Back to Dr. Sniegoski's article.

To Burkeman and Borger's article.



To the editor ...

Dr. Sniegoski speaks of international law deriving from the Nuremberg Trials. From what I have read, the sonorous charges made against the vanquished German government were just as ad hoc as the excuses the neocons recently put in the mouths of their American state puppets. They served as an excuse to revive the ancient custom of slaughtering the defeated. Before World War II there was a concept of state sovereignty that included the right to go to war. Therefore, the charges against the defeated government were ex post facto, as many jurists pointed out at the time. The Nuremberg court (and there were hosts of courts) were legislative courts, just as American courts have become.

And of course, the prohibition against aggressive war does not apply to Israel.

Dr. Sniegoski wishes to avoid an international catastrophe such as World War II from recurring. I agree. In order to do so we need a better understanding of what happened. What were the unique circumstances that caused and maintained that war? What circumstances could lead to another such global conflagration? North America supplied the power for much of World War II. I doubt if it is now capable of such an effort. As far as I can see, China is perhaps the only state that could possibly supply some of the necessary wherewithal. That is a very bad lookout for us.

Susan Loeffel
November 24, 2003

Back to Dr. Sniegoski's article.

Notice  to visitors who came straight to this document from off site: You are deep in The Last Ditch. You should check out our home page and table of contents.