citizens believe it (should) stand(s) for.

Pfft.
The average American doesn't have a problem with war. They merely have a problem with this particular war because a few thousand AMERICANS have died and we're losing. Americans don't like to lose and they like losers even less.

They don't care about the Iraqi deaths or the damage done to Iraq's infrastructures, economy and stability.

They have no problem with what the administration stands for. They merely have a problem with its failure.

Indeed. That is the crux of human rights.

Psst! You should be talking about the International Criminal Court! ;)
;) Yes, indeed! (Thanks!)

(My mind is kind of mushy right now - German+English+no sleep+lots of stress=graagh!)

Not following the established laws of your own country doesn't have anything to do with democracy.
Why not? If the majority want the law changed, shouldn't it be? That's Democracy in action.
The will of the people also led to the Constitution and its amendments.
No they did not. The Constitution was written in secret and was unauthorized. Its chief architects were rich, well-educated men who had little to do with the "will of the people."
There was never a popular vote held on the Constitution, a document which plainly prohibits certain actions no matter how many people approve of them.

It is undemocratic by its very nature. It is also a masterpiece.

Pfft.
The average American doesn't have a problem with war. They merely have a problem with this particular war because a few thousand AMERICANS have died and we're losing. Americans don't like to lose and they like losers even less.

They don't care about the Iraqi deaths or the damage done to Iraq's infrastructures, economy and stability.

They have no problem with what the administration stands for. They merely have a problem with its failure.
The average American definitely would have a problem with war were it to take place in their backyards, their homes, cities, and country and were they to learn what war really means aside from the television pictures.
(I'll exclude the soldiers here, for they do know what war is.)

And all of the sudden a civil war doesn't sound all too bad any more... :eek:

Anyway, it speaks volumes of the Americans you seem to represent here and their stance on their fellow humans.
Hope you don't share their sentiment.

I'm on you side on this issue. I don't think the US should do that. I think Germany should be allowed to prosecute the CIA agents as long as they are on German soil when seized. Their leaders should be tried by the US for this breach.
Too bad that ain't happening.
Sorry, alot of concepts have been introduced in this thread.
Your head is not the only one spinning. ;)
working on it...
Yay!
There are demonstrations in Washington everyday. Right now, you'll just have to give us time, and neither you nor us have much choice in that matter.
I know. And I have even less choice in the matter. The only option the presents itself to me is boycotting the U.S. right now (with as little impact as me not going on vacation there has) and voicing my concerns and disgust whenever possible.

I do, however, also laud those who do take action, as little as it may be.
Why not? If the majority want the law changed, shouldn't it be? That's Democracy in action.

No they did not. The Constitution was written in secret and was unauthorized. Its chief architects were rich, well-educated men who had little to do with the "will of the people."
There was never a popular vote held on the Constitution, a document which plainly prohibits certain actions no matter how many people approve of them.

It is undemocratic by its very nature. It is also a masterpiece.
You're right. I had thought, though, that some of the amendments were backed by popular demand/support.
As for democracy as we know it - it only works within a certain framework set by laws/documents like your Constitution/our Basic Law which grants people certain rights (and thus denies others to step beyond those rights).

How do you call it when you make sure that a certain level of basic rights is reserved for everyone? (You can probably tell I'm getting tired for my personal dictionary is failing me more and more. Either that or I'm still digesting tonight's pizza. Probably both! :D)

The average American definitely would have a problem with war were it to take place in their backyards, their homes, cities, and country and were they to learn what war really means aside from the television pictures.
That won't happen. Not anytime soon. If it ever did, by then the US would be so weak as for it not to matter.
(I'll exclude the soldiers here, for they do know what war is.)
And yet, when they come back, the vast majority lie about the state of Iraq saying things like, "They only show the bad stuff on the news."

Americans simply lack a basic respect for human life. It's an attitude ingrained in out culture.
Hope you don't share their sentiment.
I assure you that I do not.

You're right. I had thought, though, that some of the amendments were backed by popular demand/support.
Some of the recent ones, but many other worthy amendments have been squashed by that same popular demand.
How do you call it when you make sure that a certain level of basic rights is reserved for everyone?
I call it a basic function of government that is more common in countries that call themselves democracies, but is not exclusive to them.

That won't happen. Not anytime soon. If it ever did, by then the US would be so weak as for it not to matter.
Not saying that it should!
All I know is that my country and people have indeed learned a very valuable lesson last century.
And yet, when they come back, the vast majority lie about the state of Iraq saying things like, "They only show the bad stuff on the news."
Because they fear they'd be associated with failure? Failure for which they do not carry the responsibility?
Americans simply lack a basic respect for human life. It's an attitude ingrained in out culture.
Yikes. Time to change your "culture"! ;)
The sad part about this: I can see a trend forming over here (Americanization?) which goes into that direction as well. :(
I assure you that I do not.
Hurra! :fluffle: (I'd be surprised to have you state Human Rights Party in your signature and then disliking them... :p)

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/bump.gif before the night.

It is also a masterpiece.

Not particularly.

Who of you hasn't seen the video yet?

First of all, they were in the process of creating and codifying international law at the time. It was something that had never been done before, to prosecute a crime of a magnitude which had never been prosecuted before. Simply, it was a start.

Secondly, there's the fact that "Victors justice" still ruled. And the allies probably felt that whatever they had done was eclipsed by the holocaust. (And to some degree they would be correct)

Thirdly, note how he says ..."will be the law by wich we will be judged tomorrow"? I.e., if these men are convicted, our people might be for the crimes they commit from tomorrow on. Let's face it, the tricky part about Nuremberg was that the germans were convicted for crimes against humanity, a legal construct largely unknown before the war. One could argue that the convictions were in violation of the principles of prohibition of ex post facto laws, and as such it could be... problematic... to convict allied servicemen and women.

i understand that and thought of it too (this probably already happened but if it hasn't an apology would be in place imo). but you'd think that people learn from the past. obviously this isn't happening and "Victors justice" is still ruling, wich it shouldn't.
before they attacked iraq they said that saddam was a dictator and that he tortured people and had weapons of mass destruction etc. and now they are torturing too.

Saw the video. The guy is great, articulate and intelligent.

Thumbs up!