"Cheney, Nuremberg and Aggressive War: The Day the Smirking Stopped"
This amazingly well-researched diary by "occams hatchet" at Daily Kos is one of the best presentations I've seen in regards to how a war crimes trial was, and should be, conducted. I've included just the opening paragraphs and a little of the discussion of the use of the film here, and highly recommend taking a minute to read the entire post.
- and then they showed that awful film, and it just spoiled everything.
- Hermann Goering
at Nuremberg
So, Dick Cheney doesn't want the latest batch of detainee-abuse photos released.Huh - I wonder why?
Nuremberg, Germany, November 1945: The Nuremberg trials were underway. In a legal proceeding unprecedented in human history, the victorious Allied powers were prosecuting 21 Nazi defendants for their respective parts in the horrors inflicted on the world by Adolf Hitler's Germany over the previous 12 years. Fittingly, given the unprecedented scope of the atrocities, the prosecution was seeking to prove the Nazis guilty of a new crime in international law: the waging of aggressive war, a war perpetrated against people and nations that posed no threat to Germany. Never before in history had such an ambitious prosecution been attempted, nor had such a daunting task been faced by those seeking justice.
Realizing the unique nature of the challenge facing it, the prosecution team elected to take advantage of the Nazis' own meticulous record-keeping to make their case for them. Headed by former U.S. Attorney General and then-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the Allies intended to bury the Nazis under a mountain of their own documentation. The sheer literal weight of the evidence amassed against the defendants - including 250 tons of paper in all - insured that the tribunal, rather than looking like an episode of "Perry Mason," with a dramatic denouement presented to a gasping gallery of awestruck observers, more likely would be about as exciting as a reading of the New York City phone book.
*****
The film, "Nazi Concentration Camps," was a distillation of footage shot by Allied cameramen as their armies had liberated the death camps one by one in the final months of the war. The documentary was directed by Lt. Col. George C. Stevens, a noted Hollywood director in his own right (before enlisting, Stevens directed Woman of the Year; after the war, some of his most notable films included Shane, The Diary of Anne Frank, Giant and A Place in the Sun, the last two of which earned him Best Director Oscars).
The scenes, many of them familiar to us now, were absolutely shocking in their day: Bulldozers shoving tumbling corpses into open pits. Bodies stacked like cordwood. Walking skeletons looking dazedly into the camera, uncomprehending. And then, just when the viewer's mind started to go numb, the camera would focus in on a single dead face among a literal pile of dead faces, eyes staring vacantly, glazed over, transforming the millions of deaths which (to paraphrase Stalin) up to that point were just a statistic, into the unspeakable tragedy of single death upon single death upon single death, repeated to horror.
The film lasted just under an hour. The effect on the mood in the courtroom can hardly be overstated.
Read the entire post here:
















Bury the defendants alive under paper and/or present disturbing propaganda films is how a trial should be conducted?
As I read the Kos post, the core theme is aggressive war. That would involve evidence from 1937-1940, not a film shot after or around the time Berlin fell. Similarly, the abuse pics currently in the news (but not in view) don't relate well to PNAC (Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others) plans to reshape the political world via military force. They would be "irrelevant data" on that charge. Modern courts have limits on inflammatory evidence.
It seems you and the Kos author are interested in wiping away smirks not justice under the law.
May 19, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Explain, please, just how Iraq was not a war of aggression. A few sentences ought to suffice.
Now, I do believe the pictures that exist need to be treated as evidence, not just sensational images. That may disappoint some, and so be it.
May 19, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
This has to be the first time I've ever heard someone criticize the use film footage of Nazi war crimes as part of the Nuremberg Trials to convict the Nazis of war crimes. Unbelievable.
May 19, 2009 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unbelievable, wasn't it? I mean, they start the war, they commit the war crimes, and then the evidence for those crimes, which they generated by their own efforts, shouldn't be used to convict them?
And it's not like there wasn't also Blitzkrieg footage. The chain of evidence was pretty substantial.
May 19, 2009 6:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's why I like the parallels that the author raises, as well as the emphasis on putting together so much damning evidence (paper, photos, film), so that when it is all introduced in court, the defendants are buried by their crimes.
May 19, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying the invasion of Iraq was not aggressive. Why are you asking me to argue that point?
May 19, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think any of us are clear as to what point you are arguing. I'm not sure the main point of the Kos diarist was aggressive war, but rather looking at how how the Nuremberg Trial succeeded in convicting war criminals with a preponderance of evidence, both verbal and visual.
May 19, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh? The title there, for you to read carefully:
"Cheney, Nuremberg and aggressive war"
What, you think the title is irrelevant to the topic?
Since I have stated and restated my point, pardon me if I don't do it yet another time.
May 20, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you don't think evidence of torture should be presented in a prosecution of torture crimes, or that evidence should be presented that one of the main reasons torture was used was to justify a war of agression, what's your solution?
May 19, 2009 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think inflammatory "evidence" should be treated lightly.
May 19, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
How was anything that was presented at the Nuremberg Trials treated "lightly"? Or are you referring to something else here?
May 19, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the film was prejudicial if the point was aggressive war in 1937-1940. The evolution of the atrocities under Hitler doesn't speak to the origins of the war, because subsequent circumstances play an important part. The film "documents" conditions circa 1945 when Germany had been losing for some time.
The problem isn't Nuremberg, it's the attempt at Kos and here to weave a narrative based on N.
In the current parallel "case" of Cheney, I don't see the relevance of the pics at issue in the news. Abu Ghraib is a separate issue from the US starting a war of aggression, even if you can in your own mind link AG abuses to some psychological profile of Bush&Co.
May 20, 2009 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Inflammatory crimes produce inflammatory evidence. Sorry it's a fact of life: you can't suppress evidence of a crime on the grounds that it was too awful.
If torture is charged, and evidence is presented it will be pictures of torture and film if available.
This is totally proper and not prejudicial.
May 19, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your dogmatic pronouncements are not even close to reasoned or moving.
May 20, 2009 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did they use Leni Reifenstahl's films at the trial? I did not know that!
May 28, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of those responses actually address the issue raised by "eds": that the prosecutors used a "propaganda" film, made by the allies, to prosecute and convict the Nazis of the crimes alleged.
It would be propaganda were that which was filmed had been staged. "eds" provides no evidence for such an inference. Provides no evidence, in fact, that the film was "propaganda".
If the prosecution, in a murder trial, films the murder scene, or only photgraphs it, and enters that into evidence, is it "propaganda"? Or is it evidence. I suppose those defending the murderer would attempt to characterize it as being "propaganda".
The evidence for the Nazi war crimes, of every description, was overwhelming. And, as noted, was established and maintained by the Nazis themselves. Though we know the Nazis used propaganda, it is doubtful the established and preserved evdience they themselves produced could be characterized as, or was intended to be, propaganda.
Is "eds" a troll?
May 19, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You come close to the point but then veer off into your imagination. Here is the key in what I wrote:
"the core theme is aggressive war. That would involve evidence from 1937-1940, not a film shot after or around the time Berlin fell"
The horrific pictures in the film, plus a hokey American former POW (who looks very healthy btw) making generalizations in a linked video on the site, don't speak to events 5-8 years earlier.
May 19, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
How the Germans treated those they put in concentration camps was a give-away about their motivation generally.
It is one thing to hear Cheney campaign for the Iraq War based on a purportedly sincere belief in the existence of WMD's in Iraq. It is another to realize that he is deliberately and desperately urging torture in attempts to extract false confession because he has no evidence whatsoever. (And, oh yeah, those aluminum tubes presented at the UN were known to our spy agencies to have innocent uses before that presentation was made -- and higher ups were told.
May 19, 2009 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"in attempts to extract false confession"
That is a kool-aid drinker's view of things.
Also, Rumsfeld disapproved the harsh interrogation techniques in Jan 2002 (when Mora bravely complained loudly) but then re-approved some or all of them in about Mar 2003, just in time for Iraq. Coincidence? I don't know who was dominant in such matters, but Rumsfeld strikes me as being on a par in arrogance with Cheney. If you can show me that Cheney twisted his arm, I'd like to see good evidence on that.
May 20, 2009 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"in attempts to extract false confession"
That is a kool-aid drinker's view of things.
You made the claim - now it's time to substantiate it. 183 times? Statements from interrogators to continue until they got statements about cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda?
May 28, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sweeping the ReThuglican crimes under the rug does not make the ReThugs look any prettier to most people.
If torture is alleged-- say video was taken by the perpetrators -- that is perfectly allowable evidence.
Pictures of weeping relatives is inflammatory and prejudicial because it has proves nothing about the fact of the crime. Victim statements are allowed at sentencing once guilt is established because the impact on society is properly taken into account at sentencing.
You seem confused or not very knowledgeable about law.
May 20, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be practicing for your Sophistry 101 entrance exam. Try to focus on the point next time.
May 20, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely, you remember that the Rodney King beating videos were evidence used in court. What makes you think that ReThuglicans are exempt from having evidence of their crimes shown?
May 20, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never argued against admission of pertinent evidence in court. But using RK video to start a race war is something you seem to support.
May 21, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
But using RK video to start a race war is something you seem to support.
Your dogmatic pronouncements are not even close to reasoned or moving.
May 28, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't find the use of "propaganda" to be appropriate, either. It was basically a documentary film of what was discovered in the aftermath of the war, things that the outside world had no access to until after the camps were liberated.
May 19, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink