OPENING STATEMENT FOR THE PROSECUTION, BY THE PEOPLE, OF THE UK PRIME MINISTER
Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, you have the right to do ..............................law.
You know one million people in the U.K marched against the war in Iraq. They never changed their minds. The people are against money wars in Afghanistan, or anywhere. If people had known the legality of war really was justiciable in national courts, don't you think they would have marched on the courts and so on and so forth?
We'll let the latest U.K Prime Minister, a paid lobbyist, give his set propaganda piece, where he managed to get off his arse and out of his comfortable chair, just long enough to spit all over anything our fathers ever thought they were fighting in - defence - of...... and then we will remind him...
An opening prosecution statement that was good enough to get war criminals found guilty....and we're offering our war criminals the added security of trial by a jury of the people....
This war did not just happen it was planned and prepared for over a long period of time and with no small skill and cunning....Whatever else we may say of those who were the authors of this war, they did achieve a stupendous work in organization, and our first task is to examine the means by which these defendants and their fellow conspirators prepared and incited.....to go to war.
In general, our case will disclose these defendants all uniting at some time....in a plan which they well knew could be accomplished only by an outbreak of war.....their seizure of the State, their subjugation of the....people, their terrorism and extermination of dissident elements their planning and waging of war, their calculated and planned ruthlessness in the conduct of warfare, their deliberate and planned criminality toward conquered peoples, all these are ends for which they acted in concert; and all these are phases of the conspiracy, a conspiracy which reached one goal only to set out for another and more ambitious one.
.....We will show how the entire structure of offices and officials was dedicated to the criminal purposes and committed to the use of the criminal methods planned by these defendants and their co-conspirators....
it was organized to seize power in defiance of the will of the people.
They terrorized and silenced democratic opposition and were able at length to combine with political opportunists, militarists, industrialists, monarchists, and political reactionaries.
"Sections....of the Constitution are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed."
.....always contemplated not merely overcoming current opposition but exterminating elements which could not be reconciled with its philosophy of the state.
We have here the surviving top politicians, militarists, financiers, diplomats, administrators, and propagandists... Who was responsible for these crimes if they were not?
.....this declaration of the law has taken them by surprise.
I cannot, of course, deny that these men are surprised that this is the law; they really are surprised that there is any such thing as law. These defendants did not rely on any law at all. Their program ignored and defied all law. That this is so will appear from many acts and statements, of which I cite but a few
International law, natural law, any law at all was to these men simply a propaganda device to be invoked when it helped and to be ignored when it would condemn what they wanted to do. That men may be protected in relying upon the law at the time they act is the reason we find laws of retrospective operations unjust. But these men cannot bring themselves within the reason of the rule which in some systems of jurisprudence prohibits ex post facto laws. They cannot show that they ever relied upon international law in any state or paid it the slightest regard.
Of course, it was, under the law of all civilized peoples, a crime one man with his bare knuckles to assault another. How did it come that multiplying this crime by a million, and adding fire arms to bare knuckles, made it a legally innocent act? The doctrine was that one could not be regarded as criminal for committing the usual violent acts in the conduct of legitimate warfare. The age of imperialistic expansion during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries added the foul doctrine, contrary to the teachings of early Christian and international law scholars such as Grotius, that all wars are to be regarded as legitimate wars. The sum of these two doctrines was to give war-making a complete immunity from accountability to law.
This was intolerable for an age that called itself civilized. Plain people with their earthy common sense, revolted at such fictions and legalisms so contrary to ethical principles and demanded checks on war immunities. Statesmen and international lawyers at first cautiously responded by adopting rules of warfare designed to make the conduct of war more civilized. The effort was to set legal limits to the violence that could be done to civilian populations and to combatants as well.
But the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law. And let me make clear that....the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any ....nations, including those which sit here now in judgment. We are able to do away with domestic tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of their own people only when we make all men answerable to the law. This trial represents mankind's desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law to statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundations of the world's peace and to commit aggressions against the rights of their neighbors.
The refuge of the defendants can be only their hope that international law will lag so far behind the moral sense of mankind that conduct which is crime in the moral sense must be regarded as innocent in law.
(Nuremberg War Trials)