Thread: The Nuremberg Trials established legal precedent for War Criminals - Video

Jun 26, 2010
DVD: Amazon.com: The Nuremberg Trials: Movies & TV

Watch the full film: The Film Archive: The Nuremberg Trials Documentary Film (1950)

The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals, held by the main victorious Allied forces of World War II, most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of the defeated Nazi Germany. The trials were held in the city of Nuremberg, Bavaria, Germany, in 1945-46, at the Palace of Justice. The first and best known of these trials was the Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which tried 22 of the most important captured leaders of Nazi Germany. It was held from November 20, 1945 to October 1, 1946. The second set of trials of lesser war criminals was conducted under Control Council Law No. 10 at the US Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT); among them included the Doctors' Trial and the Judges' Trial. This article primarily deals with the IMT; see the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials for details on those trials.

British War Cabinet documents, released on 2 January 2006, have shown that as early as December 1944, the Cabinet had discussed their policy for the punishment of the leading Nazis if captured. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had then advocated a policy of summary execution in some circumstances, with the use of an Act of Attainder to circumvent legal obstacles, being dissuaded from this only by talks with US leaders later in the war. In late 1943, during the Tripartite Dinner Meeting at the Tehran Conference, the Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, proposed executing 50,000--100,000 German staff officers. US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, joked that perhaps 49,000 would do. Churchill denounced the idea of "the cold blooded execution of soldiers who fought for their country." However, he also stated that war criminals must pay for their crimes and that in accordance with the Moscow Document which he himself had written, they should be tried at the places where the crimes were committed. Churchill was vigorously opposed to executions "for political purposes." According to the minutes of a Roosevelt-Stalin meeting during the Yalta Conference, in February 4, 1945, at the Livadia Palace, President Roosevelt "said that he had been very much struck by the extent of German destruction in the Crimea and therefore he was more bloodthirsty in regard to the Germans than he had been a year ago, and he hoped that Marshal Stalin would again propose a toast to the execution of 50,000 officers of the German Army."

US Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., suggested a plan for the total denazification of Germany; this was known as the Morgenthau Plan. The plan advocated the forced de-industrialisation of Germany. Roosevelt initially supported this plan, and managed to convince Churchill to support it in a less drastic form. Later, details were leaked to the public, generating widespread protest. Roosevelt, seeing strong public disapproval, abandoned the plan, but did not proceed to adopt support for another position on the matter. The demise of the Morgenthau Plan created the need for an alternative method of dealing with the Nazi leadership. The plan for the "Trial of European War Criminals" was drafted by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and the War Department. Following Roosevelt's death in April 1945, the new president, Harry S. Truman, gave strong approval for a judicial process. After a series of negotiations between the Britain, US, the Soviet Union and France, details of the trial were worked out. The trials were set to commence on 20 November 1945, in the Bavarian city of Nuremberg.

2-minute video: US War Criminal 1%: Surrender now or face this future

Posted on March 23, 2012 by Carl Herman



The Nuremberg Trials established legal precedent for War Criminals exactly in kind to US 1% “leaders” today.

Both are cases to prosecute Wars of Aggression that had nothing to do with “self-defense.”Nazi leadership claimed that national “self-defense” was whatever they said. US and Allied leadership rejected this claim because making a term subjective and by dictatorial decree defeats the purpose of having laws that are clear, understood by all parties, and followed.Moreover, the US argued that Nazi leadership was in clear violation of the treaty created after World War 1 to end wars, the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 (my emphases):

ARTICLE I The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

ARTICLE II The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.ARTICLE III… This Treaty shall… remain open as long as may be necessary for adherence by all the other Powers of the world.

The US argument won at Nuremberg. Nazi leaders were found guilty of Wars of Aggression.

Importantly, the US today is in violation of this active treaty (Treaties in Force, “Renunciation of War,” US State Department) as well as the treaty of similar language to end war after World War 2: The UN Charter.

US leaders are just as guilty of Wars of Aggression today because US claims of “self-defense” are unexplained in official documents for armed attack and invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and several other drone-war targeted nations, and in Orwellian opposition to resolving any issue peacefully (full explanation and documentation here).

The only legal exception for use of armed attack is when another nation’s government has used armed attack first; something the US admits did not happen with Afghanistan and Iraq.Moreover, US leadership is actively engaged in war propaganda to expand their Wars of Aggression onto Iran; darkly including first-strike nuclear weapon rhetoric.

And US leadership now actively attacks American citizens:Here is the US government claiming it can Constitutionally assassinate Americans upon the non-reviewable dictate of the leader; a psychopathic step to murder Americans who expose their crimes.

Here is NDAA 2012 where US government claims it can Constitutionally disappear Americans and then appoint a tribunal with death sentence authority (unless unlimited detention is their choice).

Here is the 2006 Military Commissions Act that says the same.

This is fascist terrorism to silence Americans from communicating 1% US War Crimes.

Here is US government claiming it can Constitutionally control-drown (waterboard) anyone they declare a “terrorist” as another terror-tactic to silence dissent.

THE 1% WAR AND ECONOMIC CRIMINALS MUST SURRENDER. NOW.

My offer to speak to Americans from the 1%’s corporate media to argue for Truth and Reconciliation for the 1% money and War Criminals stands.

I consider allowing surrender and peaceful retirement fair trade to end their crimes.

They will not retain stolen and criminal assets; I will argue for comfortable pension.T

heir other option is full criminal and civil prosecution for killing millions, harming billions, and looting trillions of our dollars. This path occupies their remaining years in courts and prison.

This path is certain, given the 99%’s exponential path of education and eternal will for freedom.

2-minute video: US War Criminal 1%: Surrender now or face this future - Washington's Blog

http://www.alipac.us/f19/colo-unders...stians-275662/

if you notice... they are deleting as many videos as they can on war crimes tribunals