Pollard and the Nuremberg Tribunal
History teaches us that freedom on this planet is precious and rare. The legacy we have today in America is the result of tyranny in governments around the world. As a result we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. But there were other documents that recognized the potential excesses of man. In 1920 we had the Versailles Treaty to deal with the aftermath of the Great War, where poison gas was first introduced. We established the United Nations after World War II, presumably to deal with each other and practice the collective malaise of war. All of our treaties recognized the fact that, in all nations there was a minority whose ambitions were to remove the freedom of the masses and dictate terms of life. They plotted wars; they plotted to destroy nations, groups and outspoken individuals. Most of those men were not extraordinary humans but merely driven by a desire to rule at any cost.
The Nuremberg Tribunals were convened after World War II to mete out justice to Germany who had set out to conquer the world. The German people joined a small group of leaders called Nazis and worked diligently to prepare and use a killer war machine that swept through Europe. This machine killed with wanton abandonment, ignored the acceptable standards of war such as treatment of prisoners and treatment of non-combatants. They killed, butchered, committed genocide and used every tortuous methods of killing that the human mind could conceive.
The Nuremberg Tribunals were formed to apply sanctions of the law to those found criminally responsible for the heinous acts mentioned earlier. Justice Robert H. Jackson acted as Chief of counsel for the United States. The Tribunals were established in London, August 8, 1945. Its key signators were General J.T. Nikichenko (Soviet Union), Lord Chancellor Jowitt (United Kingdom), Mr. Justice Jackson (United States) and Judge Robert Falco (France).
The Nuremberg Tribunals found that the men they were judging were guilty on many counts. Rejected was the plea that they were“Only Obeying Orders”. The court recognized the crimes against humanity and particularly acknowledged the atrocities committed against the Jewish people under their plan of Genocide. The plan was well-conceived from its first days. The earlier Nuremberg Laws depriving the Jews of their rights under German law, later confiscation of property to help pay for their war and finally, the elimination of the Jewish people in Germany and all the nations they would conquer. It is under the following Nuremberg Principles of International Law of 1946, recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal.
Principle I: Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
Principle II: The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III: The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV: The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle V: Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle VI: The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
a. Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
b. War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
c. Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII: Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
Although the segment of the article deals with the fate of the Jewish people after World War II, I will mention that the Jews met similar hostile treatment at the hands of the Arabs in prior centuries. History documents massacres of Jews inspired by the Muslim leaders up to and through World War II, when the Arabs joined the Nazis’ efforts. Upon the founding of the state of Israel, seven Arab armies joined together and publicly declared that they would massacre every man, woman and child in the newborn state of Israel. They failed but tried again with 5 more all-out wars, a total economic boycott, and countless terrorist attacks. Like the Germans, they too committed atrocities against captured soldiers but with less efficiency. Between the each war they committed cruel acts against children and civilians, even blowing up foreign airlines to propagandize their cause. In a word, they neither intended nor did nothing less than the Germans in their war against the Jews. The Nuremberg Tribunals would have found little difference, except for the usual circumstances of civilized nations ignoring international crime because its perpetrators were oil-laden Arab nations.
The Arabs were growing more frustrated after each battlefield defeat. They embarked upon a four phase program to achieve a victory:
1. Accumulate conventional weapons.
2. Build nuclear weapons.
3. Establish poison gas manufacturing facilities.
4. Develop missile-launchers capable of targeting Israel with nuclear, gas and/or chemical weapons.
For each of these, they required the cooperation of all the nations who had the technology to transfer or sell. These included all the signatories of the Nuremberg Convention. Each nation understood the goals of Arab genocide against the Jews, but each nation chose to break international law for the large amount of money they gained. The rulers of each supplying nation allowed technology and materials to be transferred, recognizing that the finished product would be atom bombs, poison gas (nerve and biological) and the missiles or shells to deliver them on the Jewish target of Israel. In the pursuit of profits the source nations ignored that these same weapons could also be used against the originating countries by terrorists or Arab nations who grew hostile to the West.
American, European and Russian intelligence knew that these technological transfers were being made because often they were the originating source. They knew of the ultimate plans of war wherein these weapons would be targeted against Israel. It was incumbent upon these signators to the Nuremberg Laws not to assist in the preparation of war for the total elimination of a victim nation, although the obfuscation that they were only assisting in defense would be used: “I was only obeying orders.” These nations were also obligated to warn the victim nation. In fact, individuals within those nations were required by international law, which each had ascribed to, to obey the higher law and alert the victim.
It seems aptly clear that the democracies who knew about the growing nuclear, gas and missile capacity of the Arab nations, with malice aforethought chose not to warn Israel. In fact, there were individuals within each of the governments, signatories to the Nuremberg Convention on work directly with the Arab nations to assist in the battlefield defeat of a co-democracy or an ally.
Jonathan Pollard now sits in a 4×8 cell, three floors below the ground for discharging the obligation of the United States for warning the victim nation, according to the Nuremberg Laws. The men who broke international law remain free and work diligently to keep Pollard in solitary confinement to insure that these criminal plans will not be exposed. As in Nazi Germany, a few men of incredible influence were able to co-opt many institutions of the U.S. Government, to assist in a plan that can only be compared to the genocidal program of Hitler against the Jews. Influenced by the riches of Arab oil, contracts and bank deposits, these men will maintain they were only doing it for the good of their country. Hitler too, savaged the world for the good of his country, but the judges of Nuremberg recognized the crime.
These ambitious men convinced the U.S. Intelligence Agencies to withhold vital information from Israel, insuring that in the next war Israel would be misled in its defense. These men knew and assisted the transfer of the hideous technology of poison gas production. West Germany shipped turn-key gas plants to Syria, Iraq and Libya; whole chemicals to produce Tabum, Sarin and Mustard Gas, came from chemical plants all over Europe and yes…even America.
If Jonathan Pollard acted within the laws of international policy to which the United States was a signatory, then we must ask more specific questions.
Did Jonathan Pollard betray West Germany, other European countries and the United States when he warned the intended victim, Israel, that poison gas plants and chemicals were being shipped from these countries?
Did Jonathan Pollard betray Egypt and Argentina when he notified the victim nation Israel that a medium range missile of a very high quality was being made which could carry nuclear, gas or germ warheads, and that Egypt had insisted the range be such that it could reach all the population centers of Israel?
Was Pollard guilty under the specific laws of the Nuremberg principles when he informed the victim nation that certain information held by U.S. Intelligence Agencies was given to them in a form which would mislead them in their defenses, or was withheld entirely to keep them blind to the growing threat? Was not the U.S. bound under the Nuremberg Laws to warn the victim nation?
Did not the U.S. in memorandum of Understandings agree to exchange vital information with its ally Israel? Was this M.O.U. Reaffirmed by a succession of presidents and approved by a succession of Congressional bodies?
Can a nation walk two sides of the street when the choice is Genocide with the victim nation vulnerable in the extreme? Were the Nuremberg Judgments restricted to the vanquished Germans, or was it an explicit recognition that men in any nation can be held accountable when they defy international law?