fandomhigh | Great Trials in History, Class #5, Period 5 (8-5)

Alex's apartment had disappeared. Just after she left it. Alex had no idea exactly who was going to reimburse her for everything in her apartment that she was missing, much less what she was supposed to do tonight.

Alex tried to contain her grumpiness as she started her lecture.

"Mary, Queen of Scots," she began. "Queen of Scotland. At one point during her tumultous reign, her husband died, at which point she married the man largely suspected of killing him. The Scots didn't accept such behavior, even from a queen, and thus, she was forced to abdicate the throne. She escaped to England."

"In England, she was seen as a threat to Queen Elizabeth -- and with good reason. She had a claim to the throne, and was involved in several plots to assassinate the ruling Queen and take her place. She was arrested and charged with treason. The trial itself seems to have been mostly a formality. There's little doubt Mary was guilty, but there's also little reason to believe that she was allowed to make any sort of defense for herself. Unsurprisingly, she was found guilty and sentenced to death.

"Queen Elizabeth stalled, at that point; one royal executing another sets a very scary precedent. But the sentence was eventually carried out, and Mary, the exiled Queen of Scotland, was beheaded for committing treason against the Queen of England."

Alex gave that sentence a few moments, to let it sink in, before continuing.

"Anyone from this world will be familiar with World War II. Three countries -- Japan, Germany, and Italy -- formed an alliance, and several other European, Asian, and even North American countries fought back. After the war's conclusion, a number of horrors were uncovered. Germany had been committing large-scale massacres. I won't go into the specifics of the Holocaust here -- I don't have time to do the subject justice, I'm afraid -- but citizens of Germany and other invaded countries were considered undesirable, usually based on ethnicity, religion, or political beliefs -- Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, Communists -- and sent to camps where they would be forced to work, put to death, or both. The death toll from these camps is in the millions."

That, too, required silence. This time, out of respect.

"After the war, high-ranking German officials were put on trial for crimes against humanity. The officials claimed that the trials represented a form of victor's justice. No other country had to face charges for its actions during the war. Granted, no other country ran death camps, but one did drop nuclear weapons on two different cities. Ones filled with civilians."

Today's topic was just going to have a lot of silences in it.

"Many of the German officials were found guilty, and sentenced to death. An international court was formed, to deal with such situations in the future. Many people contest such a court's legitimacy. Does a sovereign country have free rein over what occurs within its borders? Are some crimes too big for the world to ignore? Can one monarch execute another for treason? Today's topic is jurisdiction, as it clashes with national borders, and what it means to place a head of state on trial."

(OOC: the Nuremberg trials have a brief mention of the Holocaust, as well as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These topics might be further discussed in class, depending on how the discussions go. Please be warned.)

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

With a serious and/or sad icon. Today's topic is not all that cheery.

Take notes, or pass them.

Does one country ever have the right to put citizens of another on trial? For crimes that occurred within that second country's borders? Do certain crimes transcend normal understandings of jurisdiction? Should a head of state be made to answer to the world? How do you keep such situations from becoming 'victor's justice,' where any country occupying another may charge war crimes and hold executions?

Can one head of state be found guilty of treason against another? Does this answer change if she is exiled? If she is currently residing in the country which charges her?

Should German officials have been put on trial for the death camps in World War II?

Should American officials have been put on trial for using nuclear weapons?

Edited 2010-08-05 19:22 (UTC)

Who is sorry that today's topic is a downer.

And who is pissed that her apartment is missing.

This is the thread where we wish a happy birthday to

bamf_tastic /

whateverknight's mun. And call him a dork.

Mmmmm, International Court. *snuggles The Hague*

And HAPPY BIRTHDAY,

bamf_tastic!*

* I so do know HTML.

Edited 2010-08-05 20:16 (UTC)

Squall Leonhart

Squall took notes. And stared blankly at his desk. Today's topic warranted a lot of emo, and he had plenty to spare.

Squall thought about it. "If a crime is bad enough, and the country with jurisdiction isn't going to do anything about it, then a lot of people are going to want to see justice done whether they have the authority or not." His tone didn't give away his feelings on whether something should be done.

He thought about it some more, and then shrugged. "An international court is a good idea, because rules and procedures might help avoid mob justice."

Squall clearly thought the English were insane. "Treason is committed against your own country," he stated slowly and condescendingly. "When country's leader conspires against another, that's an act of war. Or just politics."

Whatever.

Oh, you silly civilized people and your international courts. You probably actually FOLLOW those obsolete 'Geneva Convention' things, too.

*facepalm*

HAPPY BIRTHDAY NOAH, YOU DORK.

"Do you think the Nuremberg trials might have been mob justice?" Alex asked. "A number of people were worried that the courts were influenced by the horrific scale of the atrocities involved. That you can't have an impartial trial with such a contentious matter."

"So should the English have declared war on the Scots?" Alex asked. "Mary wasn't the reigning queen any longer, but she was hardly a citizen of England."

Edmund Pevensie

The frown on Edmund's face started the moment Professor Cabot started talking about the war. This wasn't history to him. Though his memory of Britain was shaky on certain days, living through that as a child wasn't something you soon forgot.

Edmund's expression was grave and he took his time thinking the questions over. "There are certain circumstances where one country should be allowed to put citizens of another on trial, but you have to take into account who the crimes are committed against and where they took place, what level of impact they have had and what kind of long-lasting implications such a move would make. I can understand why one might be inclined to pursue such actions, but I wouldn't envy any man who would try."

"I agree with Squall's assessment. While the victim of attacks may call it treason, and the common vernacular may refer to it as such, in Queen Mary's case it was an act of war to attack another nation's leader. Though the situation is complicated by her own claim on the throne, which is where you could draw on the treason claim. As for the war," Edmund said, then faltered for a moment. "I don't know. I'm sure there are arguments for and against, but..." He looked like he was struggling with the news. For all his time in Fandom, he'd done well at staying away from most 'history' books from that era and knew very little, thinking it was for the best. Now he wasn't sure that ignorance had been the best policy.

"She... wasn't queen anymore?" Squall had missed that part. "Then never mind. It's still not treason, but it's not an act of war. And it's still illegal."

"You could, if the jury actually tried to be impartial," Squall answered. "Just because most people think with their hearts instead of their heads" -- which he was clearly annoyed by -- "doesn't mean that they have to."

...and what I mean by that is, of course, Danke schön!!!

Great Trials in History, Class #5, Period 5 (8-5)

Sign In - TRI05

During the Lecture - TRI05

Discussion #1: Jurisdictional Boundaries

Discussion #2: Mary, Queen of Scots, and Nuremberg - TRI05

Talk to Alex - TRI05

OOC - TRI05

Re: OOC - TRI05

Re: Sign In - TRI05

Re: During the Lecture - TRI05

Re: Discussion #1: Jurisdictional Boundaries

Re: Discussion #2: Mary, Queen of Scots, and Nuremberg - TRI05

Re: OOC - TRI05

Re: OOC - TRI05

Re: OOC - TRI05

Re: Discussion #1: Jurisdictional Boundaries

Re: Discussion #2: Mary, Queen of Scots, and Nuremberg - TRI05

Re: Sign In - TRI05

Re: During the Lecture - TRI05

Re: Discussion #1: Jurisdictional Boundaries

Re: Discussion #2: Mary, Queen of Scots, and Nuremberg - TRI05

Re: Discussion #2: Mary, Queen of Scots, and Nuremberg - TRI05

Re: Discussion #1: Jurisdictional Boundaries

Re: OOC - TRI05