"President's Day"

Craven, Jim jcraven at clark.edu
Mon Feb 18 16:04:07 MST 2002

The buzz all over CNN is about a purported statement by Louis Farrakhan that
if the Nuremberg precedents were applied to the U.S.--past and present--many
former U.S. Presidents--along with the present imposter in the White
House--would/could be on trial for some of the same crimes that nazis were
put on trial for at Nuremberg. Of course no one on these programs took on
the issue directly with supporting evidence pro or con; all there was was
the usual claims of hyperbole and "anti-Americanism."

Memoirs of some of the key participants who sat in judgment at Nuremberg
reveal that they were well aware of and concerned about precisely that to
which Farrakhan alluded: that they could be establishing or affirming
international laws and precedents that could easily be used against
leadership of the U.S. and its allies. They were concerned that the nazi
leadership might, in their direct testimonies, point to a whole host of
crimes against American Indians and Blacks in American history (which
actually occurred with the testimonies of Goering and Streicher) as
justifications for, parallels with and even inspirations for their own
crimes. Those sitting in judgment at Nuremberg were also aware of the fact
that many U.S. companies (over 300 of them including companies controlled by
George Herbert Walker and Presecott Bush, the grandfathers of the present
"President") along with firms from allied countries, actively traded with
German nazis and Japanese and Italian fascists--and profited from their
crimes--throughout World War II and that the defendants might argue that
their American and allied accomplices should be on trial with them. There
was also the concern that many Japanese and German war criminals, associated
with experiments on prisoners of the kind that  were prohibited under U.S.
law, had been effectively shielded from prosecution and even given important
jobs in post-war administrations in return for their "research" being turned
over to the U.S. and its allies for further development.

No doubt, the U.S. was the major force behind the structure, focus and
content of the Nuremberg Trials in the late 1940s; and no doubt the
Nuremberg trials were the major force behind the 1948 UN Convention on
Genocide. Yet the U.S. Government did not "ratify" the 1948 UN Convention on
Genocide until 1988. And the U.S. has still not fully ratified that
Convention since the U.S. Government also inserted a [Hatch,Lugar and Helms]
"Sovereignty Package" which states that anything in the 1948 UN Convention
contradicting the U.S. Constitution or laws of the U.S.--as interpreted by
the U.S. Government only--would not be binding. They thus made the same
arguments that the nazis made at Nuremberg: "how we treat 'our' internal
minorities is a matter of 'national sovereignty' and not a matter for
international law." Indeed the debates of the 97th Congress at the time show
a clear awareness of--and worry about--the prospect of the U.S. Government
being charged with some of the same crimes of genocide and war crimes with
which the nazis had been charged at Nuremberg--explicit and special
reference was made to "Jim Crow laws" against African-Americans and
laws/machinations against American Indians. Recently, the U.S. Government,
along with only five other nations, refused to allow the formation of an
International Court to try crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and
other crimes against international law (citing a fear that possibly
"Americans" could be put on trial and seeking a special exemption for
Americans or U.S. troops).

The day will come when some of the past and present American presidents will
be exposed for what they were/are: genocidal maniacs, posturing fools,
duplicitous hypocrites, cynical manipulators and opportunists, abusers of
trust and responsibilities, Machiavellians, racists, lawbreakers of their
own laws, concubines of the rich and powerful backroom boys who shape the
"menu" of "choice" by the electorate and covert operators who also
manipulated and stole--with less fanfare than in the case of the last
election--the elections in which they participated.

Jim Craven

James Craven
Professor and Consultant, Economics
Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd.
Vancouver, WA. 98663
(360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863
blkfoot5 at earthlink.net
*My Employer Has No Association With My Private/Protected
"I am aware that many object to the severity of my language;
but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth,
and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not
wish to think, or speak, or write with moderation. No! No!
Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm;
tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the
ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from
the fire into which it has fallen; but urge me not to use
moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest--I
will not equivocate--I will not excuse. I will not retreat a single
inch--and I will be heard."
(William Lloyd Garrison, Abolitionist, on Slavery, 1831)

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list