Posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2006, at 7:57:16
In reply to Re: If I were an MD, I think I would volunteer to go. » alexandra_k, posted by madeline on October 14, 2006, at 7:37:54
> Hardly a fair comparison do you think?
I think it is a fair comparison (in certain respects) yes.
More to the point, his argument was that the wars were moral equivalents in the following respects:(This has been developed since the Nazi trials)
Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.
[thus Kendall-Smith would have been responsible for his actions and liable for punishment had he followed orders and it been decided later that the war was illegal]
Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
[thus even if the war isn't considered illegal by US or British law international law is what is relevant]
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
[and this is the crucial point. 'i was just following orders' IS NO EXCUSE. Nazi's were tried and executed even though some claimed they were 'just following orders']
Principle V
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
[and that is the bit that is considered relevant to this case]
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War Crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:694101
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20061009/msgs/694694.html