At 3:29 PM -0800 27/1/09, Roger Howard wrote:
>All along we're gonna be up against the following:
>
>1. Defendants had it on good legal advice that what they were doing was
>within the law; of course, between two lawyers and a judge you could have
>4 opinions about what's legal, but this will be a fundamental defense.
>2. Barring that defense, there's always the claims of extraordinary powers
>by the Executive, particularly during a time of war.
>
>Anyway, as usual I think we're on the same side, and quibbling about the
>details. I have no idea what the process should be or will be, but I hope
>there is a process involving extensive documentation about what occurred
>and who authorized it, and if criminal wrongdoing is shown (which I would
>expect unless it's a complete whitewash, which is possible) then I would
>expect nothing less than trials. If the investigations are complete then
>bring on the indictments.
The latter, at least, should make no difference to the UN.
War crimes are international law - just because your commander in
chief orders you to commit something that you know to be a violation
of international law doesn't get you off the hook, 'I was just
following orders' is no excuse. I should have thought that principle
was pretty well established by Nuremberg.
David
_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected]
http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
List hosted at http://cat5.org/
