. NMT04-T0709
Volume IV · Page 709
| already the level of what constitutes
historical necessity; it is not criminal in the sense of a penal code.
The prosecution has explained everything that happened in the East since 1939 as a deliberate crime involving murder of nations. It must be a duty of the defense to establish the reasons which induced well-intentioned men to offer their services to a policy even though it was unsuccessful in the end. It will be the task of the Tribunal to decide to what extent each individual defendant was altogether involved in the events to which the prosecution has drawn attention, and to what extent they are guilty according to existing law. It would considerably facilitate the task of the defense if the Tribunal would indicate which legislation will be made the basis of its decision: American law, the law of the territory within which each crime was committed, the law of the native country of the defendant, or international law. Material for argumentation with reference to this point, which I have submitted to Military Tribunals II and III, I may be allowed to present also to this high Tribunal. Further, I may be allowed to invite the attention of the high Tribunal to some of the petitions which in these days have been filed with the high Tribunal IV in Case No. 5 against Flick et al.,* which have been substantiated for the records. Insofar as these petitions cover the presentation of evidence, the extent of evidence, and the means of evidence, the decision passed upon them will affect also the present proceedings. I request that we, the defense counsel, be permitted to reserve for ourselves the right to present the grounds of detailed petitions and argumentations with reference to this point, which go far beyond the scope of this opening plea. But already now, and without considering the last-mentioned arguments, I propose — To declare that for purely legal reasons the indictment is based on insufficient grounds insofar as it is upheld by the contention of an "organized program of genocide", i.e., in count two. As I have stated already, it has not been proved by the prosecution that this legal institution was established as such by existing international law. Law is not what is useful to the people. This presumptuous saying has come into discussion after it has been contradicted by itself. But law is not simply all that is useful to mankind. Who can believe himself to be omniscient |
* United States of America vs. Friedrich Flick, et al., vol. VI, this series.
