Nuremberg Not A Defense

Dear editor:

Personal responsibility, respect for law and personal judgment. When do these individual qualities need to be recognized and put into action?

These are the basic questions that were asked over 60 years ago at the end of the Second World War when a series of trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany, from November 1945 to October 1946. They were held by the International Military Tribunal comprised of judges from France, Russia, Great Britain and the United States. The lead prosecutor was from the United States. The purpose of these trials was to determine if twenty-four former Nazi leaders were responsible for their actions of committing and conspiring to commit crimes against humanity during the war. The defense presented by the attorneys for the twenty-four was that they were just following orders from higher authorities, which became known as the “Nuremberg Defense.” The tribunal rejected these arguments and twenty-one of the defendants were found guilty. Basically the world was saying that individuals are responsible for their actions and that no amount of direction from higher authority could justify actions that were against recognized international law and that the ends did not justify the means.

Now, in twenty-first century America, a version of the “Nuremberg Defense” is being offered for the CIA officials and operatives who used “harsh interrogation techniques” with the department's legal blessing. It has been claimed that “It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department.” In addition officials said that they would provide legal representation at no cost to CIA employees subjected to international tribunals or inquiries from Congress. They also said they would indemnify agency workers against any financial judgments. This position and authority comes directly from President Obama in the White House.

I can well appreciate the president's desire to "keep peace" with those that followed horrible instructions from higher authority. But, "forgiving government agents who may have committed heinous acts they were told were legal," is nothing more than justifying and allowing the "Nuremberg Defense" used by Nazi officials who said they were just soldiers and officials following instructions with approval from higher ups in the Hitler regime. Sorry, but that defense didn’t float in 1946 and it doesn’t today. The New York Times said it best, “Whether or not to prosecute law breakers is not a political decision. Laws were broken and crimes were committed.”

It is time for the United States to step up and reclaim its world leadership by showing respect for international law and human dignity. Even though former Vice-President Dick Cheney claims the ends justify the means, which has been shown to be highly questionable, no amount of self serving defense should be allowed. Our country is either one of laws and a respected member of the international community or it is not.

The Tail Wags The Dog

Dear editor:

I have been opposed to the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld un-called for Iraq War from the very beginning. After hearing promises during the presidential campaign that the bleeding of American troop lives (over 4,200) and the spending of hundreds of billions of American taxpayers’ dollars would come to an end, we seem possibly to be heading in the wrong direction. President Obama announced that we would withdraw all of our forces from Iraq’s major cities by June 30, 2009, all combat troops by September 2010 and all remaining forces by the end of 2011. This confirmed the deadline agreement negotiated by President Bush with the Iraqi Prime Minister.

Now comes Gen. Raymond Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, stating that the decision on withdrawing American forces from Iraq’s major cities by the June 30 deadline will be made by Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. He stated “we will continue to conduct assessments along with the government of Iraq as we move forward (to) the June 30th deadline. If we believe that we'll need troops to maintain a presence in some of the cities, we'll recommend that, but, ultimately, it will be the decision of Prime Minister Maliki."

Isn’t that wonderful? The leader of another country will make the decision as to how much more money we will spend and how many more American lives will be at risk. We previously were told that the money saved from ending our part in that conflict would help to pay for the recession that we are having to pay for now. And how many more of our troops will have to die in the Iraq civil war?

It is time for President Obama, who I support, to step up and reclaim control of our troops. Let’s face it; our generals (not the regular troops) are not in any rush. After all, what is there for them to do without a good war to fight?

Shame on Arizona State University

Dear editor:

Arizona State University, which has invited President Obama to deliver the commencement address at its upcoming ceremonies, has decided not to bestow an honorary degree on the president. According to ASU Media Relations Director Sharon Keeler, unlike other universities the process for selection of honorary degrees is based upon the recipient having had “an achievement of eminence.” The school feels that Obama has not, at this time, fit within this criteria and his main body of achievement is in the future. Are they kidding?

In case the president and board of Arizona State haven’t noticed, Barack Obama has achieved an office that only 43 people have achieved before him in the 233 year history of our country. On top of this he is the first African-American to be elected to that eminently high office. He has become the leader of the free world, the chief executive of a country that has the largest economy in the world, and the protector of freedom and democracy worldwide. Excuse me, but I can’t think of an “achievement of eminence” greater than that!

It is obvious that ASU wants the glory and honor of having a President of the United States speak at its commencement, but at the same time show partisanship and bigotry against the highest elected official in our nation. Shame on them.