some of you are going to i know already one of the old world tough old difference i mean only after the end of the second world war major nazi leaders were put on trial for war because there is no doubt such crimes were committed. wealthy british style notes and pass the time to this guy is a prime target. for the. markets finance scandal. find out what's really happening to the global economy in the congo report on our.

you're watching our t.v. time now to have a look at our top stories for this hour identity crisis and nato was set to meet in a list then for a summit to figure out where the cold war alliance is going in the twenty first century the u.s. led block is now looking to russia for help as the war on terror in afghanistan drug saw through its tenth year. bringing democracy to others u.s. style with u.s. money american slammed their government for the billions of taxpayer dollars funding regime change of broad which they say is only backfiring on them. and no

prison time for petty crimes is what russian lawmakers are proposing as they prepare to revolutionize the country's penitentiary system russia's prisons are currently overflowing. more news updates in just under half an hour and right now it's time for cross talk with peter lavelle after a short break. if you can. follow in welcome to cross talk i'm peter lavelle immediately after the end of the second world war two major nazi leaders were put on trial for war crimes there is

no doubt and such crimes were committed however there are lingering questions about victor's justice what is the legacy of nuremberg. can. still. be discussed victor's justice i'm joined by if i am zero fans roussillon he is the director of the simon wiesenthal center in springfield we go to lawrence douglas he is a professor at amherst college and in boston we cross to william kaler he is a professor of international relations and history at boston university and another member of our cross talk team yelena hunger all right gentlemen crosstalk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want it was sixty five years ago almost to the day the international tribunal military tribunals sat in nuremberg in judgment of nazi war criminals first of all i'd like to go to you douglas what is the overall legacy in your opinion sixty five years on was justice served. you know

i think justice was served i mean i think it's it's probably i think we could all agree that it's the single most important precedent in the development of international criminal law and i think the most important basic principle that is stablished was that heads of state can be held accountable before international tribunals for the atrocities that are perpetrated in their name ok well if i could stay with you then i mean would you like to amend that by saying some heads of states can be held accountable for what they do in the world yes absolutely i mean going to exaggerate the achievements of international criminal law i mean i think we all recognize that international criminal law is very much a work in progress but nonetheless we have seen kind of relatively remarkable thing is i mean even though slobodan milosevic died before the conclusion of his trial before the international criminal. tribunal for you can slavia nonetheless

a quite remarkable fact that this was a former presidents of a nation he was being put on trial before an international court and that's a new mean achievement is the project of international justice complete by all means not we now see a fledgling international criminal court also in existence in the hague has that court been successful to date well it's way too early to tell the fact that russia china united states pakistan india are boycotting the court is that unfortunate indeed i think it is but nevertheless i think. we shouldn't overlook the incredibly important achievement of the first nuremberg trial ok i'd like to go back to the selectiveness of international justice a little bit later how about you bill what is the most important precedent you think that nuremberg left us today and i think what all of us agree maybe on at least one point if it is a work in progress what do you think will. well i do think i agree with douglas

that set a very important precedent there is a direct connection between the nuremberg trials after world war two and the genocide convention of one thousand nine hundred forty eight and the universal declaration of human rights in the same year. and ultimately the establishment of the i.c.c. on the other hand you have to note the fact that the nuremberg trials were carried out by the victors of world war two. and that means that it's not going to be a precedent that's going to be carried out by countries that are not victors or they're not great powers and all of the individuals who had been brought before the i.c.c. . are are not in power they were out of power and

therefore they had no power as the nazi war criminals had no power in one thousand nine hundred forty five nine hundred forty six so in a very real sense it was victor's justice. in jerusalem. associate supreme court justice william of douglas said that the allies were guilty of substituting power for principle continuance quote i thought at the time and still think that the nuremberg trials were unprincipled and he finished off by saying law was created expert post facto to suit the passions and clamor of the time how do you reflect upon that supreme court justice douglas comments. i think that these circumstances basically dictated the establishment though i am a matter which the tribunals carried out the process i want to i want to point

out one other principle that i think is very important and continues to resonate to this day in terms of the prosecution of nazi war criminals and other people queues of genocide war crimes or crimes against humanity that is the rejection of disappearing orders defense in other words the argument that a person could make that they had no choice but to carry out a certain illegal immoral water because it was made by someone above them with higher rank so one of the most important things that was established in nuremberg was also the fact the recognition of individual criminal responsibility i think this is also a point that should be mentioned ok committee can i ask you about what supreme court justice can actually jump in since go ahead go ahead douglas go ahead with your question with respect to the issue of victor's justice i actually find that somewhat of a specious claim. it is the case that it was the victorious powers in world war

two who were responsible for conducting the trial the actual charter for the trial was also supported by many other nations other than the four victorious allied powers who conducted the trial and i'm not exactly sure what the claim of victor's justice is on some level it's true by definition if on another level it's meant to suggest something project or death namely the fact that the quality of the justice was a rooted because not victimized by the charge of military justice on this occasion using the only nazis were tried on the nazis were tried in and people have pointed out the allied bombing of japan of germany of dresden of tokyo i think a lot of people don't fail to remember that the allies the western allies killed more german civilians through bombing. in the soviet in a conquering of eastern part of germany i mean you know that's this is what people are saying victor's justice because there were other people would say war crimes committed that never no one ever was held accountable that's where it comes from in

this case and i think that there's a legitimate argument don't you think. i think there is a legitimate argument but i mean again i think the notion of victor's justice is often made a different claim in the claim is that the principle. the principle thing for which the nazis were tried were loot was losing the war and that i think is a specious claim i mean it's an estate could leave the case that the nazis treated perpetrated atrocities that deserved to be and everybody agrees with them and i think everybody agrees with that and the fact that other people write but put a but actually you see i'm not exactly sure if everyone agrees with that because i think part of the charges that were brought in the victor's justice was that one of the charges before the international military tribunal in addition to war crimes and crimes against humanity was the we of aggressive war and i think the claim was that waging aggressive war was really something that was just kind of made up by the allies and there really wasn't any basis for holding anyone responsible for

having perpetrated that crime because the crime wasn't recognized intil the international military tribunal so that i think is one charge the other charge which i think is more what you're suggesting is what's called kind of this to cocoa in international law to coke way which is the idea that you know what you're charging us of having done you did as well and the fact that the allies might have also perpetrated done things that were unsavory doesn't in any way undercut the legitimacy of condemning the nazis for having done things that at least certainly my mind were really far worse ok bill i think everyone agrees and i started out with this program that real crimes were committed in they should have been punished and they were punished i think that is in everyone's mind is a is a good historical good we're talking about the process here that's a totally different issue here bill go ahead well peter you mentioned the bombing

of dresden and. nagasaki and that is all to the point but i would. add to that the extraordinary high park received. a soviet judge participating in the. in these trials when we consider the atrocities were committed by joseph stalin and his regime both before world war two and during world war two one of the charges against one of the defendants nuremberg was the aggressive war committed against poland and of nine hundred thirty nine well on the eastern side of poland the soviet army invaded poland as well without any reason to do so so all its own little dutch and i think you know there are a lot of historians would disagree with you i mean stalin was trying to stay out of the war and i'm not a defender or in any way want to protect the historical legacy of joseph stalin not

in any way shape or form but a lot of historians would claim it was he's trying to stay out of a war that the nazis definitely wanted to make if i could go to jerusalem or to put all right if you want to finish your point bill go ahead. i just want to say there are two important points about the nazi soviet pact of nine hundred thirty nine one is as you suggest staying out of the war and non-aggression pact but there was a secret additional protocol law that came out after the war that authorized the red army to attack poland and to incorporate the eastern part of poland into the soviet union so i think there is a perfect example of. an aggressive war being conducted in this case by the soviet union ok that could be open historical to discussion if i go to jerusalem up for you go to the break what about the term victor's justice we'll finish off on that one here and before we move on to the next part of the program go ahead i think frankly that there was no other alternative but victor's justice in other words

there was no international forum that would be appropriate to bring to bring the issues the crimes before and as a result it was the responsibility of the victims to bring the nazi criminals to justice ok gentlemen we're going to go to a short break and when we when we return we'll be people continue our discussion on the nuremberg trial stay with our. key. to. the official. i pod touch from the top story. on the get.

a sense feeds now in the palm of your. more news today is once again flared up. these are the images cobalt has been seeing from the streets of canada. trying to corporations are on the day.

welcome back across town i'm going to remind you we're talking about nuremberg legacy. but before let's see what russians think about criminal liability for denying the u.s. the sars victory in world war two sixty five years ago the international military tribunals set in nuremberg to try former nazi official on charges a war crime the process to go to after world war two the bloodiest war in human history remarkably there are those who deny the u.s. ceasars important role in defeating fascism in europe that's russia's authorities suggested introducing criminal liability for those who deny us

a sausage roll in the victory the russian public opinion research center asks citizens if they approve of the initiative according to the poll sixty percent of the respondents support they while another twenty five percent are against it with the passage of time today one might think more about the lessons taught by history . lawrence of anger do you know what most of it is name was brought up in earlier in the program and a lot of people will say that when we when people are brought to the international criminal court and other courts on an international level that it's really a western powers they they're the ones who put people on trial that they don't like we have the sudanese president they want to put him on trial a lot of people would say that ariel sharon should have been put on trial for events in lebanon in one thousand nine hundred two my point is that it's very very mixed ok if you're a friend of the west a friend of the united states you're going to get

a freer hand ok but if you're not they'll go after you into the very very end is that a fair characterization. i think in some degrees it is a fair characterization i mean but though i do think we need to bear in mind that if you look at for example the international criminal court which says you refer to it had been indicted bashir of sudan on the international criminal court might be how it's in the hague it might be in western europe but the fact is it's supported by nations all around the world and ironically in fact it's the united states that has particularly under the previous administration the bush administration which really very much tried not simply to boycott the i.c.c. but really tried to railroad it really tried to make sure that the fledgling court never really got off the ground and of course it is an irony because if you go back to the time of nuremberg it was unmistakably the case that the united states was the principal mover behind the idea of using the criminal law before an

international tribunal as a way of responding to atrocities committed by state actors when you think about that bill i mean if you're a closer friend of the united the united states of course doesn't recognize these chords that israel does and a number of other countries don't i mean how much is that the legitimize the entire concept to bring people to justice on an international level because it depends if you don't recognize the law you don't care about it i mean i would even go as far as say a lot of people think george bush should be put on trial for starting a senseless war against iraq but that will never happen because united states this ignores international law at will when it wants to i would say it's not so much a question of the western powers imposing their will on the rest of the world when it comes to international criminal activities it's great powers now but great powers ok they are predominantly western but china is well and china refuses to add going to do with the i.c.c.

so the point here is that the great powers are not going to allow an internet. national court to hail their own people before and accuse them of war crimes which is no way that's going to happen as long as we have national sovereignty i was the organizing principle of international relations ok i think go back to jerusalem so i guess it's small and we countries can be judged by the international community but powerful countries don't want to follow international law they can just get away with it so it's a real mixed bag right it isn't it's big but what you have to remember is the context in other words one of the creations in the wake of the. world war two and its lessons was of course the united nations united nations as human rights commission where you have some of the worst offenders of human rights sitting as members on this human rights commission and making

a mockery of the whole process so i think we have to judge everything on its own merits and understand the context and be very careful in making categorization is the way that you made ok but i mean even a court in israel found sharon culpable for events in lebanon in one thousand nine hundred two but israel doesn't want internet. have its citizens tried under any kind of a new international to your new law it's an excuse me it's excuse me the question is guilty of what i said called the lords of the go how much i'll let you know in the word that he will let you get a lot of words whenever it is but what if the. bucket he was removed he was removed from office no if he was deemed unfit to serve as minister of defense why it's not a crime it was not a bit of why was he deemed unfit. because it because his judgment eat he displayed poor judgment in

a very in the situation that he was in so that doesn't put him in jail that puts an ad of the office ok so there's a tremendous difference yeah it's a difference with a lot of people were massacred and someone loses their job and you think that's fair excuse me excuse me he had nothing to do with sad branch attila the. palestinian refugees were murdered by christian militia not by the i.d.f. met by the israeli defense forces i don't think anybody's ever said that. actually if i can jump in the right hand. peter yes go ahead yeah because i think in some ways. in some ways i think the kind of arguments or the questions that you're asking in a way also perhaps sort of unfortunately demonstrate some of the concerns that let's say americans are is rarely reserve and russians have about participating in international justice because although i believe that there are you know very good

reasons for pouring the american attack on iraq i don't believe that you could make a claim that that was a violation of international law for which george bro bush should be charged an international tribunal i mean there are so i mean technically jurisdictional issues involved there but there's also the notion that aggressive war even though it was recognized as the international crime at the time of nuremberg we no longer that jurisprudence around into aggressive war hasn't developed in the intervening decades and i think one of the concerns that many people have is that law will be used as a tool for settling political scores and we again there might be very very strong reasons for poor ring the israeli intervention in lebanon on the american

intervention in iraq but that is again different from saying that these leaders were sponsible for perpetrating international crimes ok bill i mean that's that's that's an interesting theory it's an interesting theoretical point but let me then who is held responsible then we'll go ahead. i just have to say that i am very uncomfortable with the concept of aggressive war all war is aggressive. and i think it's unfortunate about term was used nuremberg but the important. term i think is war crimes and crimes against humanity and that case human i'd like to call attention to the other trials that were held after world war two in tokyo at the tokyo trials. after after the war and in that case general yamashita who was the commander of the japanese military forces in the philippines

was accused and. condemned for war crimes and was executed even though it was clear that he did not know what he was soldiers were doing that there was never proved that he was aware of what they were doing or indeed that he ordered it so i think that we have to look about as a very different situation war crimes committed against civilians versus aggressive war all wars aggressive if you go back to jerusalem again i know that you and you do a wonderful job of hunting down nazis and i think that's an excellent thing to do because so many people have forgotten that since it was sixty five years ago but what about the the you know we had major war criminals a number put on trial and rightfully so and i wouldn't say rightfully executed but i mean a lot of us western governments u.k. the united states they they turned a blind eye to a lot of nazis getting away i mean you know when we have

a show trial and nuremberg but if you go down the food chain as it were then the attitude towards pursuing a prosecuting criminals that you gets thinner and thinner doesn't actually through time well that's very regrettable he has other words you could say the. the america policy of enlisting the assistance of former nazis either as intelligence agents or as scientists for the rocket program space program was really the tent this is of no. and not only that i would add to that the fact that hundreds even thousands of hitler's worst henchmen from eastern europe were admitted to all the anglo-saxon democracies as refugees during the years from one thousand nine hundred eight to nine hundred fifty three again the executive this is what was done in nuremberg and in contradiction to the noble fight against fascism and the defeat naziism by the allies ok i'm going to get going to give launcelot the last word here what would

you like to see international law do when it in coming to in reflecting upon nuremberg the the result at nuremberg what's the next step for you i mean making the greater powers to be more participatory in these kind of conventions be make it really work and make it more equal among countries. i think absolutely i mean i think one of the things is and i think one of the i mean we've been offering some criticisms of nuremberg we've been offering some of criticisms of the legacy of nuremberg but the same time i think one of the things that we said at the very outset is important to bear in mind that international criminal law remains very much a work in progress the nuremberg trial was the very first international criminal tribunal in human history does not why that far back in time so i don't think our expectation should be that this area of law should already have developed at sea legs and demonstrated its efficacy in both the smaller

countries and in the larger countries my hope is that over the next number of years we'll see the united states instead of refusing to play with the international criminal court that you'll see the united states becoming a participant ok we're going to just jump in there and have a very good positive your point that to end on this program on. i want to thank my guests in jerusalem springfield and in boston and thanks to our viewers for watching us here r.t. see you next time and remember cross talk. and. see. hungry for the full story we've got it first hand the biggest issues get a human voice face to face with the news makers.