Thread: EU Leader Calls for Throwing Out Nuremberg Code

EU Leader Calls for Throwing Out Nuremberg Code

On Wednesday, Ursula Van Der Leyen – the chief of the European Union (EU) Commission – told the press that she would like to see the long-standing Nuremberg Code ignored completely in favor of allowing countries to force vaccinate anyone who is refusing to take the experimental jab.
Her alarming comments come just days after Germany followed Austria’s lead, mandating an authoritarian lockdown on only the unvaccinated.
In addition to being in full support of the segregated lockdown, von der Leyen said it was “understandable and appropriate” for EU countries to discuss mandatory COVID vaccinations.
Forcing individuals to take this experimental and potentially dangerous vaccine against their will would be in direct violation of the Nuremberg Code which was established in 1947 in the immediate wake of the horrific medical experiments and human rights atrocities by Nazis during the Holocaust.
The laws expressly state that
“the voluntary consent of the human subject is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL,”
meaning that the individual is able to
“exercise free power of choice, WITHOUT the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior forms of constraint or coercion“ – i.e taking away your right to work if you are not vaccinated.
A leading cause for the code’s creation was the Nazi’s sickening performance of medical experiments on subjects without their consent. These procedures, typically performed under the command of high-ranking officials such as Dr. Josef Mengele, were some of the worst and most deranged ever documented. Since then, full and proactive ongoing consent for any medical procedure has been required by law in western nations that recognize the Nuremberg Laws.
The only way countries in the EU would be able to get away with forced vaccinations for this mild virus, which is an extraordinarily unethical and atrocious violation of human rights, is to do away with the Nuremberg laws, or just ignore them completely.
SOURCE
Unfortunately for the neo-Nazis, The Penalty For Crimes Against Humanity is the same as it was for the Nazis – DEATH.

Hopefully we’ll see Ms. Van Der Leyen and her ilk swinging before that can inflict more murder on the world.









EU Leader Calls for Throwing Out Nuremberg Code | John C. Carleton (johnccarleton.org)

Forget The Nuremberg Code, EU Chief Says It’s Time To Consider Mandatory Jabs

December 5, 2021 Niamh Harris News 15 Comments

The president of the EU commission Ursula Von Der Leyen told the press on Wednesday that mandatory vaccination must be considered to tackle the spread of the “highly contagious” omicron variant.

The EU chief who is a former medical doctor, said mandatory jabs must be considered as a policy to counter the worryingly low take-up across the bloc while urging the 27 member states to step up their vaccination campaigns.
Her comments appear to suggest that he is in favour of scrapping the long-standing Nuremburg Code and forcing people to get vaccinated against covid.
As podcaster Dr. Jordan Peterson sarcastically pointed out:

“Hey, it’s just the Nuremberg code. Only what we learned from the Nazi atrocities, not least those that were medical”


Dr Jordan B Peterson
@jordanbpeterson

Hey, it's just the Nuremberg code. Only what we learned from the Nazi atrocities, not least those that were medical.



Michael P Senger
@MichaelPSenger

Shortly after Austria became first country to make COVID vaccines compulsory, EU chief Ursula von Der Leyen calls for dispensing with the Nuremberg Code and making vaccination mandatory across Europe. Here’s Ursula last month with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourlahttps://bbc.com/news/world-europe-59497462…






4:14 PM · Dec 1, 2021

The Post Millenniall reports: In Austria, people over 12 who are not vaccinated are currently almost completely locked down, only allowed outside for absolutely essential tasks like food or medical appointments.
In an interview she gave to the BBC, the EU chief said that it was “understandable and appropriate” to consider vaccine mandates, especially due to the new Omicron variant of COVID 19, which has been now detected in 12 different member nations of the EU.
“How we can encourage and potentially think about mandatory vaccination within the European Union? This needs discussion. This needs a common approach, but it is a discussion that I think has to be led,” commented Van Der Leyen to the BBC.
The WHO, however, has strongly encouraged countries not to enact travel bans because of Omicron, and further iterated that early data points to the fact that most Omicron cases are not severe. Most of the world’s governments are not paying attention to the WHO’s guidelines on this occasion, however.
The Nuremberg Code was enacted in 1947, immediately after the Second World War to prevent many of the egregious human rights abuses enacted by the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese during the war.
Especially were at issue the performance of medical procedures on subjects without their consent. These procedures, often performed under the command of people such as Dr. Josef Mengele or Hideki Tojo, often were akin to the worst kinds of torture. Since then, full and proactive ongoing consent has been required.
Reproduced here below is the section of the Nuremberg Code which is in question.




Forget The Nuremberg Code, EU Chief Says It's Time To Consider Mandatory Jabs - News Punch

The Nuremberg Laws

Archives Receives Original Nazi Documents That “Legalized” Persecution of Jews

Winter 2010, Vol. 42, No. 4
By Greg Bradsher

Enlarge
Law for the Safeguard of German Blood and German Honor barred marriage between Jews and other Germans. (National Archives Gift Collection)

It was in Nuremberg, officially designated as the "City of the Reich Party Rallies," in the province of Bavaria, where Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party in 1935 changed the status of German Jews to that of Jews in Germany, thus "legally" establishing the framework that eventually led to the Holocaust.
Ten years later, it would also be in Nuremberg, now nearly destroyed by British and American heavy bombing, where surviving prominent Nazi leaders were put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The war in Europe ended in May 1945, and soon the attention of the Allies turned to prosecuting those Third Reich leaders who had been responsible for, among other things, the persecution of the Jews and the Holocaust.
The trials began November 20, 1945, in Nuremberg's Palace of Justice, which had somehow survived the intense Allied bombings of 1944 and 1945.
The next day, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, named by President Harry S. Truman as the U.S. chief counsel for the prosecution of Axis criminality, made his opening statement to the International Military Tribunal.
"The most serious actions against Jews were outside of any law, but the law itself was employed to some extent. They were the infamous Nuremberg decrees of September 15, 1935," Jackson said.

The so-called "Nuremberg Laws"— a crucial step in Nazi racial laws that led to the marginalization of German Jews and ultimately to their segregation, confinement, and extermination—were key pieces of evidence in the trials, which resulted in 12 death sentences and life or long sentences for other Third Reich leaders.
But the prosecution was forced to use images of the laws from the official printed version, for the original copies were nowhere to be found.
However, they had been found earlier, by U.S. counter-intelligence troops, who passed them up the line until they came to the Third Army's commander, Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. The general took them home to California. There, they remained for decades, their existence not revealed until 1999.
Finally, this past summer, the original copies of the laws, signed by Hitler and other Nazi leaders, were transferred to the National Archives.
Third Reich Began Persecutions
Years Before Laws Enacted in 1935
Enlarge
The signature page of the Law for the Safeguard of German Blood and German Honor. Adolf Hitler s signature is at the top of the list. (National Archives Gift Collection)

The Nuremberg Laws made official the Nazi persecution of the Jews, but the “legal” attack on the Jews actually began two years earlier.
After the Nazis took power in Germany in 1933, they became increasingly engaged in activities involving the persecution of the Jewish and other minority populations. They did it under the color of law, using official decrees as a weapon against the Jews.
In 1933 Jews were denied the right to hold public office or civil service positions; Jewish immigrants were denaturalized; Jews were denied employment by the press and radio; and Jews were excluded from farming. The following year, Jews were excluded from stock exchanges and stock brokerage.
During these years, when the Nazi regime was still rather shaky and the Nazis feared opposition from within and resistance from without, they did nothing drastic, and the first measures appeared, in relative terms, rather mild.
After Germany publicly announced in May 1935 its rearmament in violation of the Versailles Treaty, Nazi party radicals began more forcibly demanding that Hitler, the party, and the government take more drastic measures against the Jews. They wanted to completely segregate them from the social, political, and economic life of Germany. These demands increased as the summer progressed.
On August 20, 1935, the U.S. embassy in Berlin reported to the secretary of state:
To sum up the Jewish situation at the moment, it may be said that the whole movement of the Party is one of preparing itself and the people for general drastic and so-called legal action to be announced in the near future probably following the Party Congress to be held in Nuremberg beginning on September 10th. One has only to review the statements made by important leaders since the end of the Party's summer solstice to realize the trend of affairs.
Enlarge
The Reich Citizen Law stripped German Jews of their German citizenship. (National Archives Gift Collection)
James G. McDonald, high commissioner for refugees under the League of Nations, then in Berlin, wrote in his diary August 22 that "New legislation is imminent, but it is difficult to tell exactly what the provisions will be. Certainly, they will tend further to differentiate the Jews from the mass of Germans and to disadvantage them in new ways."
William E. Dodd, the American ambassador to Germany, on September 7 sent a long dispatch to the secretary of state regarding current development in the "Jewish Situation." He reported "it appears that even now discussions are still continuing in the highest circles respecting the policy to be evolved at the Nuremberg party Congress." He added:

It is believed that a declaration respecting the Jews will be made at Nuremberg which will be followed by the announcement at the Congress itself, or shortly thereafter, or a body of legislation whose ultimate character will depend upon the result of the discussions now in progress. Either one or the other will probably contain drastic features to appease the radicals but may be offset by certain appearances of moderation to be emphasized later to facilitate such dealing abroad. . . . An idea that may influence policy at Nuremberg, and in any case now seems to be uppermost in the minds of Party extremists, is that, however drastic the measures adopted, they will be formally rooted in law, and that the sanctity with which law is regarded, and the discipline with which it is observed in Germany, may impress foreign opinion favorably.

On September 9, McDonald wrote Felix Warburg, a major American Jewish leader, that he was unable to get a clear picture what may be expected in the threatened new legislation, but "One can only be certain that the result will be to penalize the Jews in various ways and on the basis of pseudo-legality, which causes grim forebodings."
Nazi Rally in Nuremberg
Hailed Passage of the Laws
At their annual rally held in Nuremberg on September 15, Nazi party leaders announced, after the Reichstag had adopted them, new laws that institutionalized many of the racial theories underpinning Nazi ideology.
Enlarge
The Reich Flag Law established the the swastika flag as the new national flag of Germany. (National Archives Gift Collection)
The so-called Nuremberg Laws, signed by Hitler and several other Nazi officials, were the cornerstone of the legalized persecution of Jews in Germany. They stripped German Jews of their German citizenship, barred marriage and "extramarital sexual intercourse" between Jews and other Germans, and barred Jews from flying the German flag, which would now be the swastika.
On September 16, Ambassador Dodd sent a cable to the secretary of state about the Nuremberg Laws. He wrote:

So far it is only possible to say that main trend of Nuremberg congress was to cater to radical sentiment within the Party. The laws passed last night concerning citizenship, the swastika as national flag and for protection of German blood and honor (by means of preventing marriage and sexual intercourse between Aryan and Jews and flying of the German flag by the latter) obviously need further definition and Foreign Office advised waiting for executive supplementary regulations. [These, issued on November 14, provided specific definitions of who a Jew was.]

Dodd followed up the next day with a dispatch to the secretary of state regarding the Nuremberg Party Congress: "Race propaganda and psychology ran through practically all the speeches like a scarlet thread, obviously in preparation for the laws that were to be adopted by the Reichstag."
He added: "The new laws against the Jews deceive very few people that the last word has been said on that question or that new discriminatory measures will not eventually follow within the limit of what is possible without bringing about too great a disturbance in business."
On September 19, Dodd sent the secretary of state two copies of the Reichsgestzblatt [Reich Law Gazette] of September 16, which contained the Nuremberg Laws and also included translations of them.
In transmitting them, Dodd wrote: "The anti-Jewish legislation should be sufficiently severe to please Party extremists for some time."
They were not. More persecutions followed in the years before World War II began in 1939. The extermination of the Jews and others followed, not only in Germany, but through most of Europe.
Original Nuremberg Documents
Are Found, But Then Disappear
The Moscow Declaration of 1943, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Marshal Josef Stalin, took note of the atrocities perpetrated by the Germans and laid down the policy that the major criminals would “be punished by the joint decision of the Governments of the Allies."
But first the war had to be concluded before the Moscow Declaration could be implemented.
As the Allied forces overran Germany in April 1945, on April 20 (Hitler's birthday), elements of the Third and 45th Infantry divisions of the U.S. Seventh Army entered Nuremberg and after hard fighting effectively secured the town. A week later, Hitler committed suicide in Berlin, and the week after that, the Germans surrendered.
Now the Moscow Declaration could be put into effect.
Meanwhile, in late April 1945, M.Sgt. Martin Dannenberg, leading the 203rd U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) Detachment, working with the U.S. Third Army, was roaming through Bavaria with two other men, carrying out various CIC assignments.
An informant led him and his team to a bank vault in the town of Eichstaett, about 45 miles due south of Nuremberg. There, a German financial official who had a key opened the vault, then handed over to the American soldiers some documents in a yellow envelope, sealed with red wax swastikas.
Dannenberg slit the top of the envelope and pulled the documents out. The first thing he saw was the signature "Adolf Hitler."
Sgt. Frank Perls, a German-born Jew (though baptized as a Protestant) who joined the U.S. Army in 1943 after fleeing his homeland in 1933, was one of two men accompanying Dannenberg. Translating the documents, Perls quickly realized they were the infamous Nuremberg Laws.
Dannenberg turned them over to his commanding officer, who ordered Dannenberg and Perls to deliver them to the U.S. Third Army commander, Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.
War Crimes Trials Begin
—Without Original Copies
Enlarge
Hermann Goering, Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop, and other defendants sit in the courtroom of the German war crimes trials in Nuremberg, 1945. (238-NT-592)
On May 2, less than a week after the CIC special agents found the Nuremberg Laws and a few days before the war in Europe ended, Truman appointed Associate Justice Jackson as chief of counsel for the United States in its prosecution of the Allied case against the major Axis war criminals.
During the next three months, Jackson spent most of the time in London negotiating with the British, French, and Soviet representatives over an agreement to prosecute the major Nazi war criminals before an international tribunal. They would reach agreement on August 8.
Meanwhile, immediately after Jackson's appointment, the staff of the Office of the United States Chief of Counsel, which grew to more than 600 personnel, started collecting documentary evidence that could be used by the prosecutors.
Among the evidence gathered were volumes of the Reichsgestzblatt, which contained various German laws, decrees, and regulations, including those relating to the persecution of the Jews.
In the September 16, 1935, edition were the Nuremberg Laws, which had been adopted by the Reichstag the previous day and promulgated by its president, Hermann Goering. Photostats and translations of them were placed in the U.S. evidence file and eventually made available to the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.
The prosecutors may have wished they had the original laws themselves, as they would have made for dramatic evidence since two of the defendants, Wilhelm Frick and Rudolf Hess, had signed them. But, unfortunately, they did not. General Patton had them.
Patton Ignores Orders,Takes
Original Copies To California
Patton, like so many of his soldiers, was a souvenir hunter.
Rather than ensuring the copies of the Nuremberg Laws that he received from Dannenberg and Perls were delivered to the appropriate authorities, he took them home to California after the war in Europe was over.
In doing so, Patton was violating Supreme Headquarters Allied Expedition Forces (SHAEF) and 12th Army Group directives of November 9 and 23, 1944, issued by Generals Dwight D. Eisenhower and Omar N. Bradley, respectively, regarding seizing and holding Nazi party and German government records.
Six months after Patton took the Nuremberg Laws to California, the trial began. Justice Jackson, in his opening statement to the court on November 21, as noted earlier, referenced the Nuremberg Laws, citing the version published in the Reichsgestzblatt of 1935.
During the tribunal's December 13 session, an assistant trial counsel for the United States addressed the court about the Nazi persecution of the Jews. In making his presentation, he said: "When the Nazi Party gained control of the German State, a new and terrible weapon against the Jews was placed within their grasp, the power to apply the force of the state against them. This was done by the issuance of decrees."
He then proceeded to list them, including the Nuremberg Laws as published in the 1935 Reichsgestzblatt. After discussing them, he asked the court to take judicial notice of the published decrees. From a legal perspective, theReichsgestzblatt was certainly authoritative and acceptable to the tribunal under its charter regarding rules of evidence, but it certainly would have been more dramatic and effective to have confronted the defendants with the originals, as the prosecutors did with other documents.
The trial would go on another 10 months, with references often made to the Nuremberg Laws. On September 30 and October 1, 1946, the tribunal rendered judgment. Of the three defendants most closely associated with the Nuremberg Laws, Herman Goering and Wilhelm Frick were sentenced to death, and Rudolf Hess was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Missing Documents Reemerge.
Now in the National Archives
Enlarge
Gen. George S. Patton presented the Nuremberg Laws to Huntington trustee Robert Millikan on June 11, 1945. (Courtesy of the Huntington Library)
A week later, with his work over, Justice Jackson sent President Truman a final report about his activities and noted that the war crimes documentation, including captured records, was the property of the United States and that an agency should take custody of it on behalf of the United States.
"The matter," he wrote, "is of such importance as to warrant calling it to your attention."
Two months later, the records of the U.S. Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis Criminality were offered to the National Archives, and in 1947 the National Archives accessioned them. Within the records are photostatic and translated copies of the Nuremberg Laws as published in the Reichsgestzblatt and referred to during the trial.
General Patton had deposited the original Nuremberg Laws at the Huntington Library, near his home in the Los Angeles area in June 1945; Patton died as a result of injuries received in an auto accident in Germany in December 1945 and had left no instructions regarding the laws.
Their existence at the Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens was not revealed until 1999, when they went on display for 10 years at the Skirball Cultural Center in Los Angeles until late 2009.
In the summer of 2010, the National Archives accepted donation from the Huntington Library of the original Nuremberg Laws—63 years later than they would have if Patton had turned them over to the appropriate authorities.
Greg Bradsher, an archivist at the National Archives and Records Administration, specializes in World War II intelligence, looted assets, and war crimes. His previous contributions to Prologue have included articles the discovery of Nazi gold in the Merkers Mine (Spring 1999); the story of Fritz Kolbe, 1900–1943 (Spring 2002); Japan's secret "Z Plan" in 1944 (Fall 2005); Founding Father Elbridge Gerry (Spring 2006); the third Archivist of the United States, Wayne Grover (Winter 2009); and Operation Blissful, a World War II diversionary attack on an island in the Pacific (Fall 2010).
Note on Sources
Published in 42 volumes, the Trial of the Major War Criminals before The International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg 14 November 1945–1 October 1946 (Nuremberg: International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1947–1949), contains the day-to-day proceedings of the tribunal and documents offered in evidence by the prosecution and defense.
Office of United States Chief of Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946), vol. I, Chapter 12, contains information about documents, including those not introduced as evidence during the International Military Tribunal, relating to the persecution of the Jews in Germany.
The State Department's Central Decimal File, 1930–1939 (General Records of the Department of State, Record Group 59), under decimals 862.00 and 862.4016, contains reports on political developments in Germany and the persecution of German Jews. Also useful regarding the persecution of the Jews in Germany beginning in 1935 is Richard Breitman, Barbara McDonald Stewart, and Severin Hochberg, eds., Refugees and Rescue: The Diaries and Papers of James G. McDonald 1935–1945 (Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana: Indiana University Press, in association with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC, 2009).
Useful for understanding the adoption of the Nuremberg Laws, their discovery by the Counterintelligence Corps team in 1945, General Patton's acquisition and disposition of them in 1945, their custody by the Huntington Library (1945–1999), and their subsequent exhibition at the Skirball Cultural Center is Anthony M. Platt with Cecilia E. O'Leary, Bloodlines: Recovering Hitler's Nuremberg Laws, From Patton's Trophy to Public Memorial (Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2006).

Articles published in Prologue do not necessarily represent the views of NARA or of any other agency of the United States Government.




The Nuremberg Laws | National Archives

Oh I bet you do; even Retarded Joey is terrified of people even talking about this one

COVID Shot Mandates and the Nuremberg Code

Jul 30, 2021

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The so-called “vaccines” against COVID-19 have only been approved for experimental and investigational use, and as Liberty Counsel pointed out, the government mandates are violating federal law. Interestingly, the FDA includes on its website the Nuremberg Code which emphasizes that people cannot be forced to take experimental drugs without their full consent. However, neither the federal law nor the Nuremberg Code mean anything to Joe Biden and the Department of Justice (DOJ). All of the COVID-19 mRNA injections (Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson) have received only authorization of emergency use (EUA) and not full FDA approval. The EUAs for both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA experimental injections and any other EUA shot require fact sheets to be given to vaccination providers and recipients. These fact sheets state clearly that getting the “vaccine” is optional. For example, the one for recipients states, “It is your choice to receive or not receive the COVID-19 vaccine,” and if “you decide to not receive it, it will not change your standard of medical care.” The issue of forced medical experimentation in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s and the related trials of doctors and public health officials led to the adoption of the Nuremberg Code.The Nuremberg Code was created in 1947 in Germany because Nazi doctors were conducting inhumane and often deadly experiments on prisoners in concentration camps without their consent. Those doctors involved in these horrible crimes attempted to excuse themselves by arguing that there were no explicit rules governing medical research on human beings in Germany during the period. During the Nuremberg trials, those doctors and Nazis were found guilty of crimes against humanity. Therefore, the Nuremberg Code was developed in response to this experimentation to protect humans in medical research. The Nuremberg Code consists of 10 principles. The first principle states the voluntary consent of the human subject is essential in any experiment on people. Other principles include experiments should be for the good of society, that all unnecessary physical and mental suffering or injury should be avoided, and no experiment should be conducted if there is good reason to believe it may result in death or a disabling injury. The Nuremberg Code also states that people should be free to withdraw from the experiment if they are suffering, and that scientists must be prepared to end the experiment if they have good reason to believe it may cause injury, disability or death to the subject if it continues. The Nuremberg Code (from the National Institutes of Health website):

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

1. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

1. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

1. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

1. No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

1. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

1. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

1. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

1. During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible.

1. During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

[“Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10”, Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.] Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Forcing people to receive one of these experimental COVID injections is a violation of federal law and ethical principles set forth in the Nuremberg Code. The Nazi doctors were found guilty of crimes against humanity. Why are we repeating this dark history in America by forcing people to inject an experimental drug into their bodies? The history of the Nazi regime forcing people to undergo medical experiments cannot be forgotten and must not be repeated. Businesses, schools and governments that require these experimental shots have learned nothing from this dark history or the failed Swine and Anthrax vaccines. We will not let Joe Biden and the DOJ twist the law and hurt people.” Liberty Counsel provides broadcast quality TV interviews via Hi-Def Skype and LTN at no cost.

COVID Shot Mandates and the Nuremberg Code - Liberty Counsel (lc.org)

EU Chief Calls For Trashing the Nuremberg Code

By Sebastian
DEC 4, 2021

Following WWII, the Nuremberg Code established a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation.
After the Nuremberg trials, the code of medical ethics laid the foundation to which physicians must conform when carrying out experiments on human subjects.
It established the principle of voluntary informed consent and ensured individuals the right to control his/her body.
The code has profoundly impacted international human rights law to protect patients from suffering unnecessary pain and injury.

CIRP lists the ten points of the Nuremberg Code:

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experimen
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”
If an individual says NO to any medical experiment, they don’t give consent.

Yet, EU Chief Ursula von der Leyen wants to trash this basic code of medical ethics and allow humans to be Big Pharma guinea pigs.
The Nuremberg Code was enacted in 1947 to avoid a repeat of the heinous crimes committed by the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
With the EU Chief favoring a removal of this code of medical ethics, it shows the European Union has the same thought process as those war criminals.

Source: WeLoveTrump

EU Chief Calls For Trashing the Nuremberg Code - DAILY NEWS OF AMERICA

Nuremberg Code Outlaws Forced Medical Procedures, Including Vaxes

Published on April 14, 2021
Written by sott.net

Image: US Army

The ‘Doctors’ Trial’ during the Nuremberg Trials following WW2, which established the Nuremberg Code regulating the ethics of medical intervention.Some people might not be familiar with the verb “to dissemble”, but we all need to become familiar with it, because there is a lot of dissembling going on.

It basically means to deliberately conceal something or obfuscate it, so that one’s attention is misdirected or deflected from whatever the Dissembler wishes to obscure. Like the truth. And in this case, the truth about the Nuremberg Code and the protection it provides us from accepting any forced medical procedure or therapy at all.
Together with casting doubts and slander, dissembling is one of the chief tools in the propagandist toolbox.
A few days ago, I wrote an article explaining that forced vaccinations are a violation of the Nuremberg Code. Note the word, “forced”. In fact, any forced medical procedure or therapy is against the Nuremberg Code.
All medical procedures and therapies must have fully informed and freely given consent, to the greatest extent possible – which means that people who are conscious and able to decide things for themselves remain in control of their medical destiny.
It’s only when you are in desperate straits and unconscious that medical professionals are allowed to step in and make decisions “for you”.
This is all cut and dried and set in cement since the 1940s, but now we have people trying to dissemble it and water it down and reinterpret the Nuremberg Code as applying only to medical experimentation.
It does not.
The Code itself explains exactly what it applies to, and even though the cases giving rise to the Code arose from medical experiments in Concentration Camps and involved forced medical experimentation on unwilling subjects, the core of the Nuremberg Code rose to the occasion and outlawed all kinds of forced medical procedures and therapies. Not just experimental procedures.
Any medical procedure or therapy that you don’t want to participate in, you have the full, free, and unprejudiced right to refuse. Period.
Go back and read Article 6, Sections 1 and 3, of the Nuremberg Code for yourselves.
Don’t take anyone else’s word for it. Not even mine. Be sure. And make good use of the information if anyone comes to your door with a needle in hand.
Another good one to quote in their faces is their own cherished Roe vs. Wade decision, the excuse for allowing abortion on demand. My body, my choice. That applies to every aspect of your body, what you take out and what you put into it, too.
Here is an example of a dissembling ‘news’ article so that you can see exactly how they dissemble the actual important information and misrepresent it to mean something else:

Image: © boomlive.in
The same article draws attention to the fact that the Nuremberg Code doesn’t make vaccination illegal. Who said it did? They are deliberately creating a False Argument as a means to obfuscate.
The Nuremberg Code makes FORCED vaccination illegal – along with all other forced medical procedures and therapies. The Nuremberg Code doesn’t single out vaccinations or any other procedure or therapy – it outlaws all forced procedures and therapies with the same broad brush.
So if you want to be vaccinated, after being fully informed of all the possible downsides and consequences, after understanding exactly what the vaccine contains, after understanding that you will have extremely limited rights of recourse if you voluntarily take the injection and something goes wrong – then you are free to take your chances and do as you will. It’s your choice.
The Nuremberg Code won’t protect you from your own fully disclosed consent.
But it will protect you from being imposed upon by politicians and “private security forces” hired by banks that are colluding in this scheme to defraud America under color of law.
The Nuremberg Code gives you full standing, if they attempt to violate it and force any kind of involuntary or undisclosed vaccination on you by any means – whether by wrestling you to the ground or by threatening to deprive you of any other right or privilege, including the right to travel and use public facilities.
All indications are that we are entering a very dark chapter in American history. You will need to stay alert and stay informed, and you are not being given straight information from any of the commercial media channels or their acolytes and paid trolls. You need to read things with a critical eye and be able to discern the tricks the propagandists employ.
Now read the actual Nuremberg Code Sections – Article 6, Sections 1 and 3.
Then stand your solid ground against forced medical procedures of any kind and also against all the dissembling BS artists out there, because they are multiplying like bunnies in spring. You can take a stand against this Plague of Liars, by joining other like-minded and alert Americans who have reclaimed their birthright political standing and who are now undertaking the responsibility of self-governance – concerning their health and all other matters – via their State Assembly.
Comment:
The author has since acknowledged that she mixed up the Nuremberg Code with later codifications under international law that gave primacy to the principles of informed consent and individual choice in public health programs.
The ‘Article 6, Sections 1 and 3’ she refers to is the following from the 2006 UN Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights:
Article 6, section 1:

Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.

Article 6, section 3:

In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.

Clearly, mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations fall foul of the Nuremberg Code, on multiple counts.
The Covidians will of course talk their way around the Nuremberg Code by claiming it only applies to medical experiments, whereas Covid-19 vaccines are rubber-stamped as ‘legitimate govt-approved health programs’.
They’re not. They’re completely experimental, and fall foul even of today’s lax vaccine regulations, which have been ‘suspended’ under the patently false claim that Covid-19 is a ‘deadly pandemic’ presenting a ‘dire threat to global public health’.
Anyone who is involved in pushing through or carrying out mandatory vaccination programs ‘because Covid’ will be in breach of the Nuremberg Code and international law. As such they will have ‘gone Nazi’ and be personally liable in any future trials for crimes against humanity.
Remember, post-WW2 trials for crimes against humanity established that “I was just carrying out orders” is NOT a legal defense.
See more here: sott.net

Nuremberg Code Outlaws Forced Medical Procedures, including Vaxes | Principia Scientific Intl. (principia-scientific.com)

THE NUREMBERG CODE

Video at the page link


Medical Ethics

Medical professionals were put on trial after the war for their participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Holocaust. The trial sparked questions about medical ethics in the aftermath of the brutal experiments on prisoners in the camp system.
Medical Case: US prosecutor details illegal experimentsThe Medical Case was one of 12 war crimes trials held before an American tribunal as part of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings. The trial dealt with doctors and nurses who had participated in the killing of physically and mentally impaired Germans and who had performed medical experiments on people imprisoned in concentration camps. Here, chief prosecutor Brigadier General Telford Taylor reads into evidence a July 1942 report detailing Nazi high-altitude experiments and outlines the prosecution's goals for the trial.

• National Archives - Film

• View Archival Details

On December 9, 1946, an American military tribunal opened criminal proceedings against 23 leading German physicians and administrators for their willing participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity. This case is known as the "Doctors Trial" (USA v. Karl Brandt et. al). On August 19, 1947, the judges of the tribunal delivered their verdict. But before announcing the guilt or innocence of each defendant, they confronted the difficult question of medical experimentation on human beings.
Several German doctors had argued in their own defense that their experiments differed little from those conducted before the war by German and American scientists. Furthermore they showed that no international law or informal statement differentiated between legal and illegal human experimentation. This argument was a great concern to two US doctors who had worked with the prosecution during the trial, Dr. Andrew Ivy and Dr. Leo Alexander.
As a result, on April 17, 1947, Dr. Alexander submitted a memorandum to the United States Counsel for War Crimes. The memo outlined six points that defined legitimate medical research. The trial's verdict of August 19 reiterated almost all of these points in a section entitled "Permissible Medical Experiments." It also revised the original six points into ten, and these ten points became known as the "Nuremberg Code."
In the half century following the trial, the code informed numerous international ethics statements. Its legal force, however, was not well established. Nevertheless, it remains a landmark document on medical ethics and one of the most lasting products of the "Doctors Trial."
Permissible Medical ExperimentsClick here to copy a link to this section

From the trial transcript1
The great weight of the evidence before us is to the effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probably cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
Author(s): United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC



The Nuremberg Code | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)

Its going to get really bad from here

Nuremberg Code of 1947 – refusing the vaccine

Nuremberg Code of 1947 - refusing the vaccine - Vaccine Information, Journals, Studies (anti-vaccines.com)

too late; there will be Tribunals; the Rats are going to start running for the Hide Locations; it is going to be biblical

Brave German Parliament Member: "Will You Tell them You Were Just Following Orders?”

BRAVE German EU Parliament Member Delivers SOS Message On Behalf of “COVID” Oppressed Australian Citizens: “So what will you tell your grandchildren? Will you tell them you were just following orders?” [VIDEO]

By Patty McMurray | Dec 7, 2021

In the age of the CCP virus, bravery is becoming more and more uncommon. Citizens worldwide have freely and without question surrendered fundamental human rights simply because their government told them to. Protests are raging around the world as more and more citizens rise up against authoritarian rule and fight back with every last breath for their freedoms.
Besides Communist China and North Korea, Australia has become, without a doubt, the worst nation in the world for stripping its citizens of their fundamental human rights in the name of “safety” from COVID.

This video gives the world a look inside the “concentration camps” where unvaccinated and people and people exposed to COVID are being shipped. As you watch this horrific video, remember that only two years ago, Australians were free citizens.



Zaid Hamid
@ZaidZamanHamid

Concentration camps are already up and running in Australia.. Where unvaccinated people are being locked down & isolated..The society is now divided between vaccinated and unvaccinated...While the definition of vaccinated is evolving every week....The worst nightmare is here...

Watch on Twitter

4:22 AM · Dec 4, 2021

Trending: BREAKING: Newsmax Reports Pope Francis “Is Dying”

Some of the world’s largest protests against human rights abuses are taking place in Germany, a nation committed to never again allowing a totalitarian regime to control its citizens against their will.
The incredibly courageous EU MP Christina Anderson delivered a powerful videotaped message for the citizens of Australia. In her passionate plea, the German EU MP asks the world to join her in solidarity against the atrocious abuses against its citizens.

​Here’s a transcript of her SOS message to the world on behalf of the “people of Australia”:

“I will do whatever I can to make it known to the world that your once free and liberal democracy has been transformed into a totalitarian regime which tramples on human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law…I am a German, and we once asked our grandparents how they could have just stood by in silence, allowing a horrific totalitarian regime to come about. Anyone could have known; all they had to do was open their eyes and take a look. The vast majority chose not to. So what will you tell your grandchildren? Will you tell them you did not know? Will you tell them you were just following orders? You need to understand it is not about breaking the fourth wave. It is about breaking people…We need to stop our governments from transforming our free and democratic societies into totalitarian regimes. We need to do it now. We need to stand up now.”

Watch:

Video at the page Link

Americans who watch the atrocities taking place in formerly free nations like Australia are getting a preview of what it looks like when citizens accept that they are defenseless

BRAVE German EU Parliament Member Delivers SOS Message On Behalf of "COVID" Oppressed Australian Citizens: "So what will you tell your grandchildren? Will you tell them you were just following orders?" [VIDEO] (100percentfedup.com)