MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - Would Eric Holder Have Prosecuted the Nazis?

Home

Commentary

op-ed

Would Eric Holder Have Prosecuted the Nazis?

Aug 25 2009

Would Eric Holder Have Prosecuted the Nazis?

| Print |

E-mail

Op_ed

By MWC News

Translation

Would Eric Holder Have Prosecuted the Nazis?
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Let’s assume that a U.S. president authorizes the CIA to rape the family members of suspected terrorists as a way to get them to talk. He also authorizes his subordinates to place the suspected terrorists on a rack that stretches them apart until they confess and disclose all details of their suspected terrorism.

Before he issues the authorization order, however, the president secures a good-faith legal memo from Justice Department lawyers stating that suspected terrorists, as illegal combatants, are not entitled to any legal protections, including protection from torture and rape.

Under U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s new order authorizing a preliminary investigation into torture by CIA personnel, those CIA agents who have raped and tortured suspected terrorists would apparently be immune from prosecution.

Why?

MWC Newsgreat free widgetsWidgetbox

Because Holder obviously feels that if CIA personnel are following the guidelines established by their superiors, it would be unfair to prosecute them for torturing the suspects or raping members of their family.

What about the president or others who authorized the rape and torture? According to Holder’s reasoning, apparently they too would be immune from prosecution if they were relying in good faith on legal opinions issued by Justice Department lawyers establishing the legality of the torture and the rape.

What about the attorneys who wrote the legal opinions? Would they be subject to prosecution? No, because they would simply be attorneys rendering good-faith legal opinions in response to a request from their superiors.

So, isn’t that nice? Everyone who rapes and tortures, everyone who authorizes the rapes and torture, and everyone who opined that the rapes and torture were legal would apparently go scot-free under Holder’s reasoning.

I know that there are those who get upset over comparisons to Nazi Germany but it seems to me that a comparison is in order.

When Hitler and his cohorts issued the order authorizing the Gestapo to round up Jews, incarcerate them in concentration camps, and kill them, the personnel who actually committed such acts could not be prosecuted under Holder’s rationale. The Gestapo agents would claim that they were simply following the orders of their superiors and show that their conduct fell within the guidelines established by their higher-ups.

Could Hitler and other higher-ups have been prosecuted for the Holocaust? No, at least not if they would have been able to produce legal opinions from Nazi lawyers opining that rounding up Jews, incarcerating them, and killing them was legal given the exigencies of war.

What about the Nazi lawyers? Could they have been prosecuted? No, because they would have just been lawyers delivering good-faith legal opinions that they knew would make their superiors happy, not the people who actually did the round-ups, incarcerations, and killings.

What a crock.

When people break the law, they need to be prosecuted whether they are German, American, British, Japanese, or any other nationality and whether their victims are Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, atheist, or a

The “I was just following orders” defense should be disallowed. If people are too weak psychologically to say no to unlawful orders, then they shouldn’t be working for the CIA, the Gestapo, or any other government agency with the power to initiate force against others.

Higher-ups who authorize or order unlawful conduct should not be permitted to get off the hook simply because they have succeeded in securing legal opinions from sycophantic lawyers falsely opining that such conduct is lawful.

And sycophantic lawyers who issue false legal opinions to high government officials opining that unlawful conduct is legal should be subject to prosecution as well.

Otherwise, the United States is no different from any other country whose officials are immune from prosecution for torture, murder, rape, and other crimes.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, publisher of Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax by Sheldon Richman.

This_Category
Lynne Stewart: Casualty of the ‘War on Terror’ Inconsistent Conservatives and Progressives As the Light onto the Nations War Crimes or Only Crimes Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and MSM Why Most Counterinsurgency Wars Fail Category:: Op_ed

Recommend this article...

Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:

Quote this article on your site | Views: 847

Comments (2)

1. 25-08-2009 11:51

Absolutely correct - Profoundly Importan

As Hornberger points out:
When people break the law, they need to be prosecuted whether they are German, American, British, Japanese, or any other nationality and whether their victims are Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, atheist, or ...
This is ABSOLUTELY FUNDAMENTAL

With governments actively undermining the authority of the United Nations and the statutes of international law and our political capacity to defend them being eroded we have a critical imperative to act now to turn the tide. A failure now to assert the authority of international law and the United Nations would be a dereliction of collective and individual responsibility, the consequences of which will profoundly impact the future of human kind.

This is unquestionably the most important issue of our time.

Efforts have been made for some time to bring prosecutions against Blair and his ministers (UK) for their crimes of illegal war and genocide. At the British High Court in London an appeal was made to have a judicial review of the Crown Prosecutor's decision not to prosecute. The appeal was rejected!

In summing up Lord Justice Keane said "I agree, the war in Iraq is controversial. Mr Coverdale (the initiator of the charges) is against it. Some think it justified. The Court’s remit is limited; issues of war, the legality or not thereof are political therefore non-justiciable" echoing the earlier remarks of Mr Justice Roderick Evans that "Decisions of war are such that the Court will not intervene (prerogative matter)". I was shocked and disappointed to hear these remarks from judges of the High Court. International laws carried into UK law by treaty obligations prohibit aggressive war but the judges think that the legality of war is political and the courts should not intervene. There seems here to be a lack of intellectual clarity that I would not have expected of men of their standing. One has to question the purpose of laws when judges may choose to ignore the arbitrary decisions of law enforcement authorities not to enforce them by abdicating their own responsibilities with the equally arbitrary words "not justicable".

Guest

Report

allen.jasson@rightofchoice.comNOSPAM! ">Allen L. Jasson

2. 26-08-2009 08:51

Prosecute Nazis - not always....

.

Would Eric Holder have prosecuted the Nazis?

Hell, we didn’t even prosecute some of the most influential Nazi war criminals we needed for the space program and our intelligence community. Remember the 1945 Operation Paperclip?

The rule of thumb we have learned from Nixon to Reagan and now to Bush and beyond is, if you can bring enough influence to bear, you can essentially consider yourself above the law. That is why we continue to make sacrificial burnt offerings of the careers of ethically challenged underlings while “he who steals the common from the goose” is most often let loose.

Peace,

Bob

FYI:

The full quote alluded to here is as follows:

“The law locks up he who steals the goose from off the common, but lets loose he who steals the common from the goose.”

Registered

Report

Bob Boldt

Write Comment

Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed. Just ensure to Refresh your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button. Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:
Comment:
Code:*
	I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments