Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmccarrell
My point about Nuremberg was that we did kill a series of leaders from other countries when we had allies with us. Technically, we really had no right to do that under your statement that the US doesn't execute leaders. My point is that the reason why we don't execute foreign leaders right now is by executive order, which I believe was signed by Ford. Any president can void that order and resume killing enemy leaders. I'd be all for it, anyway.
Of course the US isn't officially going to execute or assassinate anyone. We usually subcontract those things out, like with the Saddam execution. We don't admit it, but we do kill enemy leaders.
|
Do you ever research anything?
Creation of the courts
At the meetings in Tehran (1943), Yalta (1945) and Potsdam (1945), the three major wartime powers, the United States, Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, agreed on the format of punishment for those responsible for war-crimes during World War II. France was also awarded a place on the tribunal.
The legal basis for the trial was established by the London Charter, issued on August 8, 1945, which restricted the trial to "punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries". Some 200 German war crimes defendants were tried at Nuremberg, and 1,600 others were tried under the traditional channels of military justice. The legal basis for the jurisdiction of the court was that defined by the Instrument of Surrender of Germany, political authority for Germany had been transferred to the Allied Control Council, which having sovereign power over Germany could choose to punish violations of international law and the laws of war. Because the court was limited to violations of the laws of war, it did not have jurisdiction over crimes that took place before the outbreak of war on September 3, 1939.
The war crimes tribunal tried and punished personnel only from Axis countries. Accusations arose claiming victor's justice, since Allied war crimes could not be tried. It is, however, usual that the armed forces of a civilised country issue their forces with detailed guidance on what is and is not permitted under their military code. These are drafted to include any international treaty obligations and the customary laws of war. For example, at the trial of Otto Skorzeny, his defence was in part based on the Field Manual published by the War Department of the United States Army, on 1 October 1940, and the American Soldiers' Handbook. If a member of the armed forces breaks their own military code then they can expect to face a court martial. When members of the Allied armed forces broke their military codes, they could be and were tried, as, for example, at the Biscari Massacre trials. The unconditional surrender of the Axis powers was unusual and led directly to the formation of the international tribunals. Usually, international wars end conditionally and the treatment of suspected war criminals makes up part of the peace treaty. In most cases those who are not prisoners of war are tried under their own judicial system if they are suspected of committing war crimes – as happened to some Finns at the end of the concurrent Finnish-Soviet Continuation War. In restricting the international tribunal to trying suspected Axis war crimes, the Allies were acting within normal international law.
______________________________________________
This painstaking establishment of authority is wildly different than marching on to Bagdad and shooting SH in the head without a trial. That is an assasination, which is not what the N. trials were
You do realize you have yet to prove a point in this thread