Talk:Show trial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] No longer a stub

I removed the stub status because I feel this article is of ample length and content.

[edit] Templar's trials

I think that the 14th Century trials of the Templar Order should be added to the list of the show trials.

[edit] Nuremburg trials?

If you ask neo nazi groups, the neuremburg trials were nothing but show-trials, while I disagree I believe it may be enough to let it on the list

No they weren't Three things that are hallmarks of show trials are violated by the Nuremberg trials:

Reliance on Confessions:

Evidence beyond any confessions were presented. Mountains of it, including the Nazi's own signed paperwork in addition to eyewitness testimony, the the recorded words of the Nazi officials like Newsreels and their own publications.

Torture and other harsh treatment before trial particularly to get a confession:

By all accounts, including from the prisoners themselves and accounts give they given after they were released as well as before that they were very well treated. A far cry from torture.

Forgone conclusion and swift appealess retribution:

Some accused war criminals were acquitted and those who were found guilty had their sentences reduced including commutation of death sentences on appeal.

The same was for Adolf Eichmann's trial. Documentary evidence, including his own signed paper work was introduced and eyewitness accounts as well. He was well treated. While perhaps the result of the trial was a forgone conclusion, it was so because of the weight of the evidence, not that it was decided before hand.

The same maybe true for Saddam Hussein's trial. So far as I know only eyewitness testimony has been given but it is only at the beginning of the trial as I write this (12/24/05) He sure hasn't confessed to anything. I doubt very, very much he was mistreated despite what he said.

Perhaps none of these trials would come up to the standard of a criminal trial in a democratic nation with a reasonably well financed defense. However, when you put them sided by side with the Soviet, Communist China and Nazi show trials Nuremberg, Adolf Eichmann's, Saddam Hussein's and Slobodan Milošević's trial at the Hague come off as shinning founts of fairness and justice. The alternative, to let them just go is too gut wrenching to contemplate.

The Russel Tribunal wasn't a show trial since nobody specifically was on trial. You may dispute its findings, but no one was arrested without legitimate cause, indeed no one was arrested at all to say nothing about being tortured. No one specifically was accused of anything. Only a nation was. On this bases perhaps that cite should be removed as well. Hunter2005 07:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't say they are show trials, it says they've been argued to be show trials. An authoritative list of show trials is not the goal as it is too POV. --Bk0 (Talk) 17:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. It probably just stuck in my craw too much that the Nuremberg Trials and the Stalin's show trials could be equated and I acted without reflection. I will discuss before I delete from now on (unless it is obvious vandalism). I can see how someone could see Nuremberg or Eichmann's trial as a show trial, but I disagree with that and yes that is a POV therefore it was right to cut it. It seemed like moral equivalency, sort of say that both the Nazis and the allies committed war atrocities (and the Allies did commit some) but stack together they pale to what the Nazis, Soviets and Imperial Japan did. I would like to see the argument as to why some would say Nuremberg was a show trial though, in the "There are some who say Nuremberg was a show trial because...." vain. Just stating the facts of course. I will try to come up with a con argument in the same mode, like "A legitimate trial is unlikely to be a show trial if it has these factors... That way both sides could flesh out the arguement Hunter2005 22:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


The "alternative" was obviously not to "let them go", but to have an actual trial that met real norms of fairness. St. Jimmy 19:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with including the Nuremburg Trials in this article. The source indicated to support that they were show trials is someone who "implied" that they were show trials. Is there any credible source/arguement that they were show trials? I don't see it here, although there is plenty to rebutt any ascertion that they weren't "actual trials" (as indicated in the article). 165.189.169.190 (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] trial of Saddam Hussien

The trial of Saddam is not a show trial. The incidence Saddam Hussien ia accused of are well documented, as are his personal supervision of the crimes in question. They show him on tape supervising

[edit] trial of Saddam Hussien

Saddam Hussein's guilt or innocence has no bearing on whether or not his trial is a show trial. Although there is no tendency towards "retributive rather than correctional justice," or the involvement of 'sin' and a 'planting of evidence,' neither was this the case with the Nuremburg Trials. However, the trial of Saddam Hussein is very likely a "type of public trial in which the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant: the actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warning" -- the very definition of the term "show trial."

The trials of Saddam Hussein are an important political tool in the United States, and Iraq Regardless of the damage that Hussein has done to Iraq and its people, the justification used by the United States government for the invasion of Iraq, that they possessed weapons of mass destruction, was unfounded. The attempts by the US government to connect the 9/11 attacks with Iraq were, and continue to be, deceitful. Amnesty International has expresed serious concerns about the lack of due process in Iraqi courts, and in the trials of Saddam Hussein in particular. If Slobodan Milosevic or Charles Taylor should be tried in The Hague, why not Saddam Hussein? The trial of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, as conducted by an interim occupation government, has all the ear marks of a "show trial."

[edit] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

With Khalid Sheikh Mohammed now confessing to everything but the death of Anna Nicole Smith, and the 1929 Stock Market Crash, it seems to me this might be one trial to watch for this article. (I had to stick this comment here because wiki would not allow me to add to the very foot of the page.) Alpheus 18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed suspicious paragraph

The Saddam Hussein piece was a bit short. I have removed the following paragraph to the talk page:

The article also concludes: "...Saddam's trial was also part of the political theatre that the US and its `Coalition of the Killing' wanted to enact to explain the death and injury of their own soldiers to their people back home. The message the trial was supposed to give to domestic audiences was that `it is fine for you to send off your sons and daughters to die' so that at the end of the horror show this infamous villain would have been finally brought to justice."

Using a phrase like Coalition of the Killing seemed to be a troll, but the whole paragraph comes verbatim from the article. I don't think this wordplay and tone is very encyclopedic. However, I have added Amnesty International's opinion about political influence. I have kept the list of points from the same article as they are often-noted criticisms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PXE-M0F (talk • contribs) 14:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Combatant Status Review Tribunals

Thousands of scholars have called the Moscow Trials "show trials", similarly many have called Saddam Hussein’s trial a "show trial", but can we honestly call Combatant Status Review Tribunals show trials because one report from Mark Denbeaux labeled these as a show trial? I don’t think so. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, because there is one official report saying that and because numerous legal analysts (Jennifer van Bergen, Elizabeth Holzmann, Marjorie Cohn), commentators have said the same thing. Feel free to ask for references, but to claim that this is a solitary comment ignores years of newspaper articles. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
So, a small number of fringe individuals (and yes for the record the NLG is a fringe group), who you have yet to cite, believe these to be show trials, and you don’t think that’s a violation of WP:Undue weight? Please elaborate on the other individuals who have called the CSRT's show trials, some mainstream people for example? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Some observations

  1. The only person in the world who has had access to files from both the military and lawyers, and who has written several articles on this subject is considered non-notable?!
  2. The NLG/Marjorie Cohn which has written numerous articles on this subject is considered irrelevant?
  3. Elizabeth Holzman who was part of the Watergate prosecution is considered not-notable?!
  4. Wikipedia clearly allows inclusion of the info you object to. There are numerous and notable people and organisations saying it and the sources themselves are so not-notable that they have there own article on wikipedia!

Concluding, there is no policy prohibiting this info (the opposite is more likely) so we can savely include it. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As the only person who has had access to files from both the military and lawyers and who is also council to many of the defendants at Gitmo, Denbeaux has an overriding self interest to present the hearings in as negative a light as possible. This is why his analysis should be taken with a caveat. As president of the NLG, Cohen could not be further from a reliable source. Her “creative use” of material to declare any conviction she does not agree with as the result of a show trial (she cited Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie’s book “Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth” as evidence that John Walker Lind was not guilty). Any defendant she is even remotely sympathetic towards and is found guilty is automaticly the subject of a show trial: Mumia, Peltier and even that warm cuddly snuggle-bunny Slobodan Milosevic.
Extraordinary claims, like that claim that the CSRT’s are on a level with the Moscow Trials and the Purges, require extraordinary evidence (or in this case some extraordinarily notable people. Find a few mainstream individuals, or I am going to remove this again. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If you provide the criteria as to who is considered notable enogh I will try and supply the references. Just to be sure we have established that contrary to wikipedia policy you claim that several legal analysts observing that the CSRT's are showtrials do not meet your definition of acceptable source. So, how many references and by whom? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The Denbeauxs are lawyers representing two of the detainees. That means it's their job to be biased. Their so-called "studies" are not objective in any way, nor should they be expected to be. They're about as objective as used car salesmen.
Treat their words with caution.
-- Randy2063 21:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I am going to have to secondy Randy's thoughts on this. Denbeaux's overiding self interest here outweights his opinion. If there has been a significant number of imparital third parties that weighed in on this, there might be a case for inclusion, but otherwise, I think its a no go. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

I am afraid the definition lacks emphasis that the main feature of a show trial is a public presentation of a trial "as real", only with all formal attributes of a real trial, only the defenders are not given a fair chance, e.g., broken by torture or denied fair defense. Still, it must be open to broad public as pretence of justice. All other uses are just metaphors. For example, Hussein's trial may be classified as show, since it was shown to publis. But I am not sure thta Guantanamo hearings classify as "show trial" They more fit the definition of Kangaroo court, since, if I am not mistaken, they are not open to broad public. Or are they? I don't follow politics much. `'mikka 18:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the CSRT's qualify as Kangaroo court. Nevertheless the provided sources used the term show trial. If you have references stating they are a Kangaroo court feel free to inlude it there. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 20:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You missed my point. People may use various political epithets quite arbitrarily, and it is fine with me. Any trial that neflects some elements can be casually called "show trial". However there should be a big difference berween a "book example" of a show trial and casual reference to it. A casual reference in a newspaper deserves no more than casual reference in wikipedia, rather than a full-blown section. Once again: CSRT does not qualify neither as show nor as trial (in the sense of normal legal procedure or imitation thereof) AFAIK. `'mikka 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Clearly policy allows mentioning it since inthe article there are at least 4 sources stating this. Why that should not be mentioned is beyond me. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying that it should not me mentioned at all. But IMO it is more than enough to have a single sentence: "many critics call CSRT a show trial because ...", rather than half page. Certainly there are quite a few other examples to be added here. `'Míkka 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, will rephrase it, just give me a day or to. Busy right now.`'Míkka 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Four sources calling CSRT a show trial does not make it so if all four sources are part of a disingenuous agenda-driven mindset trying to push anti-American propaganda.
As for CSRTs being held in secret, the same is true about grand juries and the competent tribunals that CSRTs are based upon. That aspect is definitely not anything like a show trial.
And since the Bush administration was compelled to create CSRTs by the Supreme Court, any "show trial" aspect is ridiculous.
If anyone wants to put CSRTs back in this article, it should clearly state what kind of people are calling it that.
-- Randy2063 17:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You misrepresent the facts
  1. The Supreme Court has already established the illegallity, hence the need to adopt the MCA.
  2. The secret part refers to evidence not allowed to see, no free choice of lawyers, no independant witnesses, et cetera.
  3. To ignore known commentators by calling them "disingenuous agenda-driven" is not a good faith assumption. I*t shows your true colors: not presenting a fair story but deleting solid criticism. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Guy, these are the terrorist's lawyers, they have zero credibility to make these kinds of accusations. I asked you before to find a good third party (i.e. not related to the cases) to weigh in on this. I can only assume that your failure to produce this means it dont exist. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Nescio, I haven't misrepresented anything.
You're partly correct that the Supreme Court did compel the administration to create a system for keeping illegal combatants. That was the CSRT, as I had said above. But since the administration didn't want to do this, and conducted them quite properly behind closed doors when they did, it's hard to make a case that they're show trials.
Yes, there are secrets. This is a war after all. If you're going to talk about "true colors," doesn't it say something of the critics that they demand the release of classified evidence while the enemy is still fighting?
It's certainly true that there is no free choice of lawyers. Where does it say that there should be? It wasn't all that long ago that the critics were pretending to care about "competent tribunals." Now we rarely hear the term. Look it up: Competent tribunals do not require any lawyers at all, let alone choice. The CSRTs aren't that much different in that respect. For that matter, grand juries don't release their testimony either.
Yes, I do think Mark Denbeaux and his ilk are disingenuous agenda-driven lawyers (and I've read the deceitful Denbeaux study). But here's where I may disagree with TDC: I'm not completely opposed to putting those kinds of worms in here. I had also said, "If anyone wants to put CSRTs back in this article, it should clearly state what kind of people are calling it that." I often fret that society has allowed those who defended fascism during the period of the Hitler-Stalin pact to have that part of history swept under the rug. I don't ever want the world to forget people like the Denbeauxs and where they stood in today's war against fascism.
-- Randy2063 14:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuremberg Trials section

I removed an isolated opinion. Nuremberg Trials were military tribunal, and calling it "show trial" is a trivial political slur. Every military tribunal may be labelled as such. `'Míkka 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You can state that objection in the para if you like. Military tribunal or not, they professed to represent universal norms of justice. According to Veale and others, they failed. But certainly feel free to state the other side of the case in a NPOV manner. St. Jimmy 19:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)