The Nuremberg Trials. Possibly the most well known and highly publicised of all war-crime trials ever. The defendants - the last remaining of the Nazi high command, including Martin Bormann, Karl Doenitz, Hermann Goring, Rudolf Hess, Alfred Jodl, and Ernst Kaltenbrunner to name a few. In all, 24 defendants stood trial, along side 6 organisations - the Nazi party, the SS, the SD (SS Intelligence), the SA, The Gestapo, and the High command of the German armed forces. The trial consisted around 4 indictments. These were Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crimes against peace, Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against humanity. In total, out of the 24 defendants, 19 were found guilty. Of those 19, 12 received the death penalty, and 3 received life imprisonments. However, it is the belief of this blog that this trial not only breached the rights of the defendant to have a fair trial, but also that some of the charges mounted against the defendants were done so illegally, and that, therefore, the defendants were convicted illegally, and should have their convictions over turned.
According to Harlan Fiske Stone, Chief Justice of the United States of America, "(Chief US prosecutor) Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas." Surely this shows that, if the Chief Justice of the USA felt that the trial was fraudulent, then there must be some truth behind it. To understand this thinking and belief, you need to look at the trial. The bench of judges, normally used to ensure a fair and balanced trial, were instead chosen from countries of the leading victors, namely USA, Britain, France and the Soviet Union. This, as you can have no doubt, shows the attitude before the trial had began. Although the whole world had been affected by the war, judges from Australia, India, New Zealand and Austria, for instance, could have been used to try and limit the extent of belief that the defendants were already guilty. Certainly, from the line up of judges, the trial can be seen as unfair and, as of such, an invalid trial.
However, it was Associate Supreme Court Justice Willaim O. Douglas who made it fully clear as to the true extent of the illegality of the court and convictions. According to Douglas, he believed at the time that "Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time". This means that the laws upon which the defendants were tried on were not illegal before the outbreak of the war, or when the crimes were committed, but instead were created after the defendants had be detained and were ready to stand trial. This comes as part of the Bavarian Code in 1813 which all continental European countries agreed to stating Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali (Latin for "No crime, no punishment without a previous penal law"). Therefore, the charge of Crimes Against Humanity should not have been possible, as it was only under the London Charter that the term had a definition applied to it, and it was therefore not in existance at the time that the Nazi's occupied Europe. Therefore, as no country is able to charge people with crimes which were committed before the law was created, then it is clear that the charges brought against those at the Nuremberg Trials should not have been allowed.
Further proof that the Nuremberg Trials were illegal can be summed up in a few paragraphs. After the convictions, there was no chance for appeal. In any country, the chance for appeal is given when there is the chance that the convicted party are either innocent, or their was unfairness at the trial, leading to the chance of a re-trial. However, in the case of the Nuremberg trials, this was never allowed. The charge of conspiracy to commit agression against Poland in 1939 could also have applied to the Russians, who agreed with the Germans on how to split the country through the German-Soviert Non-Agression pact. Moreover, neither Great Britain nor the USSR were tried for their part in the Anglo-Soviet war in Iran, or the Winter war, of which they both conspired to commit agression.
Furthering the illegitimacy of the Soviet Union being on the bench of Judges, the leaders of the Soviet Union were relieved of having to attend the trials, despite the Soviets agreeing to carve Poland, and attacking Finland 3 months later. This was done so in order to hide their crimes against civilians during the war. Furthermore, one of the Judges who was sitting on the panel also happened to be the same judge who presided over Stalin's show trials, executing and removing anyone who was in oppositon to, or powerful enough to take over from Stalin.
No matter what anyone feels about the crimes these individuals were charged with, there can be no denying that they faced an unfair and biased trial. Even more so, the fact that the defendants were not allowed grounds to appeal shows further proof that the decision of the court was for the majority to be executed, and the trial was only there to make an attempt at ensurin it was legite. No matter what the outcome of the trial, these trials were unfair and unjust, and, as of such, all convictions should be overturned, allowing a re-look at the evidence provided from both sides.
'Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the law', Alphus T. Mason, (New York: Viking, 1956)
'Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal', H. K. Thompson, Jr. and Henry Strutz, (Torrance, Calif, 1983)
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
Friday, 20 February 2009
The learning curve - its totally round the bend
OK. So here goes. My first blog. Fingers crossed it all goes well and I don't mess up. I guess what I'm aiming for is a rant about the current state of education in Britain. From primary school, all the way through to Universities, the standard of the education system has gone to hell.
No, that isn't an over statement. There have been plenty of news articles this week to show how badly the state of education has got. Do I start with the fact that a teacher called a class of 10-year old children "a bunch of retards", do i start with the teacher who encouraged her class to write down as many profanities and insults as they knew on the class white-board? No, i feel that the main starting point should actually be at a report which has described primary education as being "deficient".
That seems fair enough. Maybe it is because of all the exams that are being sat by young children. Maybe, instead, it is about the quality of teaching downhill. No, instead, unbelievably, a report has been published stating that the standard of education has become deficient because...now get this... there has been too much encouragement to teach kids literacy and numeracy.
Now, surely, the teaching of Literacy and Numeracy has been of the highest encouragement because our children need to learn how to read, how to write, how to spell, and how to count, add us, and work money management. This has been key to our country, given that we are, without a doubt, head of the world for finance. Our economy is one of the strongest, and, almost always, we have one of the strongest currencies in the world. So why now, are reports being done to attack the teaching of these subjects.
Well, pardon me for stating the obvious, but could it be anything to do with the current economic crisis in this country? Maybe, if this report gets taken seriously and the government encourage the change through their advisers, the children of this generation won't be able to read information on the next economic crisis. Maybe they are hoping that they wont be able to read the unemployment numbers if they hit the same levels.
Yet, regardless of the government acting to make sure they are fine from being booted out in the future, isn't anyone worried that we wont ever get out of any future economic crisis if our children aren't pushed to understand literacy and numeracy. How much more of a third world country will we become, with further reports like this?
However, there could be one advantage. It does mean that pupils will no longer understand when their teachers call them 'retards'. This is just the latest time a teacher has attempted to put down the children of this country. I mean, where do they get these teachers? Come to that, how do these people ever qualify to become teachers. At an age where children are impressionable and take in what they are told, do we really want people to be putting them down and creating them into individuals with no self belief? I think most parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, hell anyone who has an interest in a child they know, or an interest in the future of this country, would be of the belief that children should be encouraged and congratulated at the right times to further them, and that if there is criticism, then it need to be constructive.
Yet, as i said earlier, it isn't just primary schools where the issues lay. In secondary schools, many teachers run the fear of the gangs, bullies, and so called "problem" children who walk the corridors with arrogance. Many teachers have reported, anonymously to protect their jobs and even their selves, that they have been threatened with knives, had chairs thrown at them. Many even admit to having no control over their classes. In fact, on many occasions, teachers find their bullying, for that is what children are doing to the people who are there to educate, posted on video sharing sites such as YouTube, while others send it around the school on their mobile phones.
Finally, schools are hitting back. One headteacher has taken the measure of suspending an entire class after posting a video of the taunts on YouTube. However, is this enough? Surely the children will be planning a revenge while on suspension. I feel even more sorry for the teacher, because the suspended children will come back and blame the teacher, making their life even more miserable in the school, if they don't quit before hand.
Perhaps, if discipline was taught at home, along with true respect, not the "respect" children believe they get through rudeness and carrying weapons, then we wouldn't have these issues.
Things, however, are totally unbelievable at universities. Today, I would like to pinpoint UEA (The University of East Anglia). Following the Israel-Palestine war, a group of student protesters barricaded their selves in to a building, occupying it in order to bring any form of education to a halt. Then to explain their actions, they released demands. These demands included wanting to send used equipment to the University of Gaza, provide scholarships to Palestinian students, and then to guarantee to them that they wouldn't receive any punishment for disrupting education.
Well, the university had two options. They could either have agreed to these terms and been seen to be easily pushed around, or else use their authority and have them removed from the university for disrupting the education of their peers.
Unfortunately, they bent over backwards and let them get away with it. They are no in negotiations over their other demands. You have to ask why the university done this. Surely it means that they will be able to be further pushed around in future. They are only asking for trouble.
Yet, as is the case everywhere, students are now the empowered body. Students now do what they want, how they want, and threaten the qualified educators with the law if they try any form of discipline, as it now infringes their human rights.
Its time someone stood up against this unbelievable change in our education system and put the students in their place. Yet, for that to happen, perhaps there needs to be a change in general attitude by all, and a change in what people believe in. Finally, a change is needed by the politicians. Rather than trying to find ways to protect everyone except those who are here to help the country, perhaps its time to go back, and give power back to those who deserve it.
No, that isn't an over statement. There have been plenty of news articles this week to show how badly the state of education has got. Do I start with the fact that a teacher called a class of 10-year old children "a bunch of retards", do i start with the teacher who encouraged her class to write down as many profanities and insults as they knew on the class white-board? No, i feel that the main starting point should actually be at a report which has described primary education as being "deficient".
That seems fair enough. Maybe it is because of all the exams that are being sat by young children. Maybe, instead, it is about the quality of teaching downhill. No, instead, unbelievably, a report has been published stating that the standard of education has become deficient because...now get this... there has been too much encouragement to teach kids literacy and numeracy.
Now, surely, the teaching of Literacy and Numeracy has been of the highest encouragement because our children need to learn how to read, how to write, how to spell, and how to count, add us, and work money management. This has been key to our country, given that we are, without a doubt, head of the world for finance. Our economy is one of the strongest, and, almost always, we have one of the strongest currencies in the world. So why now, are reports being done to attack the teaching of these subjects.
Well, pardon me for stating the obvious, but could it be anything to do with the current economic crisis in this country? Maybe, if this report gets taken seriously and the government encourage the change through their advisers, the children of this generation won't be able to read information on the next economic crisis. Maybe they are hoping that they wont be able to read the unemployment numbers if they hit the same levels.
Yet, regardless of the government acting to make sure they are fine from being booted out in the future, isn't anyone worried that we wont ever get out of any future economic crisis if our children aren't pushed to understand literacy and numeracy. How much more of a third world country will we become, with further reports like this?
However, there could be one advantage. It does mean that pupils will no longer understand when their teachers call them 'retards'. This is just the latest time a teacher has attempted to put down the children of this country. I mean, where do they get these teachers? Come to that, how do these people ever qualify to become teachers. At an age where children are impressionable and take in what they are told, do we really want people to be putting them down and creating them into individuals with no self belief? I think most parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, hell anyone who has an interest in a child they know, or an interest in the future of this country, would be of the belief that children should be encouraged and congratulated at the right times to further them, and that if there is criticism, then it need to be constructive.
Yet, as i said earlier, it isn't just primary schools where the issues lay. In secondary schools, many teachers run the fear of the gangs, bullies, and so called "problem" children who walk the corridors with arrogance. Many teachers have reported, anonymously to protect their jobs and even their selves, that they have been threatened with knives, had chairs thrown at them. Many even admit to having no control over their classes. In fact, on many occasions, teachers find their bullying, for that is what children are doing to the people who are there to educate, posted on video sharing sites such as YouTube, while others send it around the school on their mobile phones.
Finally, schools are hitting back. One headteacher has taken the measure of suspending an entire class after posting a video of the taunts on YouTube. However, is this enough? Surely the children will be planning a revenge while on suspension. I feel even more sorry for the teacher, because the suspended children will come back and blame the teacher, making their life even more miserable in the school, if they don't quit before hand.
Perhaps, if discipline was taught at home, along with true respect, not the "respect" children believe they get through rudeness and carrying weapons, then we wouldn't have these issues.
Things, however, are totally unbelievable at universities. Today, I would like to pinpoint UEA (The University of East Anglia). Following the Israel-Palestine war, a group of student protesters barricaded their selves in to a building, occupying it in order to bring any form of education to a halt. Then to explain their actions, they released demands. These demands included wanting to send used equipment to the University of Gaza, provide scholarships to Palestinian students, and then to guarantee to them that they wouldn't receive any punishment for disrupting education.
Well, the university had two options. They could either have agreed to these terms and been seen to be easily pushed around, or else use their authority and have them removed from the university for disrupting the education of their peers.
Unfortunately, they bent over backwards and let them get away with it. They are no in negotiations over their other demands. You have to ask why the university done this. Surely it means that they will be able to be further pushed around in future. They are only asking for trouble.
Yet, as is the case everywhere, students are now the empowered body. Students now do what they want, how they want, and threaten the qualified educators with the law if they try any form of discipline, as it now infringes their human rights.
Its time someone stood up against this unbelievable change in our education system and put the students in their place. Yet, for that to happen, perhaps there needs to be a change in general attitude by all, and a change in what people believe in. Finally, a change is needed by the politicians. Rather than trying to find ways to protect everyone except those who are here to help the country, perhaps its time to go back, and give power back to those who deserve it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
