BS: The Nuremberg excuse

Subject: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: freda underhill
Date: 25 Jan 06 - 07:48 PM

I see that Vietnam Vet Peter DeMott, one of the St Patrick's Day Four, was sentenced yesterday in the Binghamton federal court for an act of non-violent civil disobedience he took with three other activists (Daniel Burns, Clare Grady, Teresa Grady) on March 17, 2003. Judge McAvoy sentenced DeMott to 4 months in federal prison and 4 months in community confinement.

It's interesting that the judge ruled that neither the "Nurembeg excuse" nor the US Consitution could be mentioned in the court case. By doing so, he basically eliminated the legal grounds that the jury needed for full acquittal in their case.

At the Nuremberg Tribunal, the majority of the defendants claimed they were unknowing pawns of Adolf Hitler or were simply following orders. That excuse was deemed to be unacceptable, and no excuse for genocide. Evidence in the Nuremberg court room included the shrunken head of a concentration camp inmate and tattooed human skin from concentration camp inmates used to make lampshades and other household articles.

The Nuremberg excuse has been a moral standard for citizens who feel unable to comply with orders from their governments that require them to commit human rights violations. Today, the war against terror is the excuse for this breakdown of human principles.

By jailing someone for demonstrating against the political actions of it's government, and by making an order that the US constitution could not be mentioned, the judge was basically enforcing compliance with government policy over moral obligations. He was putting the state before the law.

By the way, at his sentencing yesterday, Peter DeMott began his opening remarks by asking the court for a moment of silence to remember the dead who had perished in Iraq: both the American and Iraqi casualties. DeMott noted that thirty percent of the Iraqi dead are children. Judge Thomas J. McAvoy granted this request stating, "The Court will join you in a moment of silence because it is a good thing to do. I feel that loss deeply."

What does the Constitution of a country mean if a federal judge have the right to overrule it?

And in a country where the government is being accused of lies, atrocities and corruption, is the Nurembeg excuse no longer relevant?


jus'wondering..

freda

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jan 06 - 08:03 PM

Hmmmmmm???

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: freda underhill
Date: 25 Jan 06 - 08:16 PM

I guess what I'm trying to say here Bobert is -

should citizens fall into line and keep quiet? was the judge right in banning the Nuremberg excuse? does the war on terror render the Nuremberg excuse irrelevant or redundant?


(oops - shouldnt have said render..)

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 06 - 08:22 PM

The Nuremberg lesson -- and it is not an excuse but a rockbottom principle in human morality --is part of any rational argument dealing with civil disobedience.

From the picture you paint, Freda, I am led to the conclusion that this judge was an ass. But I don't have the details.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: freda underhill
Date: 25 Jan 06 - 08:30 PM

Vietnam Vet and Civil Resister, Peter DeMott, Sentenced in Federal Court

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: mack/misophist
Date: 25 Jan 06 - 08:34 PM

The judge made it clear. He isn't influenced by the Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Jan 06 - 11:07 PM

Protesting war is a good thing. Throwing human blood all over an army recruiter's office (and, according to some accounts, on the army recruiter) is a bit different. The soldier working there had nothing to do with starting the Iraq war; for that matter, neither did anyone else serving in the military. I don't see how either the Nuremberg Defense or the Constitution have any relevance to a charge of vandalism.   If they wanted to make a point, they could have stood in a public park and poured the blood on themselves rather than leaving a mess like that for some poor army sergeant to clean up.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 Jan 06 - 12:24 AM

I guess that comment lies at the heart of things, Art. The recruiters were only doing their job, weren't they?

we have rules of war and international standards - the greatest rule is not to invade another country.

Because of that, and because no WMDs were found, recruiters these days are being challenged everywhere, by parents who want their kids to have a life, literally. some recruiters are even being threatened with violence by kid's parents. this article in the New York Times lists a lot of irregular practises by recruiters. They include:

National Guard recruiters in schools teaching students how to throw hand grenades, using baseballs as stand-ins
promising students jobs as musicians
offering incentive packages and flashy equipment
going into schools, into the library, in the lunchrooms contacting the most vulnerable students and recruiting them to go to war.
holding gym classes, handing out free T-shirts and key chains, dou8ghnuts, telling kids the classes were mandatory

Where schools vote to ban military recruiters from the school and its 1,600 students, they can not sign on to the idea without losing at least $15 million in federal education funds.

As one parent said, "The point is not whether I support the troops. It's about whether a well-organized propaganda machine should be targeted at children and enforced by the schools."

Looking at it in context, if those recruiters are so keen on the war, why aren't they there fighting it?

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 06 - 09:56 AM

DeMott has been quite the protester over the years. A summary of his history is here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Jan 06 - 10:29 AM

As an Army (and Vietnam) veteran, and the son, grandson and father of veterans, I am proud of my own military service and don't believe that the military is at all evil. Those who choose to be in the military must forfeit one basic right...the right to choose what wars they fight. This may be unfortunate, but it is true. At the same time, the US military has very strict rules that obligate a soldier to disobey an illegal order, and there is a significant number of individuals, and their commanders, who have been prosecuted under military law for not doing so.

Recruiters, who are basically salesmen, have a hard job. Sometimes, like the guy at the used car lot, they say things that just aren't true. A friend of mine was once the commander of an Army recruiting unit in Wisconsin, and he told me about bringing charges against recruiters who had strayed from the truth. Why wasn't that recruiter in Iraq? Probably he (or she) had just returned and was looking forward to a return trip in the near future.

I read The New York Times regularly, and it is an excellent source for factual news. Unfortunately, their op-ed pieces, which I also read and generally enjoy, tend to be somewhat less balanced. Looking at the specific points that Freda highlighted (not all of which I could actually find in the article, but I only skimmed it):
*National Guard recruiters in schools teaching students how to throw hand grenades, using baseballs as stand-ins Is the issue recruiters in schools or the hand grenade bit? The former is questionable, the second isn't - soldiers do that.
*promising students jobs as musicians The military has musicians - this is an established Military Occupational Specialty, and that is all they do. My question would be, is the enlistment contract invalid if they don't get that job?
*offering incentive packages and flashy equipment So? Enlistment bonuses for some military specialties just went up to $40,000.
*going into schools, into the library, in the lunchrooms contacting the most vulnerable students and recruiting them to go to war. Again, is the issue recruiting in schools? This has been going on since at least the 1960s.
*holding gym classes, handing out free T-shirts and key chains, dou8ghnuts, telling kids the classes were mandatory Did the recruiters tell the students the classes were required? I'm inclined to doubt that. "Come to the class if you want a t-shirt."? More likely.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: mack/misophist
Date: 26 Jan 06 - 10:48 AM

Art Brooks asked:

*promising students jobs as musicians The military has musicians - this is an established Military Occupational Specialty, and that is all they do. My question would be, is the enlistment contract invalid if they don't get that job?

When I was in the Navy in the 60's, we were told that (and the regulations may have changed since then,) recruiters are free to promise almost anything. Ability to deliver is not their responsibility. To become a Navy musician there must be a spot open and the applicant has to win the audition. All Navy personnel can apply.

ie. Unless it's something the Service itself has guananteed, recruiters promises are empty.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: jeffp
Date: 26 Jan 06 - 11:22 AM

Like any other sales job. Get it in writing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jan 06 - 03:57 PM

..the US military has very strict rules that obligate a soldier to disobey an illegal order, and there is a significant number of individuals, and their commanders, who have been prosecuted under military law for not doing so.

Would it be unfair to say in practice this seems to mean that the guy at the bottom end of the chain of command may be tried, charged, found guilty of a minor charge, given a token sentence. And the guys who give the orders, all the way up to the top, are untouchable?

As demonstrated in the case this week where a soldier who tortured to death an Iraqi prisoner got a reprimand, a fine of $6,000 deducted from his pay, and is restricted to his home, office and church for two months.

His explanation that he was who only obeying orders didn't actually get him off, but the court dismissed the charge of murder - "Initially charged with murder, assault and willful dereliction of duty at his court-martial at Fort Carson, Welshofer was found guilty of negligent homicide and negligent dereliction of duty.

However the poeople higher up who had given the orders which led to the killing - for example a memo to Welshofer specifically telling him to telling him to, "take off the gloves" - do not appear to be facing any charges.

"I was only obeying orders is a pretty excuse" - but "I was only giving orders" is an even worse one.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 27 Jan 06 - 04:01 PM

..the US military has very strict rules that obligate a soldier to disobey an illegal order, and there is a significant number of individuals, and their commanders, who have been prosecuted under military law for not doing so.
So you can be court-martialled for failing to obey orders, or for obeying orders.

Gee it must be great to be a grunt!

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 06 - 01:19 AM

Freda posted, "Where schools vote to ban military recruiters from the school and its 1,600 students, they can not sign on to the idea without losing at least $15 million in federal education funds."

With all due respect, Art, what is your response to that statement.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: NH Dave
Date: 28 Jan 06 - 04:28 AM

*promising students jobs as musicians The military has musicians - this is an established Military Occupational Specialty, and that is all they do.

    This is true, but to become a military musician you must already play an instrument, and be evaluated on your ability to play that instrument before you can become a military musician. I doubt that recruiters are actually promising potential recruits that they will be given positions in bands or orchestras, but if they do, with no other strings attached, the person so enlisted and not given the job has a good case for being released from active duty.

    As I have said on another thread, I requested one of a large number of electronics schools, and after I completed the Army Qualification, Interest, and Ability tests with sufficient scores to allow me to attend these schools, my recruiter putt me in for all of the schools, in the order of their decreasing length. I didn't mind selling my body for three years, but I wanted it to be on my terms.

    As it turned out, I was given one of my choices, and I agreed to sign up for this school. I was given earliest and latest dates to enlist for this school, so that I would be finished with Basic training before the school started, and I went for the gusto. As it turned out I completed basic in time, completed the school and worked for the next two years as an Avionics Repairman, fixing the electronics on any of a large group of different airplanes and helicopters. I went to Thailand and Viet Nam in this job, and finished up down in central Texas, where I enlisted in the AF as soon as I was released from the Army, to wait our the GI Bill, I knew was going to come along, sooner or later. By the time it was enacted I had enough time in that it made sense to remain in the AF for the retirement, which I did, retiring as an AF Master Sergeant, with 26 years of service.

    It worked out well for me. I traveled around the world in two of my many actual jobs, one as a mobile Field Training Detachment Instructor, training airmen and officers in the AF, Air Guard and Reserve, and even the Norwegian Air Force, which had purchased an aircraft on which I instructed; and as an Airlift Controller, providing communication from forward bases back to the rest of the world. It could have gone completely toes up as I walked into Basic training, and something unfortunate happened to me crippling me for life, and resulting in my being medically released from the Army with a tiny disability pension. As Scotty says so succinctly in one of the many Star Trek films, "Aye, an' if me Granny 'ad wheels she'd be a tea trolley!" No one can foresee how any particular decision will play out, but my decision worked for me, although it might not have done, for another.

    The Recruiter will offer as much as he can honestly provide, much of which is dependent on the skills the potential recruit has to offer. If he's knuckle-drug his way through school, barely graduating or even not graduating at all,but merely left, after the requisite number of years, he may be lucky to get ANY choice, and up until recently he could not enlist an ANY service without a High School Diploma, or a GED Test Certificate, in the case of the Army. With the Iraq action in full swing, the various services may be desperate for recruits, but these recruits still have to possess the intelligence to actually make a decent soldier or airman. Anything less will come home in a body bag, and endanger his mates as well. We saw during the actual war what happens when someone reads a map incorrectly, or doesn't get the word about the line of march - people are captured or die, and this happens because someone wasn't pulling his or her fair share of the load.

    Dave

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: Barry Finn
Date: 28 Jan 06 - 04:39 AM

The high school where my son goes had stopped all ROTC programs a few years back. The threat of stopping federal funding caused the school to reopen these programs against the wishes of a school board & parents. That's more than selling cars, that's shoving it down the throats of unsuspecting children. I also have an issue with the schools having to hand over the kids data to the military to be used in mailing campains targerting them pre graduation.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 06 - 01:52 PM

Every parent and every student should be protesting this blatant disregard for privacy and the loss of Federal funding of public education. Its nothing more than blackmail. Nobody, including the Federal government, has that right. Where is the ACLU when you need them?

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 06 - 02:03 PM

The Federal government's position, then, is "Give me your money. Thank you. Now, if you want me to spend any of your money on education for your kids, you have to let me recruit them as cannon-fodder, eh? No bods, no dough...". Yet a tax-payer may not make a similar bargain, such as "no dough for military adventurism". They have a heavy enforcement arm to disrupt the lives of any who try such a tactic, called the IRS.

I would say the pursuit of happiness is a highly eroded American value in this respect.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: M.Ted
Date: 28 Jan 06 - 03:21 PM

The Nuremburg Excuse--The judge decided that "The Nuremburg Defense" wasn't relevant here. The main thing the judge does, at least in a jury trial, is to decide what to allow---it was a case of politically motivated vandalism--neither freedom of speech nor the legal and moral duty not take illegal orders was at play here. The judge was not an ass--

DeMott, and his friends, were guilty--they committed violent, destructive acts, knowing the consequences--and, I am sorry, but symbolic vandalism is violent--just ask anyone whose ever had a cross burned in their yard, or a swastika painted on their garage--This is not legitimate political discourse--

The worst thing about this "Berriganism", is that it has encouraged others, like abortion clinic bombers, and the likes of Scott McVeigh and Terry Nichols--

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Jan 06 - 04:34 PM

Anon.Guest, I really don't know the factual origin, if any, of the statement "Where schools vote to ban military recruiters from the school and its 1,600 students, they can not sign on to the idea without losing at least $15 million in federal education funds." It is in the linked article, but without any validatable references. However, schools do request, and accept, Federal assistance, and this is not given without strings. For example, the stupid "No Child Left Behind" test is one of them and, for all I know, refusing to allow military recruiters in the school may be another. If they choose to refuse the strings, they are also choosing to refuse the money. This Federal club of not passing out federal funds without some kind of quid pro quo has also been used, among other things, to enforce the 21-year-old drinking age and school integration.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 06 - 03:00 PM

It seems logical that the Federal Government might withold funding to a school if it were in non-compliance with the law but to attach the funding to conditions which are in conflict with constitutional freedoms, is something else again.

Like I said before - Where is the ACLU and where are the parents who are lawyers?

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 30 Jan 06 - 11:54 AM

..the US military has very strict rules that obligate a soldier to disobey an illegal order, and there is a significant number of individuals, and their commanders, who have been prosecuted under military law for not doing so.
So you can be court-martialled for failing to obey orders, or for obeying orders.

Gee it must be great to be a grunt!

It is great indeed, Nigel!
During our basic training in the German Federal Army we were instructed that there are three kinds of orders:
1. lawful orders you must obey
2. dubious orders you must obey, but can complain afterwards
3. criminal orders you are forbidden to obey - or you are tried and sentenced.
That is very fine in theory, but difficult to decide for the poor bloody infantrist having done only eight terms at school, so all kinds were explained very thoroughly (especially 3.) and handed out in written form to think it over.
This is one of the effects of the Nuremberg Trials in our army.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nuremberg excuse
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 07:00 AM

I am not saying that the military is evil, Art.

the issue for me was the fact that the judge ruled that neither the "Nuremberg excuse" nor the US Consitution could be mentioned in the court case.

I see this is the sort of creeping castration of the courts that is giving more power to big government, and taking away the normal checks and balances to power that should exist in a democracy. It also legislates away an important principle of international law.

Wilfried's post has it wrapped up.

freda