The Nuremberg Trials

The justice system in the UK and abroad

The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Nathan » 06 Feb 2013, 20:20

This thread isn't about the Nuremberg Trials per se, but about the hypothetical prospect of putting those on trial who we can legitimately consider to have committed crimes against the British people in recent decades. The idea has been circulating quite widely around the blogosphere and online newspaper comment sections recently, and as far as I am aware can be traced back to Paul Weston. It sounds far-fetched, but given the worst-case scenario predictions of how Britain (and Europe's) future may play out as a result of a failure to provide against preventable evils, this is not completely beyond the realms of possibility. Could somebody in 1936 Germany or 1984 South Africa have imagined his country's ruling class being on trial a decade later?

I am certainly no legal expert, but my question for those who do have legal knowledge: with the legal system as currently exists, would we have a case for either negligence, war crimes (thinking specifically of Iraq) or treason? After all, the most baffling thing of all is that many of the people on trial would be those who vast numbers of the public actually voted for of their own free will, and not just the once.

Number one on the list would have to be Tony Blair and his New Labour henchmen. Getting us into two costly and deadly wars, one of very dubious legality, against the will of the general public is one thing, allegedly deliberately plotting to radically change the very DNA of the country out of spite - with goodness knows what future consequences for those not even born when the decisions were made - is quite another. There have also been calls for them to be called to account for economic mismanagement, again something which may well impact upon those not even born at the time.

Further down the list in terms of scale of influence, where to begin? The judiciary, for outrageously lenient verdicts in cases like this? Social workers and the like, who spent several years deliberately covering up a sustained rape campaign specifically targetting indigenous girls for their own political gain? The Border Agency, for a suspiciously high level of incompetence and lack of action in tracking down the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants? The BBC? The teaching profession, thinking specifically of the myriad of Muslim hate groups allowed to flourish in our universities? The MEPs, who have surrendered so much of our country's sovereignity to foreign bureaucrats? There could be as many of those in charge of our public institutions in recent years on the list as off it.
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Elliott » 07 Feb 2013, 07:32

I'll be interested to read what any legal people say in response to the OP. But in the meantime I'd like to add a charge against David Cameron: failing to do anything to prevent a massive influx of Bulgarian and Romanian peasants which will almost certainly do considerable damage to this country. I mean, how can an elected politician just sit around and wait for something like this to happen? Isn't it his solemn duty to protect his people against things exactly like this? Isn't it a complete dereliction of duty to just pathetically blame other people (the EU) and do nothing?
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Jonathan » 07 Feb 2013, 11:54

There's a similar undercurrent on the fringes of Israeli politics - a desire to try the architects of the Oslo accords, which are now widely accepted as having been a very bad mistake. Occasionally is is also noted that those who were sent to negotiate with the PLO were in fact violating a law forbidding contact with the PLO.

I think it's a terrible idea, which can devolve a democracy into a dictatorship.

The courts of law should be used to try citizens who have broken laws. They should not be used to retroactively punish politicians who have implemented terrible policies. This is what elections are for.

If you mix the two, politicians will very soon discover that being voted out of office means going to jail. They will use any means possible to maintain power, including widespread electoral fraud, violence, gangs of supporters intimidating voters, and clashing with each other - and at the last resort, refusing to relinquish power when defeated.

An excellent example from history is Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. From 59 (BC) to 49 (BC) Caesar's opposition in Rome (the Optimates) slowly gained ground against him (particularly after the death of Julia and Crassus). The foremost tool here was the court of law, in which Caesar's supporters found themselves condemned one after the other (thanks in part to Cicero's eloquence). True, there had never been a firm dividing line between accusing a corrupt politician and getting rid of a political enemy, but by 49 BC it was clear to Caesar that he would never get a fair trial at Rome if he gave up his Imperium - so he began a civil war which overthrew the Republic.

Those who think to use the courts in a similar way now might bring upon themselves a similar disaster.
Jonathan
 
Posts: 407
Joined: 03 Aug 2011, 05:14
Location: Israel

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Gavin » 23 Feb 2013, 11:59

I personally can't see the problem with both voting people out of office and trying them for treason if their behaviour while in office was treasonous but complied with laws which they, in their corruption, passed.

I just re-read that article by Paul Weston. Having built his case, towards the end he addresses, Blair, Mandelson, Brown.. and all of the left wing elite and the socialist social services minions who have done their bidding:

Paul Weston wrote:"You may well hold the levers of power at the moment, but we are on the rise and we are unstoppable. Do you seriously think you can do what you have done to your own people without repercussion?

You could stop this now if you chose to, by the simple expedient of putting the interests of your own people before the interests of Islam.

But you won’t do that will you? So you put us in an almost impossible position. If we do nothing we must accept our children and grandchildren will one day live under sharia law.

And if we do something, then it must by definition be revolutionary. But we did not start this. You did. Most of us would have been quite happy to mow the lawn, hold down a mundane job, and pay our taxes.

You have made us revolutionaries. And whilst your behaviour suggests you fear Islam more than you fear us, let me tell you something, you lying, betraying, treacherous, socialist careerists:

We might not hold power today, but given another decade, we will, and then we will hold you to account. You will appear before a Nuremberg-style court, and you will be tried for treason, and you will be tried for crimes against humanity, and for the first time in a very long time you will be answerable to us!"


I think there is a case for trying these people for treason (but I too would like to see the thoughts of a lawyer, and not just some left wing human rights lawyer, but a conservative one too).

I believe this happens all the time - we often see past leaders in the dock and it could happen to the socialists who did this to Britain. Teams could be sent out, as Mossad were, to recall Blair and Mandelson from whatever yacht they happen to be on and it could begin. When you look at the building fury in the country, something's going to happen, we just don't know quite what yet. It could be another bombing, it could be another Breivik, it could be something else.

The main thing at this point, I think, is to try build strength, keep alive, and - of course - vote UKIP.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Rachel » 24 Feb 2013, 17:36

I'm one of those who sometimes wish that some leaders in Israel could be tried for Oslo.
I agree that New Labour did things that could be called treason. But I have to agree with Jonathan.

I hate to defend New Labour, but to be fair the bad crime policies and PC in education started before they came into power. They were just carrying on with the zeitgeist.
I remember when I was in school back in 1990 a policeman came to talk to our class. He told us about a burgler who had a police officer interviewing him repeatedly tap his pen on the table during his interview or confession. A judge interpretted pen tapping as putting "pressure" on the suspect. All the charges were dropped. The policeman was really angry over this while saying that now this man was now free to go and burgle more houses. I read a article that put a 1991 law change as a cause of lowered sentancing.

Sorry if my answer and grammer is bad, I'm rather tired today.
Rachel
 
Posts: 292
Joined: 03 Aug 2011, 10:14
Location: Israel

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Jonathan » 26 Feb 2013, 08:12

Rachel wrote:Sorry if my answer and grammer is bad, I'm rather tired today.


Purim hangover? :)
Jonathan
 
Posts: 407
Joined: 03 Aug 2011, 05:14
Location: Israel

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Elliott » 26 Feb 2013, 22:04

I think Jonathan makes a very good point about this having the potential to turn a democracy into a dictatorship. However, I think that Europe is in such a dire state now that this is a risk worth taking. Doubtless a few countries might become dictatorships in the long-term as a result, but others would blossom into properly-functioning democracies.

If democracy means anything, it has to mean that politicians know that the voters are ultimately in charge, not them. This is what has gone terribly wrong over the last 50 years. They treat us with contempt. They break election pledges, even making ones they have no intention of keeping (making each election little more than a beauty contest). They give away our sovereignty without asking our permission. When a real threat to our peace and security is looming (millions of Romanian and Bulgarian peasants), they do nothing about it. When our economy is in a mess, they continually lie and pretend to be solving it whilst merely playing to the media gallery. They lie to us, too, that the economy's problems can be solved without pain. Even during this age of supposed belt-tightening, they are in cahoots with big business and give them multi-million, even multi-billion, pound contracts that we don't want or need. Meantime they strangle small businesses with red tape. They continually ruin education with ever more bureaucracy and refuse to sanction selective schools even though this is what the public wants. Bureaucracy is rampant even though the public know it is not for their benefit, and in fact only benefits the vast nomenklatura class that now parasites (at astonishing expense) from the public coffers. As for mass immigration and border control, our politicians are utter shysters on that matter.

When I think of Britain, I think Margaret Thatcher wasn't a terribly pleasant person but was probably the only British PM in the last 50 years who actually respected the public. For the rest, it's been one shyster after another (with Ted Heath certainly guilty of treason by any reasonable definition of the word) culminating with Tony Blair in 1997, a man utterly shameless in his lying to the public, his ill will towards the public, and even his psychopathic decision to import a new public to replace the current one (an action which, it should be noted, was not precipitated by any threats to him from the public).

I could go on and on about the reasons why I'd want to see the New Labour architects swinging from gallows, but the reasons are pretty widely-known already. For decades, British politicians have been running this country into the ground, whilst progressively giving away its sovereignty to unelected (and unadmired) foreign powers, whilst setting it up for some kind of civil war. We do not owe them mercy. And as for what they might do to us, they are already engineering us out of our own country, displacing us by stealth. That is not as immediate as a dictator lining up dissidents against a wall and shooting them, but in the long run it is little different.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Nathan » 02 Mar 2013, 22:22

Interesting responses from all here. It is worth mentioning that none of the top few people on anybody's list is much above sixty years old, meaning that we may have another two decades or more to bring these people to justice, indeed two whole decades or more for the situation to get progressively worse enough for the public to demand it. I expect at a minimum for the political situation of 2033 to look much more different to today than 1993 did, so anything is possible. We can already see the beginnings of a fragmentation of Britain's long-standing electoral landscape, and I have written about what I expect the changing demographics to do to our democracy within the next few decades.

I see Jonathan's point about it having the potential to turn a democracy into a dictatorship, but lean towards Elliott's view of it being a risk worth taking in the potential circumstances. I only wish I could think of an example of democracy having failed only for the situation to be saved by something else other than Weimar Germany. Whatever happens, politicians need to know who's boss and need to have a certain level of fear of legitimate public wrath, something which the first-past-the-post electoral system in this country simply doesn't provide.

In my OP I overlooked one clear parallel from English history of what many might want to see happen again: the trial of King Charles I for unnecessarily provoking the Second English Civil War and for treason in secretly colluding with the Scots in order to bolster his own political standing in England. It did lead to a dictatorship (or at least, a separate kind of dictatorship) and the regicides faced the wrath of Charles II after the Restoration, but it ultimately led to an improvement in the old system of government and the monarch becoming more accountable as per the Bill of Rights of 1689.
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Nathan » 04 Mar 2013, 16:48

This is an interesting piece of news I hadn't heard of before now. It looks like the outgoing president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus is to be charged with treason for breaking the constitution in issuing a New Year amnesty to mark the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Czech Republic.

I don't know much about the Czech Republic, except from enjoying a few brief visits there, but reading about this on Klaus's Wikipedia page I like what I see:

The amnesty also sparked a series of petitions against the president, the chief of which is supported by several civic initiatives and its goals are to persuade the Senate of Czech Republic to charge the president of high treason in front of the Constitutional court, effectively impeaching him.[42] As of the beginning of February 2013, the petition was signed by more than 64,000 people and during the first 24 hours after its launch, it accumulated 24,500 signatures, which is a Czech record


That's 64,000 signatures in a country of ten million people, the equivalent of 400,000 signatures in Britain! There is a more clear-cut legal basis for impeaching Klaus, it seems, but I do admire how much more flexible and responsive and accountable the political structures of small nations can be, excellent case in point being the Icelandic people's response to their government's mishandling of the banking crisis.
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Caleb » 05 Mar 2013, 00:45

I'm with Jonathan on this one. It could go pear-shaped rather quickly. Be careful of what you wish for.

With regard to the past half century of crooks, I always bear in mind the saying that people get the governments they deserve. Politicians are generally wolves, and no more so than Blair and New Labour. To stumble into a wolves' den once might be one thing, but to do so repeatedly is another. Right now, the Coalition and the Labour Party are both clearly on the nose, yet how many people will still vote for them? Between them they'll still pick up 80%+ of the vote, despite there being alternatives on both sides of politics. So who should ultimately bear the blame in this? If people want the right to vote they also need to accept the responsibility that comes with it. We live in an age of politicians who pass the buck, but then we also live in an age when the general populace passes the buck too.
Caleb
 
Posts: 865
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 04:44

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Jonathan » 05 Mar 2013, 09:33

If democracy means anything, it has to mean that politicians know that the voters are ultimately in charge, not them... We do not owe them mercy.


Whatever happens, politicians need to know who's boss and need to have a certain level of fear of legitimate public wrath


You can achieve this by creating an alternative political party, and voting them out of office. To be honest, you will only be able to put them on trial once you have wrested political power from them - and at that point, you no longer need to try them. Putting on trial is merely exacting vengeance, which can have baleful consequences - regardless of whether they are worthy of receiving Mercy.


In my first post I mentioned the risk of civil war if politicians resort to private armies to protect themselves from such trials (which they will view as illegitimate). But even if you encounter no resistance and get rid of all the wicked politicians, you may find you have created a monster. I can think of no better example than of the speech attributed to Caesar by Sallust, in the debate whether to execute the captured Catilinarian conspirators in the Senate in 63 BC:

"Within our own memory, when the conqueror Sulla ordered the execution of Damasippus and others of that kind, who had become prominent at the expense of the state, who did not commend this action? All declared that those criminal intriguers, who had vexed the country with their civil strife, deserved their fate. But that was the beginning of great bloodshed; for whenever anyone coveted a man's house in town or country, he contrived to have him enrolled among the proscribed. Thus those who had exulted in the death of Damasippus were themselves before long hurried off to execution, and the massacre did not end until Sulla glutted all his followers with riches.

"For my own part, I fear nothing of that kind for Marcus Tullius or for our times, but in a great commonwealth there are many different natures. It is possible that at another time, when someone else is consul and is likewise in command of an army, some falsehood may be believed to be true. When the consul, with this precedent before him, shall draw the sword in obedience to the senate's decree, who shall limit or restrain him?
Jonathan
 
Posts: 407
Joined: 03 Aug 2011, 05:14
Location: Israel

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Gavin » 05 Mar 2013, 10:06

Jonathan, does your position mean you are also actually against the Nuremberg Trials themselves then? Indeed against trials for any perceived injustices committed by politicians while in office?
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Gavin » 14 May 2013, 20:04

Here's the kind of careerist unelected bureaucrat who will surely need to be brought to account when the time is right. I just heard her interviewed on, you guessed it, the socialist/Islamic broadcasting corporation's Radio 4. Again - as usual - I had only turned the channel on for a few seconds while I popped in the kitchen. Needless to say, the interview was not at all hostile.

Meet the "High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy" (her title won't fit on one line):

Image

No, I didn't even know this pointless role existed either. Do check the Wikipedia entry, which mentions how she is (of course) Labour, was in Brown's cabinet, has received the lowest possible grade for performance even by the EU's standards, yet is extremely high ranking there. This is surely a case of mediocrity and political correctness being the prime factors in determining promotion.

A few choice quotes from the article:

Rod Liddle wrote:"Never elected by anyone, anywhere, totally unqualified for almost every job she has done, she has risen to her current position presumably through a combination of down-the-line Stalinist political correctness and the fact that she has the charisma of a caravan site on the Isle of Sheppey."


The eurosceptic United Kingdom Independence Party has written to Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President, asking him to investigate whether Ashton was party to payments that he alleged were made to CND from the Soviet regime in Moscow. Ashton’s office refused to discuss CND’s funding in detail.


Ashton has argued that much of the criticism she faces is a result of the "latent sexism" within the EU community (Pathetic - same as playing the race card -G.). She has also told the press that the lack of resources provided to her, such as not having her own plane, is holding her back in her work.


Baroness Ashton receives a salary package of £328,000, which is larger than the salaries of UK Prime Minister David Cameron, French President François Hollande, or US President Barack Obama.[31] However, it is lower than the salary of the President of the European Commission.


Actually it is well worth reading that whole article - it beggars belief. Also the "Wikipedians" are usually left-leaning so she really must be bad. As for Radio 4, I am starting to think it really does provide a function with its worship of these types as it makes sure they are identified so that they, and those who appointed them, may be brought to account in the future.

Of course socialists don't want to see the end of the EU because they are currently handsomely lining their own pockets from the public money that funds it. But I believe we will start to see media organisations and political individuals backtrack soon (ex-Labour ministers for example) in line with the strength of public outrage. They will behave as if they always held these new positions but we must remember that they did not.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Nathan » 14 May 2013, 21:40

The actual details of this case are vastly different in scale to what we are talking about, but Guatemala has become the first country in the world to convict one of its own citizens of genocide. 86-year-old former dictator Rio Montt was sentenced to 80 years in prison, 50 of those for genocide and 30 for war crimes.
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Gavin » 15 May 2013, 10:28

The Telegraph has now recruited an open UKIP supporter. The result is a straight talking article and in the comments below we again see calls for the hanging of Peter Mandelson for treason. The Left are as angry as the Right.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Next

Return to Law, Crime & Justice

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron

User Menu

Login Form

This site costs £100 per year to run and makes no money.

If you would like to make a small contribution to help pay for the web hosting, you can do so here.

Who is online

In total there are 5 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 5 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.