I am anti war. You stupid evil scum are pro Saddam.
Steve Schear
s.schear at comcast.net
Tue Dec 23 21:16:43 PST 2003
At 09:20 AM 12/22/2003, James A. Donald wrote:
>The Nuremberg trials were held in Germany by the victors. Why
>this big desire to do something different this time around? I
>don't hear anyone except the usual Nazis whining that Nuremberg
>was illegitimate or unfair.
From a 2001 cypherpunks post to cypherpunks
Basis
Fundamental questions have been raised regarding the legal and moral
foundation of ad hoc judicial forums, such the War Crimes Tribunal in the
Hague and Rwandan tribunals. Both were created by the U.N. Security
Council though its charter mentions no such authority. Isn't this little
more than mob justice carried out by nation states? Come to think of it
isn't the purpose of all murder trials "civilized Vengeance" (small c, big V)?
The espoused purpose of these courts is to enforce "norms of justice in the
international community." But who constitutes that community and what are
those norms? The truth is justice like beauty is in the eye of the
beholder. Historically, the notion of what is just has varied considerably
and often based on economics and religion. Modern western justice tends to
ignore these factors and so sets the stage, indirectly, for a trial of
cultures. Even within the west these norms seem to be rapidly
changing. Can or should such norms be used a basis for international law?
Uniform Application
Like the Nuremberg trials before them, these tribunals appear ripe with
application of ex post facto "laws" and inattention to
technicalities. They often bear little resemblance to the laws and their
application within the major U.N. member states. The states have no great
interest in either bringing a consistent moral basis to their foreign and
domestic policies or establishing strong extra-national courts which could
conceivably bring national leaders to account their actions.
All potential violators must be investigated with equal vigilance and
judged according to a uniform standard or none should be. Serious charges
have been leveled against Henry Kissenger yet no criminal indictments have
been brought or even discussed by the tribunals. Unless these courts are
held by world citizens to the motto "Equal Justice Under Law" carved on our
Supreme Court building then no courts should be convened. Current
procedures brand the courts as a propaganda puppet show merely using forms
of justice to carry out a predetermined policy.
Competition
Despite frequent evidence that economics trump justice, national
governments continue the charade of representing all the interests of their
citizens. Mohammed Douri, Iraq's U.N. ambassador's quote in the article
put it cynically and succinctly, "Politics is about interests. Politics is
not about morals." I believe Mohammed is right. That these courts aren't
better is because, like most governmental services, they have no need:
there is no viable alternative.
If one accepts the American Constitutional notion that all rights are
originally vested in the sovereign individual and that competition is
usually the best path to maximizing quality of a service, then a clear path
extends to a market based solution. Effective private justice may not
provide a fairer outcome but it will offer an alternative which will
challenge the current tribunals and their masters to either abandon
pretexts that they are impartial, abandon the tribunals altogether or
improve them.
Any attempt to establish a private global (as opposed to international, as
in between nations) justice system are likely to be met with harsh
responses by the major nation states. They don't want the competition and
some of their current or former leaders and their lieutenants could be the
first facing indictments. So, anonymity of supporters is a prerequisite.
The Internet has shown us that it can be an effective medium for annealing
those with out of the mainstream political views into formidable groups
whilst offering effective privacy. Money often buys justice. So, a means
for moralists to anonymously fund their interests is needed. Fortunately,
a number of effective and popular electronic currencies (e.g., e-gold) with
adequate privacy features exist.
Every successful social movement requires leadership. Hopefully someone of
great character and stature will step forward or emerge and take the reins
to either bring all to account for their war crime actions (by whatever
means necessary) or thwart (by whatever means necessary) the ability of the
U.N. tribunals to operate from their baseless pedestal.
steve
"War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout
society those irresistible forces of uniformity, for passionate cooperation
with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and
individuals which lack the larger herd sense ... the nation in wartime
attains a uniformity of feeling, hierarchy of values culminating at the
undisputed apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be produced
through any other agency than war ...."
--- from the first part of an essay titled "The State," left unfinished at
Randolph Bourne's untimely death in 1918.
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy
mailing list