THE “NUREMBERG PRINCIPLE”

THE "NUREMBERG PRINCIPLE"

1. The initiating and waging of aggressive war is a crime.
Aggressive war is illegal.

The political, and military leaders of a government, when they act in a political capacity, who initiate and wage an aggressive war, commit a crime against humanity for which they may be tried by a duly constituted international tribunal.

Those who initiate and wage aggressive war must answer for the killings and devastation resulting therefrom to the extent of their participation in the perpetration and prosecution of the war.

Such leaders may not exculpate themselves by a plea that such killings and devastation are the incidents of war.

Military leaders who participate in political decisions to wage such war forfeit their military immunity.

2. Conspiracy to wage war is a crime.
Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan to commit any act of aggressive war or crime against humanity are responsible for all acts performed by any person in execution of the plan.

The crime of conspiring to commit aggressive war, to be a separate crime, must be closely related to the actual outbreak of armed conflict.

3. The violations of the laws or customs of war is a crime.
The concept of "total war" has not made obsolete the rules of humane warfare.

Total war does not justify absolute barbarity or utter devastation.

The killing of people and the destruction of property must be related to justifiable military objectives.

Nothing may be done in war in the way of killing, or mistreatment, or destruction which does not have a permissible military purpose.

Prisoners of war may not be mistreated.

4. Inhumane acts upon civilians in execution of, or in connection with, aggressive war, constitutes a crime.
Not every mistreatment of a civilian population is criminal in international law.

Only inhumane acts as are in execution of, or connected with, aggressive war are crimes against the laws of nations.

5. Individuals may be held accountable for crimes committed by them as heads of state.
Leaders of a government or a nation, who formulate its policy and directs its actions into channels which are criminal under international law, are personally and individually responsible for such crimes.

They cannot plead that what they did was state, rather than individual, action.

Crimes against international law are committed by human beings, not by abstract entities.

Only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law by meaningfully enforced.

6. Individuals may be held accountable for crimes committed by them pursuant to superior orders.
A subordinate civilian or military person who is ordered to commit a crime against humanity or a criminal act, when he or she has an opportunity to refuse or to resign or both, should refuse or resign and not commit the inhumane or criminal act, if the act is of sufficient gravity, even if he or she may be forced to make such a decision at his or her peril.

Only by holding individuals accountable for the consequences of their own acts, even when carried out in pursuance of higher authority, can war crimes against soldiers or civilians or both be restrained.

No individual may be permitted to cast of his or her moral and legal obligations simply by trying to hide behind the authority of some other person in a higher position.

Everyone with the power of moral choice cannot be permitted to avoid personal responsibility for an international crime by resort to claiming mere obedience to an alleged superior order.

That a person employed by government in any capacity was ordered to kill or torture in violation of the international law of war is not a legally valid defense to such acts if it was possible for such personto exercise a moral choice.

7. An individual charged with a crime under international law is entitled to a fair trial.
All persons accused of crime in international law are entitled to a presumption of innocence.

This presumption may be overcome only by evidence which establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a meaningfully fair trial that provides at least a modicum of due process of law, per Western Civilization legal norms.

The rights of the accused must be meaningfully respected.

The accused must be provided with a meaningfully full and proper legal defense.

Any conviction must be entered upon convincing evidence of guilt, not mere suspicion or expediency or both.

Guilt must be determined upon evidence in accordance with law.

No reprisals may be lawfully taken against any individual before guilt is determined upon evidence in accordance with law.

* * * Authoritative Source: Tyranny on Trial: The Evidence at Nuremberg by Whitney R. Harris, ISBN 1-56619-953-0, Chapter 39, "The Precedent of Nuremberg," pages 555-568 * * *

Observations:

Civil Authority who conspire to disarm law-abiding citizens and who order the forced disarmament of otherwise law-abiding citizens violate the first and second sub-parts of the Nuremberg Principle.

Military and/or law enforcement who use lethal force to confiscate arms from otherwise law-abiding citizens violate the sixth sub-part of the Nuremberg Principle.

BACK to Peter's letter to Sebastopol officials...