[Nettime-bold] fwd. Interview with Benjamin Ferencz

["geert lovink" <geert@xs4all.nl>]

From: "Benjamin B. Ferencz" <Benferen@AOL.COM>
To: <JUSTWATCH-L@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 2:01 AM
Subject: Ben's 9/19 World Online interview re Sept.11

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Ferencz.html

Clark: Benjamin Ferencz posted a letter on his web page: 'Dear friends,
perhaps some of the tears have dried and people can begin to think
rationally about the horrors of the past week and what we can do to prevent
the recurrence of such tragedies.' Ben Ferencz has spent most of his 82
years doing just that. He was a prosecutor for the United States during the
Nuremberg war crimes trials of Nazi leaders. Ferencz's response to the
Vietnam War was to withdraw from his private law practice and spend the rest
of his life studying and writing about world peace. He founded the Pace
Peace Center at Pace University, where he is Adjunct Professor of
International Law. Ben Ferencz lives in New Rochelle, New York. You wrote
this letter because you believe that we have a choice between whether our
country chooses to resolve disputes on the battlefield or in the courtroom.
In other words, law versus war. Is that correct?
Ferencz: Yes. I prefer law to war under all circumstances.
Clark: And so how does that apply to this particular case in the aftermath
of the terrorist attacks?
Ferencz: What has happened here is not war in its traditional sense. This is
clearly a crime against humanity. War crimes are crimes which happen in war
time. There is a confusion there. This is a crime against humanity because
it is deliberate and intentional killing of large numbers of civilians for
political or other purposes. That is not tolerable under the international
systems. And it should be prosecuted pursuant to the existing laws.
Clark: So I want to get into that prosecution in just one moment. But first,
do you think that the talk of retaliation is not a legitimate response to
the death of 5,000 people?
Ferencz: It is never a legitimate response to punish people who are not
responsible for the wrong done.
Clark: No one is saying we're going to punish those who are not responsible.
Ferencz: We must make a distinction between punishing the guilty and
punishing others. If you simply retaliate en masse by bombing Afghanistan,
let us say, or the Taliban, you will kill many people who don't believe in
what has happened, who don't approve of what has happened.
Clark: So you are saying that you see no appropriate role for the military
in this.
Ferencz: I wouldn't say there is no appropriate role, but the role should be
consistent with our ideals. We shouldn't let them kill our principles at the
same time they kill our people. And our principles are respect for the rule
of law. Not charging in blindly and killing people because we are blinded by
our tears and our rage.
Clark: So how would a legal process possibly work? Since there is no
permanent international criminal court yet; the U.S. has opposed such a
court. Where would terrorists be tried?
Ferencz: We must first draw up an indictment of the crime and specify what
the crimes were, listing all the names of the related organizations. Not
merely the direct perpetrators are responsible but all those who aided and
abetted them before or after the crime. These should be listed and
described. And then a demand made pursuant to existing United Nations
resolutions, calling upon all states to arrest and detain the persons named
in the indictment so they can be interrogated by U.S. examiners.
Clark: As you know a federal court, a grand jury, indicted Osama bin Laden
almost three years ago in the two U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. That was
1998 and we still haven't brought him to trial.
Ferencz: What I'm suggesting is that the Security Council of the United
Nations can immediately call up -- as they have done in connection with the
crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, where over half a million people were
butchered -- create an ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal to try these
criminals on the charges which are applicable under the existing
international laws.
Clark: So you're saying something that would be akin to an international war
crimes court.
Ferencz: It would be an international criminal court. Don't use the word
"war" crimes because that suggests that there is a war going on and it's a
violation of the rules of war. This is not in that category. We are getting
confused with our terminology in our determination to put a stop to these
terrible crimes.
Clark: So what do you say to skeptics who believe the judicial process is
inadequate because it is very slow and very cumbersome?
Ferencz: I realize that it is slow and cumbersome but it is not inadequate.
I say to the skeptics, Follow your procedure and you'll find out what
happens. You have seen what happens. We will have more fanatics and more
zealots deciding to come and kill the evil, the United States. We don't want
to do that. We want to uphold our principles. The United States was the
moving party behind the Nuremberg Trials and behind insisting upon the rule
of law.
Clark: So do you believe that because of the fact that we're dealing with
terrorists, we are re-writing the rules to a proper response?
Ferencz: We're not re-writing any rules. We don't have to re-write any
rules. We have to apply the existing rules. To call them "terrorists" is
also a misleading term. There's no agreement on what terrorism is. One man's
terrorism is another man's heroism. I'm sure that bin Laden considers
himself a saint and so do many of his followers. We try them for mass
murder. That's a crime under every jurisdiction and that's what's happened
here and that is a crime against humanity.
Clark: So Ben Ferencz you were an enlisted man under General Patton, you
fought in every campaign in Europe, you've written in your letter in fact
about flashbacks that you've had of Normandy, of seeing corpses at
Buchenwald, the remorseless Nuremberg defendants who murdered about 100,000
mostly Jewish men, women, and children at Babi Yar near Kiev; now there you
are in New York, witnessing this. Yet you close this letter by saying that
you have not given up hope. Why not?
Ferencz: Of course I have not given up hope. You must never give up hope.
Because hope is the engine that drives human endeavor. We have to change the
way people think and that can't be done quickly. We must teach them
compassion and tolerance and understanding and a willingness to compromise,
if necessary. These are all essential things that take generations to
develop. And until we do that I'm afraid we'll suffer the consequences. And
we see it in what has happened in New York.
Clark: Ben Ferencz lives in New Rochelle, New York. He is the author of,
among other books, New Legal Foundations for Global Survival. Nice to speak
with you.
Ferencz: A pleasure.

Benjamin B. Ferencz: former prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial,
particularly Chief Prosecutor of Einsatzgruppen (22 defendants charged with
murdering over a million people, called by the Associated Press the biggest
murder trial in history). A graduate of Harvard Law School, he served in the
Army under General Patton in every campaign in Europe and helped liberate
Buchenwald, Mauthausen, and Dachau. Author of numerous books including
Defining International Aggression -- The Search for World Peace (1975), An
International Criminal Court -- A Step Toward World Peace (1980), Enforcing
International Law -- A Way to World Peace (Forward) (1983), A Common Sense
Guide to World Peace (Preface) (1985), Planethood: The Key to Your Future
(1991), New Legal Foundations for Global Survival: Security Through the
Security Council (Summary) (1994), Mr. Ferencz is an Adjunct Professor of
International Law at Pace University and founder of the Pace Peace Center,
and a Trustee of The Center For United Nations Reform Education.




_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold