Nuremberg, Osama and Obama

The fact is, the Nuremberg trials did not take place until the war with Germany was over. Further, Sen. Obama, obviously having skipped some important parts of the history of the trial, might have missed that at least one of those tried at Nuremberg was held, without trial, for four years. He was, in fact, held in isolation except for his guards, some interrogators and a warden. In fact, he was the longest held prisoner after the end of the war and subsequent trials.

You get extra points if you know who he was.

In Obama's logic, we could designate Osama a prisoner of war, or some equal designation, and hold him, without trial, until the conclusion of "the war". Further, despite comments regarding turning Osama into a martyr, by the standards of Nuremberg, Osama would be tried by a military tribunal whose authority and dictates could not be challenged or appealed to any higher authority, and would then most likely be executed for his crimes.

Definitely, by the Nuremberg example, there should and would be no complaint about holding Osama in complete isolation with no one but his guards as contacts, with his lights on all of the time and someone staring in at him 24/7 to insure he could not commit suicide. He would have little or nothing accept a Qu'ran, a bed and the four walls to talk to. For as long as we felt the need.

But, maybe Obama is thinking about all of the subsequent trials of over 2,000 men for various crimes. Some trials were not held until over four years after the conclusion of the war (counting 1939 as the beginning, that would be ten years later). Over 500 men were executed, many more received life imprisonment, with the bulk serving ten, twenty or more years.

Maybe Obama is infatuated with the seeming perfection of process that these trials afforded along with the golden treatment of the prisoners, such as that of the trial of those alleged responsible for the Malmedy Massacre. It is interesting to note that many of the prisoners alleged abuse by their guards. Those allegations became even more expanded and virulent as the entire mess went on and on. Even so far as peace movements and disreputable characters writing false stories, claiming that the isolation the prisoners were kept in, along with the hoods over their heads for transporting or movement, was tantamount to torture.

The entire trial was investigated over and over again (sound familiar?), even through a Senate Subcommittee who re-affirmed the trials findings, but, as had others, commuted the last sentences to life in prison because they could not trust the investigation that had taken place was "justice". Of course, as in this war, that final committee had taken place four years after the war had ended; four years after the horror of the war was over and people could start going back to "normal".

Defense attorneys for the prisoners did appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, wiser than today, refused to hear the case. Although, in fact, four were for it and for against, Justice Jackson recused himself because he had been at Nuremberg. The question of foreign prisoners of war being seen or heard before American courts was avoided, but not forever it seems.

Then there was the "stunning" account by one of the prosecutors at Nuremberg who later helped create the basis for the International Criminal Court (who, ironically, suggested that Bush be put on trial for war crimes). Who noted:

Americans delivered some low-ranking German suspects to Displaced persons camps for the purpose of having them executed by the DPs (displaced persons), without prior trial or sentencing.[1]

"I once saw DPs beat an SS man and then strap him to the steel gurney of a crematorium. They slid him in the oven, turned on the heat and took him back out. Beat him again, and put him back in until he was burnt alive. I did nothing to stop it. I suppose I could have brandished my weapon or shot in the air, but I was not inclined to do so. Does that make me an accomplice to murder?"[1]

In the interview, Ferencz also pointed out that the military legal norms at the time permitted actions that wouldn't be possible today (actions during the Malmedy Massacre Trials).

"You know how I got witness statements? I'd go into a village where, say, an American pilot had parachuted and been beaten to death and line everyone one up against the wall. Then I'd say, 'Anyone who lies will be shot on the spot.' It never occurred to me that statements taken under duress would be invalid."[1]

Of course, I'm starting to see Obama's logic in this decision to return to the treatment of enemy combatants during World War II. For instance, when the Malmedy Massacre was discovered and it was known that the SS Panzer group was massacring POWs and civilians, an order was issued that no German SS or paratroopers would be taken prisoner, but shot on sight.

Our current enemies routinely massacre civilians and summarily execute any prisoners, making themselves outlaws under the laws of land warfare and the Geneva Conventions. Is Senator Obama really recommending we follow the historical precedents set by WWII?

Sometimes, as I listen to Sen. Obama speak about invading Pakistan, how he would have captured bin Laden by personally ordering the miraculous deployment of tens of thousands of troops to Tora Bora, talking to Iran like Kennedy or Reagan talked to the Russians and the Nuremberg trials, I wonder exactly who is it that has an unrealistic and romanticized view of war?

[On a separate note, it may be of interest to our readers that the actor Charles Durning, not only participated in the Normandy invasion, but was one of the few survivors of the Malmedy Massacre]