Wanneer de VS al dan niet in samenwerking met de NAVO Syrië aanvalt, terwijl Washington geen enkel bewijs heeft dat de Syrische strijdkrachten chemische wapens heeft gebruikt, dan is die aanval in strijd met de uitspraken die tijdens de Processen van Neurenberg hebben geleid tot de doodstraf van talloze nazi-kopstukken:
The most important principle that emerged from the Nuremberg proceedings was the concept that the decision to launch a war of aggression is the fundamental crime from which all other war crimes flow. While the Nuremberg prosecutors exposed some of the greatest crimes in human history, they maintained that the primary crime was the decision by Hitler and his close associates to launch the war in the first place.
The chief US prosecutor was Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. His assistant, Telford Taylor, emphasized in a memorandum to Jackson that the underlying motivations and aims of the Nazis were not the decisive legal questions: “The question of causation is important and will be discussed for many years, but it has no place in this trial, which must rather stick rigorously to the doctrine that planning and launching an aggressive war is illegal, whatever may be the factors that caused the defendants to plan and to launch.”
In other words, launching a war of aggression is a criminal act—a crime against peace—no matter what arguments or policies are invoked to justify it.
Similarly, the Nuremberg prosecutors rejected the argument that those who committed crimes were justifiably “following” or “relaying” orders. Nuremberg Principle IV reads, “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility…provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”
These were powerful democratic conceptions that reverberated long after the trials. During the Vietnam War, as Taylor himself noted in his memoir, “thousands of young men contended…that under the Nuremberg principles they were legally bound not to participate in what they regarded as the United States’ aggressive war.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pentagons-law-of-war-manual-a-guidebook-for-violating-international-and-domestic-law/5486389?utm_source=Global+Research+Newsletter&utm_campaign=73fd7ebc59-Newsletter_3_11_1511_3_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0ec9ab057f-73fd7ebc59-81319625&ct=t(Newsletter_3_11_1511_3_2015)&mc_cid=73fd7ebc59&mc_eid=be843f3f1a
Bovendien is bekend dat de Amerikaanse hoofdaanklager in Neurenberg, Robert H. Jackson, destijds het volgende heeft vastgesteld:
'If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.'
Als Nederland op of andere wijze gaat meedoen aan de schending van het internationaal recht door deel te nemen aan een 'agressieoorlog' dan is iedere militair volgens de Neurenberg- uitspraken niet alleen gerechtigd, maar zelfs verplicht om te weigeren bevelen uit te voeren. Zo niet dan kunnen zij juridisch vervolgd worden. Befehl is geen Befehl, volgens de Neurenberg- uitspraken. Burgers kunnen een civielrechtelijke procedure beginnen tegen de Nederlandse regering van D'66 en VVD, wegens het deelnemen aan oorlogsmisdaden, die voortvloeien uit de ergste oorlogsmisdaad, namelijk het beginnen van een 'agressieoorlog.'
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten