List of double standards and injustice of Nuremberg Trial

[LWD]

LWD has to demostrate that Frick was personally responsible of:

II = "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace"
III = "War crimes"
IV = "Crimes against humanity"

Actually I don't, that's why I suggested you read the FAQ. You are the propnent of the proposition that Frick was innocent except of course you admitted he wasn't. As the proponent if brought to question it is up to you to provide fact (sources) and logic to back up your position. So far the sources you've presented indicate rather the opposite of your conjecture and your logic has been rather weak as well.

[LWD]

...My opinion is based on evidence.

Then present it. That's what this board is for.

Your opinion is based on prejudices and ignorance.

I would dispute the first not necessarily the second. I will admit I'm no expert on the IMT. On the otherhand I'm not claiming I'm right and anyone who thinks differently is not only wrong but suffering from personal defects as well. What I have been saying is that you have done very little to actually support your position. That's not saying that mine opinion is better or even that you are wrong simply you have failed to support it. I will admit that in some cases you have provided sources which tend to contradict your conjectures though.

How so? What agencies and what demonstrates that he had nothing to do with them?

The judgement was incapable of providing real evidence for justify his death sentence.

A perfect example. How does this statment answer either of the questions above? It obviously doesn't it simply states another opinion and does nothing to support it or the previous ones.

If he was involved in implementing or writeing the laws that lead to, aided, or justified genocide then that was indeed a criminal act. Again the IMT made it clear that "just following orders" was not a valid defence.

Perhaps you can post here what orders signed by Frick lead to/justified genocide. Frick was a nobody in the process leading to the "Holocaust".

Your quote from the IMT proceedings already did, did they not?
...

So now you are saying that he did indeed commit crimes where you were adament before that he didn't. What constitutes a just sentence is rather up to the laws and the courts is it not? As an example of US law if two individuals attempt to rob say a liquer store and one is killed in the attempt the other can be convicted of 1st degree murder in many states. In some states this may result in the death penalty. This is true if even if he was only driving the "getaway car".

Frick have responsability for his own sphere that was not penetrated by other agencies. In areas other agencies were responsible, Frick was not. A nobody.[/quote]
Which again looks like evasion and contains nothing in the way of sources or logic to support your positoin.

[Boby]

LWD, after many warnings, you are now on ignore. I don't want to waste my time playing your game.

[Terry Duncan]

Boby,

The judgement was incapable of providing real evidence for justify his death sentence.

By neccessity the IMT was a military court and the death penalty was an option on all of the four counts against the defendents even if it was decided not to apply it in all cases. Therefore if Frick was shown to be guilty on any count the death penalty could be applied. Remember, military courts were within their rights to sentence people to death for looting, so a death sentence for violating international law is always possible.

Perhaps you can post here what orders signed by Frick lead to/justified genocide.

He was a 'nobody' that put into place the framework that allowed the Holocaust to happen - the Nuremburg Laws etc. Just because he was not involved in the final act of killing does relieve him of responsibility for creating conditions where it could happen.

Frick have responsability for his own sphere that was not penetrated by other agencies.

Ok, lets look at this by your own standards. Did Frick sign into law anything that was prohibited by the Versailles Treaty? Did any law signed into effect by Frick caused people to lose their human rights or allowed others to remove them at will?

Very quickly and 'off the cuff'

II = "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace"

Violation of the Versailles Treaty with regards to German rearmament. Signing into law the annexation of territories prohibited to Germany by the Versailles Treaty.

III = "War crimes"

Did Frick sign into law or have connections with the illegal use of POW's or civilians as slave labour?

IV = "Crimes against humanity"

The Nuremburg Laws and any others that removed the rights or people or allowed them to be taken into custody or executed without what was considered due legal process under normal conditions IE: the people concerned would have been treated far differently if they had not been of a certain race or political belief?

These are quick guesses at the likely ares Frick could be said to have acted illegally.

As to the death sentence or to the case for Frick not being as responsible as the allies suggested, why did he not enter the witness box and put forward a case for himself? If Frick was unwilling to defend himself, and as a lawyer he must have been aware of how this would appear the the judges, why should the judges not accept the caseput forward by the prosecution?

[Boby]

By neccessity the IMT was a military court and the death penalty was an option on all of the four counts against the defendents even if it was decided not to apply it in all cases. Therefore if Frick was shown to be guilty on any count the death penalty could be applied. Remember, military courts were within their rights to sentence people to death for looting, so a death sentence for violating international law is always possible.

That's my point. The can put to death any defendant if they wanted. The motives were irrelevant.

He was a 'nobody' that put into place the framework that allowed the Holocaust to happen - the Nuremburg Laws etc. Just because he was not involved in the final act of killing does relieve him of responsibility for creating conditions where it could happen.

Terry, this is absolute nonsense. Nuremberg laws were unrelated to the "holocaust". Frick acted in 1935. One can't judge him with retrospective laws. Since in 1935 there was no "holocaust", there is hardly a point here.

Ok, lets look at this by your own standards. Did Frick sign into law anything that was prohibited by the Versailles Treaty? Did any law signed into effect by Frick caused people to lose their human rights or allowed others to remove them at will?

You obsession with Versailles is beyond comprehesion. Anyway, Frick was forced by others. He was not the responsible. It was the nice guy putting his signature in laws.

Violation of the Versailles Treaty with regards to German rearmament. Signing into law the annexation of territories prohibited to Germany by the Versailles Treaty.

Ordered by others. Even without Frick they would be passed. Frick was irrelevant.

Did Frick sign into law or have connections with the illegal use of POW's or civilians as slave labour?

Tell me.

The Nuremburg Laws and any others that removed the rights or people or allowed them to be taken into custody or executed without what was considered due legal process under normal conditions IE: the people concerned would have been treated far differently if they had not been of a certain race or political belief?

It was not ordered by him.

These are quick guesses at the likely ares Frick could be said to have acted illegally.

As to the death sentence or to the case for Frick not being as responsible as the allies suggested, why did he not enter the witness box and put forward a case for himself? If Frick was unwilling to defend himself, and as a lawyer he must have been aware of how this would appear the the judges, why should the judges not accept the caseput forward by the prosecution?

Another desperate attempt.

So, no real evidence. Just he signed laws and was reichsprotektor. Without Frick, other guy would be in his place, and so on.

[LWD]

That's my point. The can put to death any defendant if they wanted.

No they can't. They only have that power over defendents brought to trial in their court and then only if convicted. Much the same can be said for any court that tries capital cases can in not?

The motives were irrelevant.

No they are not. They are in fact critical. To say they are irrelevant is to suggest that the sentences passed were not based on a logical decision but completely arbitrary and random. The records hardly bear this out do they?

He was a 'nobody' that put into place the framework that allowed the Holocaust to happen - the Nuremburg Laws etc. Just because he was not involved in the final act of killing does relieve him of responsibility for creating conditions where it could happen.

Terry, this is absolute nonsense. Nuremberg laws were unrelated to the "holocaust". Frick acted in 1935. One can't judge him with retrospective laws. Since in 1935 there was no "holocaust", there is hardly a point here.

He retired from public life in 1935? That's certainly not what the indictment you posted stated. Let' see accoring to:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... Frick.html

The numerous laws he drafted, signed, and administered abolished all opposition parties and prepared the way for the Gestapo and their concentration camps to extinguish all individual opposition. He was largely responsible for the legislation which suppressed the Trade Unions, the Church, the Jews. He performed this task with ruthless efficiency.
...
The Reich Ministries of Justice, Education, Religion, and the Office of Spatial Planning were made subordinate to him. Performing his allotted duties, Frick devised an administrative organisation in accordance with wartime standards. According to his own statement, this was actually put into operation after Germany decided to adopt a policy of war.

Frick signed the law of 13th March, 1938, which united Austria with the Reich, and he was made responsible for its accomplishment. In setting up German administration in Austria, he issued decrees which introduced German law, the Nuremberg Decrees, the Military Service Law, and he provided for police security by Himmler.

He also signed the laws incorporating into the Reich the Sudetenland, Memel, Danzig, the Eastern territories (West Prussia and Posen) and Eupen, Malmedy, and Moresnot. He was placed in charge of the actual incorporation, and of the establishment of German administration over these territories. He signed the law establishing the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.
...
His work formed the basis of the Nuremberg Decrees, and he was active in enforcing them. Responsible for prohibiting Jews from following various professions, and for confiscating their property, he signed a final decree in 1943, after the mass destruction of Jews in the East, which placed them " outside the law " and handed them over to the Gestapo. These laws paved the way for the " final solution ", and were extended by Frick to the Incorporated Territories and to certain of the Occupied Territories. While he was Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, thousands of Jews were transferred from the Terezin Ghetto in Czechoslovakia to Auschwitz, where they were killed. He issued a decree providing for special penal laws against Jews and Poles in the Government General.
...However, he signed the law appointing Himmler Chief of the German Police, as well as the decrees establishing Gestapo jurisdiction over concentration camps and regulating the execution of orders for protective custody. From the many complaints he received, and from the testimony of witnesses, the Tribunal concludes that he knew of atrocities committed in these camps. With knowledge of Himmler's methods, Frick signed decrees authorising him to take necessary security measures in certain of the Incorporated Territories. What these "security measures " turned out to be has already been dealt with.

As the Supreme Reich Authority in Bohemia and Moravia, Frick bears general responsibility for the acts of oppression in that territory after 20th August, 1943, such as terrorism of the population, slave labour, and the deportation of Jews to the concentration camps for extermination.

Sounds like the court was quite correct in finding:

... that Frick is not guilty on Count One. He is guilty on Counts Two, Three and Four..

Furthermore it hardly sounds to me like the death penalty was unwarrented.

. Anyway, Frick was forced by others. He was not the responsible.

Was he? and wasn't he? Certainly the court finding above suggest otherwise.

Ordered by others. Even without Frick they would be passed. Frick was irrelevant.

The first two sentences do not imply the third. He appearse to have been a willing particiapant from the above.

Did Frick sign into law or have connections with the illegal use of POW's or civilians as slave labour?

Tell me.

You maintian he was innocent yet you won't even answer such a simple question. Could it be that it would make it clear that he wasn't.

The Nuremburg Laws and any others that removed the rights or people or allowed them to be taken into custody or executed without what was considered due legal process under normal conditions IE: the people concerned would have been treated far differently if they had not been of a certain race or political belief?

It was not ordered by him.

It didn't have to be ordered by him to make him guilty. The hit man usually doesn't order the hit but he and the driver are equally as guilty as the person ordering the hit.

As to the death sentence or to the case for Frick not being as responsible as the allies suggested, why did he not enter the witness box and put forward a case for himself? If Frick was unwilling to defend himself, and as a lawyer he must have been aware of how this would appear the the judges, why should the judges not accept the caseput forward by the prosecution?

Another desperate attempt.

Agreed but on your part or his or both?

So, no real evidence. Just he signed laws and was reichsprotektor. Without Frick, other guy would be in his place, and so on.

Wrong very real evidence that resulted in very real justice.

[Boby]

Don't waste your time replying me. You are on ignore. Because you are an ignorant. Because you are illiterate in this field.

[waldzee]

the Jewish Virtual Library is vetted by the Avalon project of the Harvard law school & can safely regarded as 'definitive' in discussions.

[little grey rabbit]

the Jewish Virtual Library is vetted by the Avalon project of the Harvard law school & can safely regarded as 'definitive' in discussions.

"vetted"???

[Terry Duncan]

Boby,

To be fair LWD has posted replies to your points very similar to those I would have posted, so I will address the main points only for the sake of brevity and sanity;

That's my point. The can put to death any defendant if they wanted. The motives were irrelevant.

Only a defendant that had been found guilty could be sentenced to death. As to the idea motive is irrelevant, I honestly cannot believe you have posted this seriously or that the word has translated into English properly. In all criminal law motive is one of the cornerstones of making a case, and lack of motive is a prime point for any defence.

Terry, this is absolute nonsense. Nuremberg laws were unrelated to the "holocaust".

Did the Nurmeburg Laws violate the human rights of any section of the population of Germany? They do not have to be directly related to the 'Holocaust' to do so, though the charge that they were the beginning of a process that led to the Holocaust does have some weight to it.

Since in 1935 there was no "holocaust", there is hardly a point here.

Human rights would still apply even if there was no holocaust, or do you believe that Germany only acted against people human rights when they killed them?

You obsession with Versailles is beyond comprehesion.

It was the major treaty defining boundaries and status in Europe as well as arms limitations on certain nations, and therefore was very important even if you dont wish that it was so. Many of the charges brought against the Nazi government by the IMT was that she had violated this very treaty, so again it is very important there too.

Anyway, Frick was forced by others. He was not the responsible.

Really? Please cite something to show Frick was forced to act by others. As to not responsible, yes he was. If your superior at work tells you to go out and kill somebody you are still responsible for doing so, even if your boss is aslo complicit.

Ordered by others. Even without Frick they would be passed. Frick was irrelevant.

Then somebody else other than Frick would have been in front of the IMT and likely to have hung for these illegal acts.

Did Frick sign into law or have connections with the illegal use of POW's or civilians as slave labour?

Tell me.

Ok, as you asked so nicely and seem to be unaware. From the judgement against him;

As the Supreme Reich Authority in Bohemia and Moravia, Frick bears general responsibility for the acts of oppression in that territory after 20th August, 1943, such as terrorism of the population, slave labour, and the deportation of Jews to the concentration camps for extermination.

He is responsible for Germanisation in Austria, Sudetenland, Memel, Danzig, Eastern Territories (West Prussia and Posen), and in the territories of the Eupen, Malmedy, and Moresnot. He forced on the citizens of these territories, German law, German courts, German education, German police security, and compulsory military service.

During the war nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums in which euthanasia was practiced as described elsewhere in this Judgment, came under Frick's jurisdiction. He had knowledge that insane, sick and aged people, "useless eaters," were being systematically put to death. Complaints of these murders reached him, but he did nothing to stop them. A report of the Czechoslovak War Crimes Commission estimated that 275,000 mentally deficient and aged people, for whose welfare he was responsible, fell victim to it.

Looks rather as I remembered. Many contraventions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions by which Germany had bound herself.

The Nuremburg Laws and any others that removed the rights or people or allowed them to be taken into custody or executed without what was considered due legal process under normal conditions IE: the people concerned would have been treated far differently if they had not been of a certain race or political belief?

It was not ordered by him.

From the judgement again;

Always rabidly anti-Semitic, Frick drafted, signed, and administered many laws designed to eliminate Jews from German life and economy. His work formed the basis of the Nuremberg Decrees, and he was active in enforcing them. Responsible for prohibiting Jews from following various professions, and for confiscating their property, he signed a final decree in 1943, after the mass destruction of Jews in the East, which placed them " outside the law " and handed them over to the Gestapo.

So we see Frick did indeed act against people's human rights.

Another desperate attempt.

Not desperate, a genuine question you seem to wish to dodge. When on trial for his life Frick refused to say a single word in his own defence, and as a lawyer must have known how judges would interpret failing to do so. Frick could have stood up and tried to claim as you do, that he bore no responsibility for anything as he only signed things into law or had special motives behind his actions, though putting forward such a defence would have likely seen him hang still but also make a complete laughing stock of himself in the process. How on earth do you imagine a lawyer could stand up and say 'I only signed it because Hitler said I should' and not be held responsible for not refusing if he knew that to do so was to commit a criminal act?

So, no real evidence. Just he signed laws and was reichsprotektor.

The laws themselves are the evidence and were criminal, by signing them Frick identified himself with them.

Without Frick, other guy would be in his place, and so on.

In which case 'other guy' would have been the one to hang.

[Boby]

Last opportunity to you: if you provides hard evidence of Frick personal involvement in charges II-IV, we can continue the debate. If you can't, because you are following IMT sacred judgement, without questioning it, you are automatically also on ignore.

Only a defendant that had been found guilty could be sentenced to death. As to the idea motive is irrelevant, I honestly cannot believe you have posted this seriously or that the word has translated into English properly. In all criminal law motive is one of the cornerstones of making a case, and lack of motive is a prime point for any defence.

IMT was utterly biased. If you, after 70 years, don't understand this, is not my fault.

Did the Nurmeburg Laws violate the human rights of any section of the population of Germany? They do not have to be directly related to the 'Holocaust' to do so, though the charge that they were the beginning of a process that led to the Holocaust does have some weight to it.

Yes, it "violates" the rights of less than 1% of the population. Since it was a law legally passed from german governement, there is no point here. Since Frick was not involved in the "Holocaust", I will take this as another desperate attempt from IMT.

Human rights would still apply even if there was no holocaust, or do you believe that Germany only acted against people human rights when they killed them?

Well, how to put it to you for understanding me, Terry? Why all this fanatical, blind obfuscation? Wilhelm Frick was not the responsible of the Nüremberg laws. Even if he welcomed them, they were not originated from him.

Do you believe Anti-black laws in the USA at the same time they were judging Frick were against people's right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_seg ... ted_States

We can put to death the President, the Chief Justice of the United States, etc? Surely!

It was the major treaty defining boundaries and status in Europe as well as arms limitations on certain nations, and therefore was very important even if you dont wish that it was so. Many of the charges brought against the Nazi government by the IMT was that she had violated this very treaty, so again it is very important there too.

Versailles was dead in 1939. That the IMT was resurrecting this in 1945 is again a proof they were desperate to find any evidence against evil germans. But sorry for you Terry, Frick has nothing to do with Foreign Policy and rearmament.

Really? Please cite something to show Frick was forced to act by others. As to not responsible, yes he was. If your superior at work tells you to go out and kill somebody you are still responsible for doing so, even if your boss is aslo complicit.

You are talking nonsense. Frick was "forced" to pass laws in his capacity as Reichsminister. These laws don't comes from him, but from Hitler et al. Your example that "If your superior" is ludicrous, because Frick never killed any person. You are desperate, Terry.

Then somebody else other than Frick would have been in front of the IMT and likely to have hung for these illegal acts.

Only in your sick world you can expect a death sentence for a bureaucrat obeying orders from above.

Ok, as you asked so nicely and seem to be unaware. From the judgement against him;

Unsourced claims. Obviously your abysmal ignorance is so great, than you just followed IMT judgement. You don't know any other source.

Looks rather as I remembered. Many contraventions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions by which Germany had bound herself.

Unsourced claims. Zero evidence. Nothing.

From the judgement again;

Unsourced claims. Zero evidence. Nothing.

Not desperate, a genuine question you seem to wish to dodge. When on trial for his life Frick refused to say a single word in his own defence, and as a lawyer must have known how judges would interpret failing to do so. Frick could have stood up and tried to claim as you do, that he bore no responsibility for anything as he only signed things into law or had special motives behind his actions, though putting forward such a defence would have likely seen him hang still but also make a complete laughing stock of himself in the process. How on earth do you imagine a lawyer could stand up and say 'I only signed it because Hitler said I should' and not be held responsible for not refusing if he knew that to do so was to commit a criminal act?

Look at his words:

WILHELM FRICK (Defendant): I have a clear conscience with respect to the Indictment. My entire life was spent in the service of my people and my fatherland. To them I have devoted the best of my strength in the loyal fulfilment of my duty.
I am convinced that no patriotic American or citizen of any other country would have acted differently in my place, if his country had been in the same position. For to have acted any differently would have been a breach of my oath of allegiance, and high treason.
In fulfilling my legal and moral duties, I believe that I have deserved punishment no more than have the tens of thousands of faithful German civil servants and officials in the public service who have already been detained in camps'for over a year merely because they did their duty. I feel in duty and honor bound, as a former long-standing public minister, to remember them here in gratitude.

31.8.1946, in: IMT, Vol. XXII, p. 385

The laws themselves are the evidence and were criminal, by signing them Frick identified himself with them.

Frick was not the responsible. You are so fanatical that even doesn't differentiate.

In which case 'other guy' would have been the one to hang.

In IMT world only.

[waldzee]

the Jewish Virtual Library is vetted by the Avalon project of the Harvard law school & can safely regarded as 'definitive' in discussions.

"vetted"???

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
close enough
After reading the long windy ' defense broadsides' I'm losing it.
We have some of the usual suspects who react to anything "Jewish" the way werewolves react to the full moon.
Or to quote John Le Carr:
"It was the fate of some men to go to the high drop for things they were perhaps innocent of - because they got away with bloody murder elsewhere."
Wilhem Frick could have copped a plea & co-operated. . Post WWI Germany could have been the ‘technological buttress’ to Middle Europe. Start the blood hunt. Die by the blood hunt.

[Boby]

"von Ribbentrop" (1.10.1946), in: IMT, Vol. XXII, pp. 530-533

War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity

Ribbentrop participated in a meeting of 6 June 1944, at which it was agreed to start a program under which Allied aviators carry- ing out machine gun attacks should be lynched.

Wow! Ribbentrop participated in a meeting! Surely he wanted to kill aviators with his own hands.

In December 1944 Ribbentrop was informed of the plans to murder one of the French generals held as a prisoner of war and directed his subordinates to see that the 'details were worked out in such a way as to prevent its detection by the protecting powers.

Evidence?

Ribbentrop is also respon- sible for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity because of his activities with respect to occupied countries and Axis satellites.

Evidence?

The top German official in both Denmark and Vichy France was a Foreign Office representative, and Ribbentrop is therefore responsible for the general economic and political policies put into effect in the occupation of these countries.

The most imbecile claim I ever read. IMT team were a bunch of liars.

He urged the Italians to adopt a ruthless occupation policy in Yugoslavia and Greece.

Wow! He urged the italians! Surely Ribbentrop was in charge of occupation.

He played an important part in Hitler's "final solution" of the Jewish question.

Evidence?

In September 1942 he ordered the German diplomatic representatives accredited to various Axis satellites to hasten the deportation of Jews to the East.

Wow! Ribbentrop contacted AA representativies in axis countries! Unveliable!

In June 1942 the German Ambassador to Vichy requested Lava1 to turn over 50,000 Jews for deportation to the East.

Where is Ribbentrop?

On 25 February 1943, Ribbentrop protested to Mussolini against Italian slowness in deporting Jews from the Italian occupation zone of France.

And the crime is?

On 17 April 1943, he took part in- a conference between Hitler and Horthy on the deportation of Jews from Hungary and informed Horthy that the "Jews must either be exterminated or taken to concentration camps."

Ribbentrop has nothing to do with the implementation of the "Holocaust". There were just words.

At the same conference Hitler had likened the Jews to "tuberculosis bacilli" and said if they did not work they were to be shot.

Irrelevant.

Ribbentrop's defense to the charges made against him is that Hitler made all the important (decisions, and that he was such a great admirer and faithful follower of Hitler that he never ques-tioned Hitler's repeated assertions that he wanted peace or the truth of the reasons that Hitler gave in explaining aggressive action.

Most probably true.

The Tribunal does not consider this explanation to be true.

Of course.

Ribbentrop participated in all of the Nazi aggressions from the occupation of Austria to the invasion of the Soviet Union.

Just because he was foreign minister.

Although he was personally concerned with the diplomatic rather than the military aspect of these actions, his diplomatic efforts were so closely con- nected with war that he could not have remained unaware of the aggressive nature of Hitler's actions.

He was not responsible. Decissions were taken by Hitler.

In the administration of territories over which Germany acquire,d control by illegal invasion, Ribbentrop also assisted in carrying out criminal policies,

Evidence? His work was diplomatic. No more.

partic- ularly those involving the extermination of the Jews.

Rubbish nonsense.

There is abundant evidence, moreover, that Ribbentrop was in complete sympathy with all the main tenets of the National Socialist creed, and that his collaboration with Hitler and ,with other defendants in the commission of Crimes against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity was whole-hearted.

No evidence. No sources. Just propaganda.

It was because Hitler's policy and plans coincided with his own ideas that Rifbbentrop served him so willingly to the end.

Propaganda. Distortions. Lies.

[Boby]

There is no need to continue with other judgements. I'm completely speechless for what I read.

[Terry Duncan]

Did the Nurmeburg Laws violate the human rights of any section of the population of Germany? They do not have to be directly related to the 'Holocaust' to do so, though the charge that they were the beginning of a process that led to the Holocaust does have some weight to it.

Yes, it "violates" the rights of less than 1% of the population. Since it was a law legally passed from german governement, there is no point here.

So it still violates people's human rights, no matter how many or few. Is it ok in your view if it is only minorities that are victimised??? As to a German law being above international law, you are mistaken and the German laws were applied to citizens of other nations when Germany invaded them.

Since Frick was not involved in the "Holocaust", I will take this as another desperate attempt from IMT.

The Holocaust was not the only thing involved in the charge of Crimes Against Humanity, so why you seem to think that not being directly involved in it somehow means Frick had nothing to answer for is amazing.

Wilhelm Frick was not the responsible of the Nüremberg laws. Even if he welcomed them, they were not originated from him.

Being responsible for them was not what he was judged on;

His work formed the basis of the Nuremberg Decrees, and he was active in enforcing them. Responsible for prohibiting Jews from following various professions, and for confiscating their property, he signed a final decree in 1943, after the mass destruction of Jews in the East, which placed them " outside the law " and handed them over to the Gestapo.

This still comes under the category of a crime against humanity.

Do you believe Anti-black laws in the USA at the same time they were judging Frick were against people's right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_seg ... ted_States

Essentially yes.

We can put to death the President, the Chief Justice of the United States, etc? Surely!

This raises two points,

1. The laws in the US had existed for many years and were less severe than in Germany for the most part, and the originators of many of the respective acts of the Jim Crow Laws had been dead for decades already.

2. The US had not 'exported' its rules to any other nations by attacking them.

Versailles was dead in 1939.

It was a legal treaty and far from dead even if Hitler was attempting to kill it. In the end the nations wishing to uphold Versailles won and Germany was judged for her attempts to destroy a legally binding treaty.

You are talking nonsense. Frick was "forced" to pass laws in his capacity as Reichsminister.

Where Frick knew a law to be illegal under international law because it violated a treaty he could either resign of be a party to breaking those laws and treaties. Frick chose to do the latter.

These laws don't comes from him, but from Hitler et al.

That did not remove all capacity for reason from Frick, nor responsibility.

Your example that "If your superior" is ludicrous, because Frick never killed any person. You are desperate, Terry.

Your understanding is ludicrous. The crime does not have to be killing, it can be any crime. Just because your superior told you to do something wrong does not remove all responsibility from you for then going out and doing it.

Only in your sick world you can expect a death sentence for a bureaucrat obeying orders from above.

Its the same world you live in. The 'obeying orders' is nonsense and does not apply where the order given is in itself illegal.

Obviously your abysmal ignorance is so great, than you just followed IMT judgement. You don't know any other source.

You are the person making the claim that the judgement was unfair, therefore the requirement for proof is upon you to show that this is the case. Given you accept nothing that anyone has put to you so far, I will ask what is it you would consider as a valid source?

You are claiming Frick was innocent, producing nothing but your own opinion to support such a claim, proclaiming the IMT was wrong, but not showing why, and saying treaties the Nazi's didnt agree with were dead or in some way did not need to be observed. Maybe it is time you offered cogent evidence to support your case?

It would also help if you were to not litter your post with personal comments too.