April 30, 2012
The notion of “humanitarian intervention,” now repackaged as the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P), if carried out in an actual military attack on a sovereign country, is a violation of fundamental principles of international law and U.S. treaties which bind the United States to those principles. Obama’s new Atrocities Prevention Board (APB), by its stated objectives, would put APB officials and other top Obama Administration personnel into the category of international outlaws, guilty of offenses for which the Nuremberg defendants were convicted and sentenced, some to death by hanging. (The same would apply, of course, to a military attack or intervention against Iran or Syria.)
To review what EIR has previously reported:
The four-power agreement creating the International Military Tribunal for Germany (the “Nuremberg Tribunal”), included in its list of offenses for which there is individual responsibility: “a) Crimes against peace—namely, planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.”
The indictment in the trial of the major war criminals at Nuremberg contained four counts: 1) Conspiracy; 2) Crimes against peace; 3) War crimes; and 4) Crimes against humanity.
Count Two of the Indictment stated: “All the defendants, with diverse other persons, during a period of years preceding 8 May 1945 participated in planning, preparation, initiation, and waging wars of aggression which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements and assurances.” Twelve defendants were convicted on Count Two, in combination with other counts; seven were sentenced to death by hanging, and the others to imprisonment.
In 1974, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a “Definition of Aggression,” which stated: “Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.” It further stated that among the acts which qualify as an act of aggression, are: “The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another state, or any military occupation; … Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State; …The blockade of the ports of the coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;… The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.” .”
The Chief Delegate of the United States, Warren R. Austin, told the UN General Assembly on Oct. 30, 1946, that the United States was bound by the principles of law declared in the Nuremberg Charter, as well as by the U.N. Charter, saying that the Charter “makes planning or waging a war of aggression a crime against humanity for which individuals as well as nations can be brought before the bar of international justice, tried, and punished.”
* Image reference:
Defendants Talk Nuremberg.jpg by USHMM, courtesy of Albert Rose
This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person’s official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CanadaNewsLibre. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). CanadaNewsLibre will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements. The CNL grants permission to cross-post original CanadaNewsLibre articles and videos on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. http://canadanewslibre contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
ↄ⃝ Copyleft CanadaNewsLibre 2012