Tribunals Quotes

This Government Instruction to British North African Consular Personnel summarized the policies of the British government with regard to British citizens who run afoul of the law while in Morocco and other North African countries. Essentially, the British almost always insisted on a treaty with the foreign governments that gave jurisdiction to the British Counsul to try any Englishman who was accused of a crime. The national government could not put a British Subject on trial of punish him regardless of the crime. Where local people were the victim of the alleged crime, the national government could send an observer to the trial that the British consul held. To many, this was arrogant and insulting to the host governments. As high handed as it seems, there were and still are great problems with differing concepts of justice, different rights protected and different levels of corruption. In many countries “important” local officials can control or influence the decisions of courts, witnesses can be easily bribed lie, and even judges can readily be bought. Even today, the issue of criminal jurisdiction is one of the most important subjects of negotiations between nations. The United States has similar agreements with Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Germany, Japan and other nations where we have armed forces. Generally, the better and more sophisticated and honest the host government justice system is, the more willing modern nations are to allow them jurisdiction over criminal matters. But generally, in the world today, these treaties are the exception. Most criminal jurisdiction is with the national government where the alleged crime takes place.

He was one or the few Turkish Senior officials who would testify about the Armenian genocide. The Christian Armenians, a minority in Turkey and its lands, were discriminated against like other non Muslim minorities in the Ottoman Empire. But during the Turkish War with Russia and WWI, some Armenians defected and served on the Russian side. Many Turkish citizens took revenge on Armenians by means of murder and torture. Soon, the extermination of the Armenians became the official “Young Turk” government policy. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed outright, and about an equal number were “deported” to special areas. Many died of malnutrition along the forced march of Ethnic Cleansing. Others were murdered as they were deported. No one knows exactly how many Armenians were killed with estimates ranging from ½ million to 4 million. This was the first genocide of the 20th century. Modern Turkish leaders however, are in denial about the Armenian deaths. They claim that there was a war and food was scarce; the only Armenians killed, the claimed were proven Russian agents. They further claim that the Armenian behavior was in large part responsible for the forced deportations because of their lack of patriotism and unwillingness to help the Turkish authorities identify the Russian agents. Most Turks today are unaware of the Armenian Genocide as nothing is taught about the massacres in schools or other institutions. It is against the law in Turkey to even have an intellectual study of the Turkish behavior towards the Armenians, much less publish anything about it.

South Africa, with the fall of apartheid, instead of arresting, trying, and sentencing the worst of the old regime, elected a truth commission approach instead.

The Bush Administration tried to implement secretly 3 very controversial programs and after much rancor, the Supreme Court and the other Federal Courts ruled that they did not have the Congressional authority to implement the programs and some aspects were unconstitutional in any event. Bush received advice not to go to Congress and ask for the authority to operate the programs because the ensuing debates would be very polarizing, would probably not pass the Congress, and would further drive down the public’s approval of Bush which was sinking anyway. However, in retrospect, Bush realized that regardless of the costs, it is worse to try and implement controversial programs in secret and to have to argue that the executive branch implicitly has the power to add to its powers and authority.