Norbert Ehrenfreund

I recently bought several books on the Nuremberg trials as background reading on a paper I am writing. This was one of the first I received in the mail and the first I have read.

The author spent a bit of time at the trial as a reporter and ended up coming back to America, going to school, and spent 30 years as Judge in California. His grandfather was Jewish and abruptly stopping answering him Mother's letters in 1939. Long after the war and the trial he was able to confirm that his grandfather perished in a concentration camp in Poland.

The author tells the story of the Nuremberg trial in an effort to explain what it was, how it has effected international law, and how the legacy of the trial condemns George W. Bush's treatment of detainees here in America now (book published in 2007). I am an American, reading this book coming from a background of working in the legal field (mostly prosecution) for almost a decade. I consider myself a conservative but not one that is necessarily happy with everything the Republican party stands for or supports.

The book is divided into three parts. The first part focuses on the history of what happened leading up to, during, and directly after the main trial. The second part focuses on defining the legacy of the trial and how effected the Japanese trials (little real effect in my opinion seeing the actual differences) how it effected, human rights, racial prejudice, medical ethics, big business and international law suits, the supreme court (of the United States) and the trial of Saddam Hussein. The third part of the book was probably the shortest. It asked about due process keeping in mind the legacy of the Nuremberg court and how the Bush administration is treating POWs/Enemy combatants and ignoring the Geneva convention. The final chapter dealt with the sabotage of the international court which the author views as the natural offspring of the legacy of the Nuremberg trial.

The first part dealing with mainly history was probably the most interesting to me. The author is a huge fan of the head American Prosecutor, Supreme Court judge Jackson. While he does admit to some unethical conduct by Jackson (engaging in conversations with the Judge(s) about the case out of the presence of defense counsel) he nevertheless outright calls Judge Jackson an American hero. Most of what he has to say about Jackson during the book is a paean of praise. If this was a biography I would describe it as hagiography.

My problems with the trials was the ex post facto law they imposed on the German defendants charging them with conspiracy to wage aggressive war and for waging aggressive war. (Ex post facto law is law passed and then people or parties being punished for not following the law prior to it being passed into official status.) No where in international law (or national law to my knowledge) were these actions illegal. Judge Jackson had already sworn to uphold the United States Constitution in his judgment of law in America as a Supreme Court judge and the American Constitution expressly forbids ex post facto law. If it is wrong on our side of the Atlantic I am bothered that one of our Supreme Court justices not only allowed but championed punishing people under ex post facto laws on their side of the Atlantic. It was unnecessary to make these two charges to punish leaders of the German people for the holocaust as murder has been against the law pretty much universally, as is theft both of which were central crimes to the holocaust. These two first charges the author argues has set the stage in the legacy of the Nuremberg trial to lend credibility for a world court that sits in judgment over nations for their decision to go to war.
I am entirely unconvinced that the first two charges should have been leveled and supported. One fear that the Allies had at the time of the trial was that if the end of the war was not handled right the German people would come back as a world threat for a third time. So this charge against waging an aggressive war on their neighbors was to send a clear message than future behavior similar to their past behavior seeking was was wrong and would not be tolerated by the rest of the world. While this fear seems valid considering the time and history a big problem was that Britain, and especially Russia were just as guilty. France may also be as guilty reviewing their colonial efforts but I am unfamiliar with that subject. Not only was it wrong from a legal perspective (IMHO) but on its face hypocritical as well.

Also, I am chary of granting credibility to a world court to sit in judgment of nations. I doubt the impartiality of such a court and the authority of a court to dictate and or judge to a nation the rightness or wrongness of their actions. A nations peers (other nations) may indeed pass judgment on the actions of a nation but a world court idea just seems off and toothless to me.

Jackson was against the death penalty. But worked very hard for the death penalty to be imposed in the Nuremberg trials.

The Nuremberg trials were mentioned during the Vietnam war in the context of reviewing of whether or not America was living up to their position against aggressive war at the Nuremberg trials. The author in this book says pretty much nothing about that subject. It probably would have been appropriate to acknowledge the subject and how the legacy of Nuremberg measured against Vietnam.

The author finishes the second part talking about Yugoslavia, Rwanda,Indonesia, and a few other instances of genocide where a world court has tried people that have committed crimes against humanity. The author argues that these trials are direct descendants of the legacy of Nuremberg. These courts are more international as the Nuremberg court was a victors court run and adjudged by conquerors. The world court is much more an impartial court. Yet, a country ought to be able to enforce the law within its own borders. Genocide and mass murder should be against the law in every country and each country should have the power to punish those that break those laws. Not ever country does have this power, but so many of these countries have not been confronted by the world court. This is one argument for a world court. If the government is sponsoring mass murder or genocide a world court is needed to bring censure and punishment. Was the genocide and mass murder by Saddam Hussein addressed by the world court even though the facts were easily ascertainable years prior to his overthrow by America? Are there crimes against humanities being committed by governments today that are ignored? This is why I think a world court is a sad sad joke.

The author takes George Bush to task for his treatment of detainees during the war on terror. Specifically for holding people prisoner for years without giving them a day in court. Frankly I think the author has a strong point. I think we should have handled these cases differently and I believe that we should honor the Geneva convention with our prisoners. The enemy may not. But that is no reason for us not to act like a civilized foe.

Finally the author takes the Bush administration to task for not supporting the world court idea and even taking steps that are likely to weaken the authority and power of the world court. Frankly, I think that the fear that this body could be used in the future as a political weapon against American citizens or soldiers is a valid concern.

The Nuremberg trial has had a legacy that has effected several areas of world and American society and justice. One good example is the addition of laws saying that testing of medical products cannot be conducted on humans without consent is one good example.

Decently written book overall though I did not agree with all the author's opinions. Besides these respectful disagreements my only gripe is that there were a couple spots I felt the author was a bit condescending in tone. It was a decent primer to get me into the subject and I am looking forward to reading more. The author recommends reading of Telford Taylor's "The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials" which I have started today. He was the deputy prosecutor of the first trial and then head prosecutor of the 12 following trials at Nuremberg. I tend to think if you really want to lean about the trial something like this book may be more likely to be the way to go. This book is written more to make political points against the George W. Bush administration and talk about the importance of a world court than to be a serious work of history about what happened at the Nuremberg trial.
… (más)