But getting closer to the sort of core of the Nuremberg-Tokyo tribunals, in Truman's case at the Tokyo tribunal, there was one authentic, independent Asian justice, an Indian, who was also the one person in the court who had any background in international law [Radhabinod Pal], and he dissented from the whole judgment, dissented from the whole thing. He wrote a very interesting and important dissent, seven hundred pages -- you can find it in the Harvard Law Library, that's where I found it, maybe somewhere else, and it's interesting reading. He goes through the trial record and shows, I think pretty convincingly, it was pretty farcical. He ends up by saying something like this: if there is any crime in the Pacific theater that compares with the crimes of the Nazis, for which they're being hanged at Nuremberg, it was the dropping of the two atom bombs. And he says nothing of that sort can be attributed to the present accused. Well, that's a plausible argument, I think, if you look at the background. Truman proceeded to organize a major counter-insurgency campaign in Greece which killed off about one hundred and sixty thousand people, sixty thousand refugees, another sixty thousand or so people tortured, political system dismantled, right-wing regime. American corporations came in and took it over. I think that's a crime under Nuremberg.
Well, what about Eisenhower? You could argue over whether his overthrow of the government of Guatemala was a crime. There was a CIA-backed army, which went in under U.S. threats and bombing and so on to undermine that capitalist democracy. I think that's a crime. The invasion of Lebanon in 1958, I don't know, you could argue. A lot of people were killed. The overthrow of the government of Iran is another one -- through a CIA-backed coup. But Guatemala suffices for Eisenhower and there's plenty more.
Kennedy is easy. The invasion of Cuba was outright aggression. Eisenhower planned it, incidentally, so he was involved in a conspiracy to invade another country, which we can add to his score. After the invasion of Cuba, Kennedy launched a huge terrorist campaign against Cuba, which was very serious. No joke. Bombardment of industrial installations with killing of plenty of people, bombing hotels, sinking fishing boats, sabotage. Later, under Nixon, it even went as far as poisoning livestock and so on. Big affair. And then came Vietnam; he invaded Vietnam. He invaded South Vietnam in 1962. He sent the U.S. Air Force to start bombing. Okay. We took care of Kennedy.
Johnson is trivial. The Indochina war alone, forget the invasion of the Dominican Republic, was a major war crime.
Nixon the same. Nixon invaded Cambodia. The Nixon-Kissinger bombing of Cambodia in the early '70's was not all that different from the Khmer Rouge atrocities, in scale somewhat less, but not much less. Same was true in Laos. I could go on case after case with them, that's easy.
Ford was only there for a very short time so he didn't have time for a lot of crimes, but he managed one major one. He supported the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which was near genocidal. I mean, it makes Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait look like a tea party. That was supported decisively by the United States, both the diplmatic and the necessary military support came primarily from the United States. This was picked up under Carter.
Carter was the least violent of American presidents but he did things which I think would certainly fall under Nuremberg provisions. As the Indonesian atrocities increased to a level of really near-genocide, the U.S. aid under Carter increased. It reached a peak in 1978 as the atrocities peaked. So we took care of Carter, even forgetting other things.
Reagan. It's not a question. I mean, the stuff in Central America alone suffices. Support for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon also makes Saddam Hussein look pretty mild in terms of casualties and destruction. That suffices.
Bush. Well, need we talk on? In fact, in the Reagan period there's even an International Court of Justice decision on what they call the "unlawful use of force" for which Reagan and Bush were condemned. I mean, you could argue about some of these people, but I think you could make a pretty strong case if you look at the Nuremberg decisions, Nuremberg and Tokyo, and you ask what people were condemned for. I think American presidents are well within the range.
meh...statistics would've been nice, i mean, i knew about most of this 'cept for the East Timor thing, but statistics would have put a nice face on the argument...
Reppin': where only what you want to happen, happens
Posts: 22,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borg166
Nixon the same. Nixon invaded Cambodia. The Nixon-Kissinger bombing of Cambodia in the early '70's was not all that different from the Khmer Rouge atrocities, in scale somewhat less, but not much less. Same was true in Laos.
whoa... pump your brakes there..
Now, i'm not going to to into defending nixon, because i think his presidency was one giant mistake after the next....
but to compare the cambodia situation to the Khmer Rouge diasters is off base and unrealistic, maybe you didn't think anyone would know all that much about the Khmer Rogue, or maybe you just banked on the fact that nobdy was going to stand up for nixon.... but "not all that different" is completely false, and a little disrespectful to both parties.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by verbaltelekinesis
you got the market cornered on basketball knowledge, hell sports knowledge period. You the Jesus Christ of this Coliseum postin sh!t.
Anybody who presides over a none pacifist. none neo-isolationist foriegn policy is a war criminal who should be hanged.
Wow, thats such a nuanced position to take, lots of deep thought here.
Such hypocrisy that Saddam was hanged because of the war he started Iran...
Oh wait...
Morons.
__________________
I will never forget when my brother lit a hole on fire then stood in fron of it with a m-14
and a squirrel was charred and running for its life, came out of the hole saw my brother and paused in the fire
and the moron asks me "should i shoot it"
__________________
I will never forget when my brother lit a hole on fire then stood in fron of it with a m-14
and a squirrel was charred and running for its life, came out of the hole saw my brother and paused in the fire
and the moron asks me "should i shoot it"
Anybody who presides over a none pacifist. none neo-isolationist foriegn policy is a war criminal who should be hanged.
Wow, thats such a nuanced position to take, lots of deep thought here.
Such hypocrisy that Saddam was hanged because of the war he started Iran...
Oh wait...
Morons.
No, he was hanged because of the gassing of Kurds, not for invading Iran. I know they occured during the same time period, but he wasn't found guilty of Invasion
Metrophile: Lion acknowledges the double standard and enthusiastically embraces it. As reprehensible as the policy he supports is, at least he doesn't lie and claim there's some kind of morality behind it.
Metrophile: Lion acknowledges the double standard and enthusiastically embraces it. As reprehensible as the policy he supports is, at least he doesn't lie and claim there's some kind of morality behind it.
I know this. The implication behind my statement was that those in power embrace the same double standard, but also recognize the benefits of making it appear otherwise. I thought it was the general understanding in here that, for the most part, the gov't isn't driven by moral forces.
I guess he just assumed I was crying about "injustices", etc. Or maybe he's just hurting inside.
No, he was hanged because of the gassing of Kurds, not for invading Iran. I know they occured during the same time period, but he wasn't found guilty of Invasion
gassing of Kurds?
Moron.
__________________
I will never forget when my brother lit a hole on fire then stood in fron of it with a m-14
and a squirrel was charred and running for its life, came out of the hole saw my brother and paused in the fire
and the moron asks me "should i shoot it"
I heard he was hanged for sluaghtering people whom he suspected of attempting to assassinate him in 1982.
__________________
"Obama doesn't go on television and have crying fits; he isn't discovering his voice at the age of 60." - Air Force Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak (Los Angeles Times, 2/2/08)
No, he was hanged because of the gassing of Kurds, not for invading Iran. I know they occured during the same time period, but he wasn't found guilty of Invasion
now ask yourself why. ask yourself why America and others sometimes like to play police/judge and at other times don't
<--- Lotame Behavioral Tags --- >
<--- Lotame Behavioral Tags --- >
Speaking of hangings...
