Nuremberg Day 2 Justice Robert H. Jackson's Opening Statement, Nuremberg, November 21, 1945

[LanceCiepiela]

"Real Change You Can Believe In" Obama said - and "no one is above the law" in America, he said, a Constitutional Scholar no less, but Bush Jr never was put in the dock, as credible crimes of torture go unaddressed by those [ President and Congress ] sworn to uphold the laws, and wars of aggression launched on "false pretense" against Iraq and Afghanistan are maintained as if hundred of lies told by Bush Jr were permissible as long as Bush Jr believed that was the right thing to do.

[wardenphil]

The Nuremburg Trial was indeed a great tribute to justice.

[smalltalkerin1301]

@wardenphil It was not the full tribute to justice. But maybe it was a part of a tribute to justice.

[AshyKnucks]

Robert Jackson is simply amazing.

[johncarter44]

"The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which leave no home in the world untouched.”

[johncarter44]

“The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated."

[wardenphil]

The Nuremburg Defendants should not have been hanged or imprisoned.....they should have been nailed to crosses and left there until their dead, rotting flesh parted from the ropes and nails.

[101Dobermanns]

Nuremberg Trial for Bush and Blair!

[ZDWmiamicane]

Absolutely not. All international courts need to be ended, defunded, or nuked. Fuck the United Nations, World Court, and other organization that is threatening out sovereignty.

[sligoker]

Yeah, Churchill and Truman were guility because they tried to end a war started by Germany, with the backing of the GERMAN PEOPLE. There is no moral equivalency between what they did and and what Hitler and Tojo did. If you don't see that then you are really a fascist in disguise.

[noncompIiant]

General Chuck Yeager wrote in his autobiography that he hoped that the allies won the war otherwise it was they who would be tried for war crimes.

[lennhart]

The Bush regime should all be rounded up now and tried for violations of US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441. It prescribes DEATH for violations thereof.

The case is OPEN and SHUT!

I will happily volunteer my services to the prosecution.

[umkemesik]

Sure, I'll play your game. What war crimes are you refering too? And dummy, if you bother reading the statute, and not liberal talking points, you'll see that the very first clause is that the offender or victim HAS TO BE A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES. Well there Mr. Open and shut, you didn't even make it through the first paragraph.

[lennhart]

Re: "What war crimes are you referring too?

The word is 'to' NOT 'too", you idiot.

Secondly, I cited the SPECIFIC FEDERAL LAW under which GEORGE W. BUSH could be prosecuted.

US CODES, TITLE 18, SECTION 2441

It prescribes DEATH for violations thereof.

A FIRST YEAR LAW student has an open and shut case.

I am NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR FUCKIN STUPIDITY and IGNORANCE of the law.

Look it up, dip shit!

[umkemesik]

Hmmm, you know on the legal blogs that I write (that's right faggot, I know the law better than you) I correctly pointed out that liberal/progressive/socialist/­communist scum like yourself like to launch ad hom. attacks, such as criticize someone's spelling. I really don't give a FUK. I understand that you cannot debate me, I you still didn't understand what I said earlier, that this statute would not apply to the civilian executive branch. You, commie-pinko Che loving fag are ignorant.

[seekortry]

@umkemesik If you are referring to the Geneva Convention, unlawful combatants also are afforded many rights to which prisoners taken in the GWOT have been denied. If they are criminals, then you must provide due process and put them on a legitimate trial. These people are either criminals or unlawful combatants under the convention. Bush (and Obama to be fair) have violated the law in this respect.

[umkemesik]

@seekortry The GC applies only to (1) personas part of a uniformed Army and (2) those who follow the GC. A terrorist is not protected by the GC because (1) he does not belong to an Army and (2) he does not follow the same rules. It is widespread liberal propaganda that the GC apply to terrorist.

[seekortry]

@umkemesik Skip past section four and read section five. All prisoners are afforded a basic set of human rights; rights which our government illegally denied to their prisoners. If the prisoners are war criminals, then they should be taken to a federal court and tried. If they are unlawful combatants, then they should be treated as with more rights. Indeed, the document goes as far as to say in a difficult case of classification, go with section four.

[umkemesik]

@seekortry Stop it. Section V states that they should be treated as Section IV until their status is determined. I have yet to hear one offer of proof that any of those prisoners were acting (those who are guilty) under section IV guidelines. I enjoyed are reasoned conversation, have a nice day.

[seekortry]

@umkemesik It says, and so does our code of conduct, that all prisoners be afforded the basic privileges of section IV save a few. If you have captured a criminal, then you must put that person on trial. That is the treaty. It is the law. It is our law too. Unless the United States turned fascist since the old Gulf War days when I was in, those are the rules.

[umkemesik]

@seekortry Exactly, and one of those few that are not under section IV are terrorist. You are a veteran like myself, so you should know many terrorist are from other countries (like Iran) and travel to Irag and Afghanistan - many are not even citizens of that country. They are not protected under GC except a few Judges who are misguided.

[seekortry]

@umkemesik Exactly. Put them on trial. You can't have neither. The guy is a combatant or a criminal.

[MusikAndLuv]

@umkemesik How many wealthy young guys do you see fighting for the us? The real crime is how the Upper Classes in the US have conned the lower classes and minorities into fighting for them. 

[umkemesik]

That is true, however I do not think he was drawing a comparision between Nazi's who killed Jews and persecuted Jews as "criminals" just for being Jews, and the Allies defending themselves.

[AboveAllNations]

Thanks for putting this video up.

I wonder what Robert Jackson thought about the Allied conduct during WWII. According to his own rhetoric, Winston Churchill and Harry Truman are war criminals for the bombing campaigns they ordered on German and Japanese civilians. Why weren't they tried? I strongly support international law, but isn't Nuremberg a case of "victor's justice"?

[coszz]

The Bush regime should stand trail just like this.

[Nayrion70]

if the laws of Nuremberg applied today then Bush and Blair would be held as war criminals, the nazi's were tried for planning and waging an aggressive war, exactly what Bush and Blair have done in Iraq

[eja642]

Those laws do stand today.

The UN Charter Article 2 subsection 4 states respectively(obviously I'm paraphrasing.) No country shall threaten to, or use force against another sovereign state. Article 51 is the self defense exception to this law.

[umkemesik]

How do you figure Mr. Prosecutor when Roosevelt had Germans executed with military tribunals (the term "enemy combatant" came from his administration in WWII). No, they were tried for breaking TREATIES and warring for expansion. You think that Bush and Blair = Hitler and Mussilini (sp). Well, it don't.

[Gravelandart]

@Nayrion70 - The difference is these men at Nuremburg were innocent.

[benjifischman]

@Nayrion70 i dont think you can compare bush to hitler or any nazi for that matter.

[roscogre]

@benjifischman No Bush and Obama are much worse,their wars are for bankers,while Hitler's were for justice.

[911suri]

@roscogre Hitler's war certainly wasn't for justice. He wanted power, he wanted the German people (minus Jews etc) to rule the world. He planned the war long before it really began. I'm not defending the other two, just pointing out your mistake.

[jjfb44]

your ignorance is laughable

[Gabpopp]

Can't believe the view count of this vid is so low. Its such a powerful opening.

[magiclard]

Thus showing the ignorance of the population today of important World events. Some people do not know when the Wars (first and second) began or ended.