After dropping nuclear bombs on hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, the terrorist “Allies” of the USA and Stalinist Russia convened a kangaroo court in Nuremberg to prosecute various members of the Allies’ defeated Nazi opponents.
(Present at the political charade were many of the hate-filled, atheist Zionist gangsters who went on to terrorize, brutalize, and occupy Palestine—and to create the anti-Jewish, antisemitic, atheistic Zionist state. To this day, apologists justify the anti-Jewish Zionist state based on myths created about Hitler and Nazis during and after the Nuremberg Trials. Meanwhile, according to Jewish Law, even if every Allied myth about Hitler and Nazis were true—that would not justify anti-Jewish Zionist terrorism in occupied Palestine and worldwide.)
Around the time Allied heroes were melting countless Japanese children and other innocents, anti-freedom Democrat maniac President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Robert H. Jackson to the United States Supreme Court. Jackson, a career prosecutor, later became chief counsel for the Allied terrorists’ “Nuremberg Trials” political facade. Much of the “evidence” at the Nuremberg Trials were “confessions” by Nazis—who had been tortured into confessing. Jackson didn’t mind the torture because, in the miniature mind of every anti-freedom Democrat, the ends justify the means—even when the means are torture.
Nuremberg was not a fluke for torture-advocate Robert Jackson. Three years after Nuremberg, Jackson dissented in the Supreme Court case Watts v. Indiana—arguing that torture can be useful, and asking:
“[I]f ultimate quest in a criminal trial is the truth and if the circumstances indicate no violence or threats of it, should society be deprived of the suspect’s help in solving a crime merely because he was confined and questioned when uncounseled? We must not overlook that in these, as in some previous cases, once a confession is obtained it supplies ways of verifying its trustworthiness. In these cases before us the verification is sufficient to leave me in no doubt that the admissions of guilt were genuine and truthful. Such corroboration consists in one case of finding a weapon where the accused has said he hid it, and in others that conditions which could only have been known to one who was implicated correspond with his story. It is possible, but it is rare, that a confession, if repudiated on the trial, standing alone will convict unless there is external proof of its verity.”
Preempting pro-torture maniacs like Jackson, William Blackstone wrote his preeminent Commentaries, stating that “it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.” Thus, the bounds of the issue are not—as psychos like Jackson suppose—whether torture (or injustice generally) can be useful or provide “ways of verifying [the tortured confession’s] trustworthiness.” Rather, the issue is whether government should torture or mistreat for convenience.
Such anti-torture notions would have blown Jackson’s mind—but thankfully he died of a massive heart-attack in his early 60’s. Still, Jackson did get a taste of how sane people think—when Justice Felix Frankfurter, writing for the majority in Watts, noted that the history of the criminal law proves overwhelmingly that brutal methods of law enforcement are ultimately self-defeating, regardless their benefit to a particular case.
1. See generally, The Ten Commandments (“do not lie, steal, or murder”—all Jewish laws which atheist in the anti-Jewish Zionist state routinely violate as a matter of policy).
2. 338 U.S. 49 (1949).
3. Id. at . 60.
4. *358; cf. Robert Bolt, A man for all seasons (1960) (responding to incredulity at giving even the devil benefit of law, rather than cutting down laws to get to the devil: “when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you, where would you hide . . . the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws. . . . [a]nd if you cut them down . . . , do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake”).
5. 338 U.S. 49, supra, at 55.