Sponsors

The Way We Were Email Print

By Devilstower
01/04/2006 08:55:26 AM EST

Remember this time two years ago?  Howard Dean was running for president, Bush was defending the loss of liberties spelled out in the Patriot Act, and Iraq sucked.  Times have really changed...well, except for Bush.  And Iraq.

But two years ago, Howard Dean was taking grief over this statement:

"I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

What did the NRO's Andrew McCarthy have to say about Dean's statement?

Howard Dean's mistletoe buss for Osama bin Laden would, in sane times, disqualify him from serious contention for a major party's presidential nomination. If what he says is what he thinks, he is unfit. Case closed.

And about Bin Laden?

Americans (other than, evidently, Dr. Dean) know and expect that his fate, should he emerge from the catacombs, is death, either in battle or by execution at the conclusion of the most summary of military tribunals -- the just dessert of unlawful combatants who commit crimes against humanity.

But this little jaunt into history doesn't stop with 2003.  Come along and see what twists await us sixty years in the past...

As the old saying goes, if history doesn't repeat itself, at least some times it rhymes.  Sixty years ago, with London crumbling under the impact of the Blitz and the Nazis occupying most of Europe, Churchill was already contemplating what to do with Hitler should he ever fall into British hands.  And the answer was: kill him without a trial.
"This man is the mainspring of evil," he was quoted as saying and suggested that Hitler should not be hanged but send to the electric chair "for gangsters".
 Furthering the Andrew McCarthyite position, other members of the British government went so far as to recommend against any sort of trial.  
A "mock trial for Nazi leaders would be objectionable: Better to declare that we shall put them to death," former Home Secretary Herbert Morrison was recorded as saying.

Those on the right who railed against Dean's statement must be feeling pretty warm right now.  They're on the side of Saint Winston, defender of Democracy against Dark Forces.  As McCarthy might say, "case closed."

Ah, but there's one last little twist to this story.  Churchill had to pull back from his plans for a summary execution.  Why? Because the United States, and even Russia, wouldn't go along.  

Churchill agreed that a trial for Hitler would be "a farce," but within weeks both the United States and Russia said they favored trying Nazi leaders, and trials were later held at Nuremberg, Germany.
 While those on the right try to make up mythical WW II atrocities as a way to excuse the torture of detainees today, they're ignoring the fact that sixty years ago, this country would not support the execution of Adolph Hitler without a fair trial.  

Churchill did not give up the "kill him quick" approach easily, and suggested that the U.S. be given a list of reasons why Hitler must die and then "kill him before they have a chance to respond."  But the U.S. was adamant -- there had to be a trial.  Churchill eventually backed off.  He backed off because he knew he was in the wrong.

"Don't make a big fight with the United States and Russia on this," he said. "We are in a weak position."

Hitler's suicide kept him out of the courtroom, but it was U.S. insistence that created the Nuremberg trials.  Why?  Because we knew that fair trials are more than a matter of defending the accused, they're a means of showing that civilization is not defeated, that justice is not circumvented, that law and order still hold.

We have fallen that far.

Hey, but those on the right can be comforted that the same set of documents which revealed Churchill's desire to kill Hitler also included his indifference to letting Mahatma Gandhi die in jail.  Hmm, summary execution.  Unlimited holding of political prisoners.  Perhaps today's right really are the heirs of Churchill.


KEYWORDS: , , , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< Police State Rhetoric? | Abramoff? Who's Abramoff? Plus, a Stroll Through Fluff Piece History >
 Display:
The Way We Were | 3 comments (3 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Excellent post (none / 0)
I've thought about this Nuremberg trial situation as well with Hussein.

Aside from the advantages you point out to having a full trial for villians (showing that law still prevails, that civilized nations make sure justice is served), there are other virtues of having trials of nasty types. I think there is also the opportunity for soul-searching on the part of other civilized nations -- and the native people of the bad person's nation -- to take a long, hard look at how the villian got into a position of power in the first place. It allows an opportunity to look back over the rise of someone's nasty-ass career and see at what points intevention could have circumvented their rise to power or how they could have been legally neutralized earlier.

And of course, a trial allows an opportunity for a nation's (and a world's) people to review places and times where they themselves were complicit with the acts, even passively. There's a hope then that we can learn from history, and these trials offer a learning opportunity.

Of course, America is historically blind when it comes to examining its own motivations, so I don't hold out much hope for that in the future. Still, the fact that we're at least conforming to the outward forms of giving Hussein a trial (as opposed to shooting him on capture) gives a ray of hope, yes?

by SusanG on 01/04/2006 01:05:24 PM EST

Reconciliation (none / 1)
I think that the experience in South Africa shows that public exposure of these deeds can be extremely cathartic to the nation, even when those admitting to wrong go unpunished.  A trial, with opportunity for witnesses to come forward, for evidence to be produced, and for sentences to be pronounced, seems essential.

Imagine how unsatisfying it's going to be for the U.S. if it turns out that Bin Laden really did die in some incident months ago, or drops from his long list of medical issues.  I don't believe in capital punishment, so I'm not keen on dragging the man over here just to put a needle in his arm, but I think it's a vital part of the national healing to see al Qaeda leaders in a courtroom.

Just another in the long list of things badly crippled by Bush's innate urge toward secrecy and accumulating power to himself.

by Devilstower on 01/04/2006 02:00:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes, reconciliation ... (none / 0)
is fascinating and cathartic. I'm really interested in and want to learn more about South Africa's process. Germany seemed to go through some of the same thing after Nuremberg with less official hoopla about it.

I just can't see America taking to it and as long as we are wed to our mythology of exceptionalism. Germany really had to be humbled almost to complete infrastructure devastation and outlawed as the pariah of the world before any national self-examination could occur.

If it were possible for the U.S. to reach that point without the utter humiliation visited upon Germany, I would be all for the reconciliation catharsis. But because I can't see us reaching that without the loss of millions of lives and utter devastation, I really can't root for it for my nation, sadly.

by SusanG on 01/04/2006 02:30:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Way We Were | 3 comments (3 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
 Display: