Mark Sumner diaried this on March 5th, but it doesn’t seem to have gotten the attention it deserves.
Former prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz, who worked at the Nuremberg Trials (the trial of Hitler's German leaders), stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin could be convicted of crimes against humanity committed by the Russian military in Ukraine, according to multiple reports.
Here’s an article that tells more about Ferencz, who was honored with a Congressional gold medal and who is a world treasure and blessing.
We should note that Ferencz calls out specifically Putin’s use of cluster bombs to target civilians. The United States is one of the last countries not to ban cluster bombs, claiming that we don’t target civilians...even though many civilians are killed and wounded by them.
I was disappointed, though, that Ben Ferencz did not specifically mention that Russia committed “the supreme international crime” as the Nuremberg Tribunal called it—annexing territory by force or compulsion.
Now is a good time to ask whether we want to give criminal states like Russia cover for their use of cluster bombs by not joining the ban. Same for fuel-air (vacuum) weapons. And same for invading countries without a mandate from the UN—or at least the general assembly. Or maybe at least a genuine coalition?
The Iraq invasion was a bad idea. The Panama invasion was a bad idea. The Grenada invasion was a bad idea. The US retention of Guantanamo contrary to Cuba’s wishes is a bad idea. None of them amounted to the “supreme international crime” (crimes) that Russia committed by grabbing Crimea, the Donbass, and now the whole country—but they were way too close to the line.
And the attempt by the US to overthrow various governments has been a been idea. We haven’t been as murderous as Russia, at least not in the last 30 years, but we need to take a detour onto the moral high ground.
Vladimir Putin does belong in jail. We also need to reflect on how we do global politics. We need to work toward a world where law rules, not force or compulsion. Only then is there real freedom.
_________
Adding: Ben Ferencz has linked an article on the illegality of invasion:
One year before, the Nuremberg trials had branded the waging of aggressive war as ‘the supreme international crime’. The legacy of Nuremberg culminated in the establishment of a new International Criminal Court (ICC), in 1998. After speedy ratification, the Court became operational in 2002; it was immediately authorised to deal with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. In full compliance with its Nuremberg legacy, the statute reiterated the criminalisation of aggressive war. While jurisdiction over the first three categories of crimes was universally accepted, several major powers were, however, not prepared to accept an international judicial review of their perceived sovereign right to wage war; the same hesitations still prevailed at an amendment conference in Kampala, Uganda, in 2010. Today, the crime of aggression still hangs in legal limbo.
He’s on Twitter!