The question is why are we bothering with holding trials (perhaps instead of summary execution) for people we just know are guilty of something.
Q: What do the following men all have in common?
Martin Bormann, Karl Donitz, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Hans Fritzsche, Walther Funk, Hermann Goring, Rudolph Hess, Alfred Jodl, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, Robert Ley, Baron Konstantin von Neurath, Franz von Papen, Erich Raeder, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Alfred Rosenberg, Fritz Sauckel, Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, Baldur von Schirach, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, Albert Speer, and Julius Streicher.
A: They were all accused of various war crimes and given trials at Nuremburg.
Not in some kangaroo court in an offshore Cuban penal colony, either. Evidence was presented, and they were given the opportunity to defend themselves against charges. It is because we are Americans. We have a suspicion against arbitrary arrests and imprisonment by either George III (or some possible home grown despot), dating back to the American Revolution.
Interestingly, von Papen and Schacht were acquitted.
I believe most people think that if you are holding somebody as a war criminal or terrorist kingpin, we have some kind of obligation to bring evidence in something like a fair public trial environment. Federal Court or some kind of Nuremberg style military tribunal will do. As it is, the perception is that we are running some kind of Star Chamber.
If we’re dealing with some guy who just happened to be in a Taliban militia, this all seems a bit overkill. What is the problem with just treating him as a POW or turning him over to the Afghan government, anyway, instead of trying to reinvent the legal wheel?
Bookmarks