All /pol/ aside, the Nuremberg Trials were kangaroo as fuck, right?

no

What happens in war is that the winning nation kills the leaders of the losing nation.

The difference here is that the Allies pretended that they did this under the pretense of "law"

The Nuremberg trials were absolutely ex-post facto law. The allies decided, after the fact, what laws they were going to hold the Germans accountable to despite the Germans never voting on the laws.

International law is not legitimate. What happened to the Germans might be morally right, but it was not legally just.

This was no due process

>International law is not legitimate.
It is.

aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/-coercing-virtue_150114854340.pdf

Coercing Virtue - Judge Robert Bork pg 15-21 on the Internationalization of Law

THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF LAW
In less than a decade, an unprecedented concept has emerged to submit
international politics to judicial procedures. It has spread with extraordinary
speed and has not been subject to systematic debate, partly
because of the intimidating passion of its advocates. ... The danger is
that it is being pushed to extremes which risk substituting the tyranny of
judges for that of governments; historically the dictatorship of the virtuous
has often led to inquisitions and even witch hunts.
Henry Kissinger
The unique situation of the United States at the beginning of the twenty first
century is that America's main competitor in ordering and dominating
the world is not some other great power but something quite different:
the project of internationalism. ... A new world is being built by international
organizations, with the Olympians as the officer class and an
army of moralizing nongovernmental organizations as its voluntary
footsoldiers. ... The Olympians' project cannot, there-fore, be anything
other than a bid for power by a new class of power holders.
Kenneth Minogue

The internationalization of law is happening with phenomenal speed
and comprehensiveness. With that development comes law's seemingly
inevitable accompaniment: judicial activism. For some, usually those on
the Left, internationalism appears to be an almost unalloyed good. The
use of armed force between nations, it is said, must be tamed by the rule
of law. The violation of human rights by nations against citizens of other
nations or even their own citizens must be ended by holding the perpetrators
responsible in international tribunals or, in some cases, in other
national court systems that are willing to take jurisdiction. International codes of individual freedom, similar in intention to America's Bill of
Rights, are enacted to protect persons from majoritarian rule.
To many people these goals seem entirely laudable, and so they would
be if the realities lived up to the abstractions. But that outcome is impossible.
Instead, internationalization will magnify many times over the
defects to be identified in subsequent chapters in the constitutional law of
the United States, Canada, and Israel: the loss of democratic government,
the incursion of politics into law, and the coerced movement of cultures
to the left. The New Class is an international class and it displays its
socialist impulse everywhere while waging an international culture war.
The internationalization of law is one way of transforming parallel struggles
in the various nations of the West into a single struggle waged across
national boundaries. The explanation for this internationalization of law
may contain an even more sinister element. The New Class in the United
States has failed to achieve its full liberal agenda in Congress, the state legislatures,
and, to some extent, in federal and state courts.

By creating
international law the New Class hopes to outflank American legislatures
and courts by having liberal views adopted abroad and then imposed on
the United States. History shows that the citizens of individual nations
have been unable and unwilling to resist the depredations of their national
courts. There is no reason to expect they will be able to resist courts that
are sitting in foreign countries, composed of judges of several nationalities,
and operating under vague humanistic standards to which their own
nations have, however ambiguously, pledged allegiance.
It will be possible to discuss only a few examples ofjudicial activism in the
international arena. Conventions and treaties exist on most subjects: human
rights; civil and political rights; economic, social, and cultural rights; genocide;
racial discrimination; and discrimination against women. In addition to
the committees and councils that supervise aspects of these prohibitions and
guarantees, several courts have jurisdiction in different areas: the International
Court of Justice (World Court); the European Court of Human
Rights; the European Court of Justice; and the not-yet-operative International
Criminal Court. Given the limitations of a single chapter, the
discussion here will center on human rights and the use of armed force
between nations.

The internationalization of law and the corresponding internationalization
ofjudicial activism take various forms. The first is the recent tendency
of national courts, when applying their constitutions, to cite the
decisions of foreign courts in applying their own constitutions. An allied
form is the international conferences of judges, professors, and social
activists held to discuss the means of creating new rights in each nation.
One primary example was a conference held in London in 1999 to
consider ways of making homosexual conduct a constitutional right in
various nations.
Some national courts have agreed to try cases involving acts done
abroad by foreign nationals against other foreign nationals. Thus, some
U.5. courts have accepted the jurisdiction to hear tort claims for actions
that have no connection with the United States or its citizens. Other
nations' courts have claimed the authority to apply criminal sanctions to
conduct having no relation to their own countries. The most prominent
international tribunal in this area is the European Court of Human Rights
sitting in Strasbourg.

What is called international law governing the use of armed force
comes in two varieties: customary international law, supposedly based on
the actual practices of nation states, and treaty law. Neither is sufficient to
justify the punishment of alleged aggressor nations and their leaders.
There is nothing that can be called law in any meaningful sense established
by custom. If there were, it would not restrain international aggression;
it is more likely to unleash it. Nor can treaties provide a secure basis
for law. In the first place, not all nations are parties to such treaties.
Second, any nation is free to withdraw from a treaty. Otherwise, nations
would lose vital segments of their sovereignty. It is clear in the United
States, for example, that Congress can invalidate a treaty's obligations,
either explicitly or implicitly, by the passage of legislation or approval of
acts inconsistent with the treaty.
The Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders in the wake of World War II
confirmed the notion that there was a customary law about the international
use of force that forbade the launching of aggressive wars and the
violation of the human rights of persons within Germany. Because the
punishments meted out seemed so self-evidently right, it seemed to many that there should be such law in the future. Both of these were and are
extremely dubious propositions
xtremely dubious propositions.
The Nuremberg trials, of course, served extremely valuable, indeed
indispensable, functions. They created a detailed history of the horrors
perpetrated by the Third Reich. They made sure that the accused had
indeed committed the acts with which they were charged. And the trials
provided moral justification for the execution or imprisonment of persons
who thoroughly deserved their fate-moral justification, but not
legal justification.

The British seemed to find the moral justification
sufficient and proposed summary execution of the Nazi leaders, but the
Americans and Soviets favored a judicial proceeding and brought the
British over. However the trials were to be conducted, it seems unfortunate
that they were presented as proceedings of a court of law.
The pretense that customary international law justified the trials and
punishments was just that: a pretense. History abounds with the aggressive
use of force by those nations who sat in judgment at Nurembergthe
Soviet Union attacked Finland, swallowed the Baltic states, attacked
Poland, and overran Eastern Europe; the British built their empire largely
by force; the United States wrested Cuba from Spain, launched the
Mexican War, bombed Yugoslavia, invaded Grenada, provided support
for the Nicaraguan contras, conducted small wars in Central and South
America, attacked Iraq once to free Kuwait and again to depose Saddam
Hussein. Some of these uses of force were eminently morally justified,
but none of them had a clear warrant in legal terms. On the other hand,
it is difficult to find examples of nations that refrained from the aggressive
use of force out of respect for international law. If custom is what counts,
it favors aggression. That should be enough to disabuse us of the notion
that customary international law provides a legal standard.
George Ginsburgs summarized the arguments made at the time about
the legal basis (or lack thereoO for the Nuremberg trials:
The philosophical dichotomy is quite familiar. In one comer, we have
the champions of positive law for whom the only valid standards are
those rooted in the consent of states expressed in the designated
manner. Anything that fell short of this mark possessed no binding
juridical power nor could engender material rights and duties.

Kangaroo? Not really. Nobody who got put there was in any way innocent. Even if it's more about making an example of what was left on the Nazi party than actual justice. If they did care about justice, the Allies wouldn't have let Unit 731 off the hook in exchange for their test results..

Against them are deployed the followers of the evolutionary approach
who treat international law as a congeries of prescriptions the
effectiveness ofwhich depends, inter alia, on liberal use of extra polation,
analogy, and similar techniques to fill the gaps that are an inevitable concomitant
of any legal organism operating without a central direction and
through spasmodic coincidence of discrete sovereign volitions3
Neither side seems correct. The consent of states expressed in the
designated manner-presumably treaties-can always be withdrawn, by
actions as well as words. One ground for withdrawal that even international
law recognizes is when basic conditions change. The United States should
not make the mistake of accepting that treaties have the force of law no
matter what vital interests of the nation are at stake. The customary law
rationale is far worse. What nation could determine what "congeries of
prescriptions" constitute binding law by consulting a "liberal use of extrapolation,
analogy, and similar techniques"? In any event, such consultation
would more likely than not authorize the unilateral use of armed force. Only
utopian vaporings can support the idea of customary law on these matters.
The only "law" that is certain and knowable in advance is that the victors will
kill or imprison the leaders of the losers.
Professor Ginsburgs's account suggests that the victors in World War II
were concerned about the ex post facto nature of the proceedings they
contemplated.
The American proponents of court-administered retribution for the
members of the Nazi hierarchy also thought it desirable to procure a
treaty basis for the mission.

In order to avoid legal dissonance in
interpreting opaque and ambiguous patches which randomly pockmarked
the digest of customary international law and risking open
dissent between the empaneled judges on how to read the historical
record, an agreement among the sponsoring states was deemed
advisable that would take care to define the scope of the mandate
vested in the tribunal and spell out the set of legal principles it was
required to apply.4
Those who argued for preexisting customary law contended that "its
legal repertory was destined to register progress by dint of incremental
grafts, each installment building on the existing body of practice whenever a providential convergence of opinion occurred on a scale that rendered feasible
either the concerted promulgation of a new norm or the official enfranchisement
of a rule hitherto plagued by an inchoate status."5 In short, customary law
would arise when providence (or common interests) made possible the
announcement of a new law or the adoption of one that had been
inchoate. That describes ex post facto law if anything does. It ignores,
moreover, all the occasions on which the new rule ran contrary to the
actual practice of nations. How much better it would be to say with
Justice Holmes that when disagreement runs deep enough, we will
attempt to kill you.
The objection to the Nuremberg trials that they constituted "victors'
justice" need not be taken seriously. Who else but the victors could do
justice? And if that justice turns out to be administered by evil regimes,
one can only say, alas, that is the way the world works and will continue
to work in the foreseeable future. There is no point in ignoring that fact
because it is unpleasant

They were symbolic more than anything. Finding justice in war is a chimera anyway.

The prosecutors at least took it seriously enough that during Vietnam some of the American counsel members argued that General Westmoreland was guilty of war crimes by precedents set at the Tokyo trials.

They were certainly more legitimate than the Nazi equivalent, though;

youtube.com/watch?v=Nzz700H6T9M

Nor is it a fatal objection to the trials that Soviet judges, representatives
of a regime fully as evil as the Third Reich, sat on the court. That
would be a dispositive objection if what was really taking place was a
trial before a real court of law. In real courts, we do not allow felons to
sit in judgment of the accused. The presence of the Soviet judges was
inevitable, that nation having suffered by far the most casualties, but
their presence made plain that the proceedings were political rather than
legal, an act of revenge. That does not, however, mean that the trials were
not fully morally justified. It might have been better, nonetheless, if
military tribunals had been used to serve the valid purposes of the
Nuremberg trials without engaging in the fiction that preexisting law
justified them.
But Nuremberg set in motion, apparently irresistibly, the idea that law
can control the use of force and atrocities inflicted upon individuals or
groups. Future courts will be every bit as political as Nuremberg's and
victors will determine the "law" retroactively. The futility and danger of
pretending that there is law are illustrated by the new International
Criminal Court, the charter of which makes "aggression" a crime although
the ratifying nations were unable to agree on a definition of whatconstitutes aggression. We will find out the answer when the ICC makes
up the rules and, given the pervasive anti-Americanism in much of the
world, our soldiers and officials are likely to be subject to it. Even if they
escape physical punishment, we will suffer propaganda defeats that may
carry weight in both international and domestic politics.

hat apply treaties or codes of some kind to all nations that have succumbed
to internal pressure to sign on to them. Some of these courts
claim jurisdiction only over European nations, but others claim a global
jurisdiction that they are powerless to enforce.
Many of the judgments of international courts are unenforceable, in the
sense that the judgment of an Illinois state court, for example, is enforceable
anywhere in the United States. The judgment of the Illinois court is
made effective, if necessary, by force. International tribunals can summon
no such assistance and, consequently, such judgments are widely ignored.
But that does not make them harmless. In the first place, some of these
judgments are enforceable, and great injustices may be done to individuals
caught in their highly politicized toils. More than that, the proceedings
in some international tribunals take on the aspect of show trials and their
judgments often carry great moral weight. It is here that these courts
become not merely allies of the New Class in the culture war but allies of
the Left in the international war of political propaganda. The United States
is particularly unlikely to win in such forums.
International law is not law but politics. For that reason, it is dangerous
to give the name "law," which summons up respect, to political
struggles that are essentially lawless. The problem is not merely the antiAmericanism
that grips foreign elites and shapes law; it is also the
American intellectual class, which is largely hostile to the United States
and uses alleged international law to attack the morality of its own government
and society. International law becomes one more weapon in the
domestic culture war.

It must be admitted, moreover, that there are serious
issues of inconsistency of application of this concept: The United
States has used its power to force the trials of some men who have done
no worse than others with whom we do not interfere. That mayor may
not be justifiable, but it hardly bespeaks devotion to law.

Innocent of what? What law did they violate? There is no international legislature where Germany had proportional representation therein.

Ex-post facto law is not law.

On what grounds?

st-andrews.ac.uk/itsold/papers/public/miscellaneous/printingproblems/nurem.pdf

Also, I bet criminals would proportionally and representatively vote for laws that say what they committed was actually OK.

there isn't a law that's imposed on sovereign nations by some higher authority they could refer to but a trial does not, in fact, require a law. as winners of war they could have just thrown in jail or executed people all they want without much bitching. allowing people to plead their case, actually stating the charges and publicly discussing the sentences is about as much due process as you can expect under the circumstances of having fucking lost a war.

Who cares if it was a kangaroo court lmao, they killed millions, all of them should have been executed after they were forced to reveal all their secrets.

On the grounds that nazis start genociding jews when not being held accountable under international law.

Yup
And now its dogma not to question it in europe, as we all know europe hates free speech

While the Holocaust did happen. The investigation into who did what, how many, where, etc. Was so shoddily done in the name of destroying fascism rather than actual investigations. Its loony

PURIMFEST
U
R
I
M
F
E
S

so their vote doesnt count because you disagree with them? you are oh so wise that you can impose your wisdom on other countries in the form of ex-post facto law? didnt read your autism article btw

there's no such thing as international law

if you think it was morally ok to kill the nazis, youre probably right, and maybe you should

but to do it under the pretense of law through a trial is disgusting because this wasn't law this wasnt justice and this wasnt due process

stop conflating morality with justice

>didnt read your autism article btw
It explains why it's not ex post factum law.

Germans had a part in international law through Weimar, it wasn't imposed on them. Nazis didn't have a part and Nazis were the criminals.

The trials were justified in more than one ways. Only a Nazi-apologist with a political agenda will claim otherwise.

>Only a Nazi-apologist with a political agenda will claim otherwise.

This is not an argument. I guess Judge Robert Bork (who hated Nazis) was a Nazi apologist too.

Read pages 15-21 of this aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/-coercing-virtue_150114854340.pdf

He explains why it is ex post facto law

The thing I posted addresses such judges directly and why they're wrong.

The thing I posted addresses your argument about the legitimacy of international law and why its wrong

I have no desire to read a shallow ad hominem that imports motive to people

>there's no such thing as international humanitarian law
>complain when people invade your country and hang you for fucking with them

You can only have one.

This is very simple

You can kill bad guys and enemy leaders when you defeat them in war but don't lie to everyone and say you're giving them fair due process under the pretense of law. That isn't law. It might be moral to kill them but its not legally justified. Kill them, just don't say the law ordained you to kill them.

Just fucking kill them.

If you want to have an opinion on what the law should be, don't piss people off badly enough to invade your country.

As it stands, the US were the people whose opinion mattered, and they believed in universal human rights.

If you don't like it, you can try and beat them.

>PROTIP: You can't

You don't understand what law is. No one fucking voted on those laws. They're ex post facto. Your fucking humanitarian judges just randomly came up with what they thought was just and then applied it backwards in time. Literally no one will ever fucking respect international law because its a giant joke because of faggots like you. It holds no weight.

Kangeroo as fuck. Propaganda was the only purpose.

If you want proof remember that Ribbentrop was guilty of conspiring war against Poland and Molotiv wasn't even tried despite signing the same pact to go to war with Poland.

And I agree that international law is a farce and in this case was only imposed against the losers.

Churchill should have been hung for giving the order to use gas on Germans if Sea Lion reached British shores.

Molotov should have been hung for conspiring against Poland

Stalin for massacres in east Prussia; the destruction of the 6th army in gulags

out of 100 German prisoners in one US prison camp 98 had genital mutilation

GB bombed civilians nightly.

The US dropped two nuclear bombs on civilians

The whole concept of 'international law' is a farce because its not practiced.

its just used to make one side 'criminal' and the winners 'good'

Not him, but lack of vote on a law doesn't make it invalid, as you can tell by the existence of common law even in democratic systems: Decisions of higher courts are binding law, even though nobody voted on those laws or usually even those judges.

> They're ex post facto

International law is not ex post facto. You can argue they don't have jurisdiction because there is no international state, but they are actually made before indicting people under them.

I don't know if you know this, but the laws against murder weren't voted for in the US or UK either. Courts put people in prison for murder because it's self evident that murder is wrong.

Common law, nigga. It's based on the idea of natural rights, and always has been. Hence "we hold these truths to be self evident" rather than "we've decided these are the rules now."

You can get mad about it all you want, but you're living in an Anglo world, and if you piss them off long enough, you're going to be held to Anglo legal standards.

They are ex post facto in the sense that the Germans could not inform themselves of the nature of these laws, and the corresponding penalties for breaking those laws, or that they would even be held to these laws before the allegedly criminal acts in question were committed

Acktually, Germany was a signatory to the Geneva convention during the war, and broke the terms.

They knew exactly what they were doing.

the Geneva convention does not constitute binding law

if you want to kill them for breaking the terms then fine, but dont do it under the pretense of law

Except of course, that they did sign the Third Geneva Convention, and most of the Nuremberg crimes were based on violations of such. Furthermore, their vastly different standards of treatment towards civilians on the west side of their borders to their treatment of the civilians on the east side of their borders, or the destruction of documents pertaining to some of their mass murder campaigns, strongly imply that they were aware of punishment should their deeds come to light.

Honestly, they should be glad they even got a trial, no matter how biased it was.

>Geneva convention does not constitute binding law

It does if you lose the war.

see
regardless of what outcome would be desirable to nazis, the outcome on the legal world was devestating

might doesnt make right

why do you fetishize attempting to legitimatize your spoils of war under the false pretense of law so badly? just kill them, you dont have to lie to everyone about what youre doing

>might doesnt make right

You're right.

Hence why the Nazis were tried for their crimes, because what they did was an unlawful abuse of power.

You're just butthurt that your idols got treated like criminals because they acted like criminals.

Cry more.

Funny how your only argument is that I love nazis (I dont)

The left cant do anything but import motive to their foes

>unlawful abuse of power.
It was an abuse of power but not an unlawful one.

On the contrary, the Geneva Convention, or any treaty, whether bilateral or multi-lateral, implies the existence of an international law, otherwise, how could there possibly be recourse for breach?

>Post 2177146.

And the judgments of a city judge in a mob-run town are rarely enforced. Does that mean that shooting up a rival gangster's club is legal? And you can't cleanly separate law and politics in any case; that's why you have things like a split between Law and Equity, as fine a split that might be these days. It's why you have executive pardons, and jury nullification.

That's not even going into most of the objections of whomever is quoted seems to be on the basis of some notion of leftist power grabbing.

> the outcome on the legal world was devestating

And how exactly was it "devastating"? What is wrong now that wasn't so bad before Nuremberg?

It's not a left right thing though.

You're not going to find anyone relevant in America on any side willing to say that trying Nazis for breaking their treaties is a bad thing.

It's pretty much only going to be Hal Turner and David Duke.

Our legal system is based on the idea that legal principles are universal in origin and in application.

Cry all you want, but that's how Anglos think, and Anglos run this planet.

Why kill them when you can parade them around like scum for everyone to see? So everyone sees they are now subservient

>What happens in war is that the winning nation kills the leaders of the losing nation.
That's not actually a general rule, even. Often after conceding defeat, leaders get a slap on the wrist and bruised egos despite throwing many men into the meat grinders.

WWII was an instance of total war.

The party that imposes it holds more power than the party being tried.

and don't forget

you gotta take out their families

to Red Lobster

otherwise they'll be pissed

Roger Bork said that the Nuremburg trials were disgusting and he was a Supreme Court nominee for Ronald Reagan

Treaties are not binding law

That does not constitute law.

LISTEN

ALL OF YOU

literally just read pages 15-21 of this aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/-coercing-virtue_150114854340.pdf

>American Enterprise Institute
>expects people to read a full length book about his political philosophy in a Veeky Forums argument

This is getting better and better.

>you shouldn't try people for murder when they have committed murder
>you shouldn't try people for violating treaties that they agreed to
>a bunch of civilians got murdered, but I'm mad because those allies slandered a bunch of innocent Nazis

You have to work hard to get this stupid.

>expects people to read a full length book about his political philosophy

5 pages is too much for you brainlet?

I dunno, I read Why Nations Fail because somebody on Veeky Forums recommended it. Shit was good.

But 5 pages of whatever it is that made you this retarded sounds like a terrible idea.

5 pages written by Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court Nominee, Federal Judge Robert Bork

>Treaties are not binding law

That's not what I said. You don't read so great, do you?

Treaties are not international law, but they imply international law because otherwise, there is no recourse to a broken treaty, and a treaty is worthless to everyone, signatories included.

>literally just read pages 15-21 of this aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/-coercing-virtue_150114854340.pdf

He makes a lot of normative, futuristic arguments, that the development of international law is a Bad Thing. That does not matter one iota in terms of whether or not it is proper law, a lot of national laws are poorly thought out or lead to ill effects.

It also makes some pretty bad mis-statements of fact, for instance, on page 17

> There is nothing that can be called law in any meaningful sense established by custom.

ignoring that, especially to the American centered background he is obviously working from, that is literally what Common Law is, a codified set of laws established by custom from a bench without legislative or popular input, and the U.S. has been trundling along with it quite fine for centuries.

Or the next bit

cont.

>Nor can treaties provide a secure basis for law. In the first place, not all nations are parties to such treaties. Second, any nation is free to withdraw from a treaty.

A treaty is effectively a contract between two nations. The fact that other contracts, not between nations, have exit clauses and not everyone is signatory to specific contracts doesn't invalidate contractual law, nor does it mean that contracts themselves cannot acquire the force of law (for instance, consider any provision for choice of law in a contract concerning dispute resolution. If you and I come to a business deal and it goes south, we can both agree, from our own interests, to try any contract case over it in Wisconsin. If I crash into your car driving along the freeway, we cannot, by mere mutual agreement, decide to have the auto case in Wisconsin, the proper venue will be determined judicially.)

>The pretense that customry international law justified the trials and punishments was just that: a pretense. History abounds with the aggressive use of force by those nations who sat in judgment at Nuremberg

Misses the point that the Nuremberg trials were not about "aggression" or warmaking, but rather conduct that was performed DURING THE WAR. Go look up some of the indictments of various individuals, I'll provide a link to some:

loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Nuremberg_Indictments.html

>The only "law" that is certain and knowable in advance is that the victors will kill or imprison the leaders of the losers.

Which very rarely happens. Which leaders from Germany, Austria-Hungary, The Ottoman Empire, or any of the smaller Central Power nations were killed or imprisoned at the orders of the Entente?

>Nor is it a fatal objection to the trials that the Soviet judges, representative of a regime fully as evil as the Third Reich, sat on the court. That would be a disposative objection if what was really taking place was a trial before a real court of law. In real courts, we do not allow felons to sit in judgment of the accused.

This one actually made me laugh out loud, on how wrong it was. We do not generally, in the American modern system, allow felons to hold Bar membership and thus judicial positions. That is a professionally ethical concern, not a legal one, and it is theoretically possible for a convicted and released felon to regain standing to practice and arise to a judge's seat. But in any event, suppose we have a judge, sits in cases, who one day goes off his rocker and shoots his neighbor. He'll be arrested, imprisoned, stripped of his title, and any current cases would almost certainly be passed to other judges, but his previous judgments would stand. The character of the judge is not actually directly linked to his judgment, and saying that a judge is "evil" (which he may well be) does not disqualify him.

It was, on the whole, thoroughly unpersuasive.

>you shouldn't try people for violating treaties that they agreed to

The soviets violate the Molotov pact too and they aren't judge

>What happens in war is that the winning nation kills the leaders of the losing nation.
Not at all.

Nuremberg is the exception rather than the rule.

>All these people saying "at least we were better than the nazis"

Pretty depressing desu. If anyones defense needs to be "yeah but I'm not hitler so my actions are excusable and justified" they need some serious self reflection.

Point out one post in this entire thread doing that.

STOP DEFENDING NAZIS YOU FUCKING /POL/TARD

THIS SHIT HAS TO STOP

STOP FUCKING UP MY BOARD AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Not the guy you're talking to, but the very first reply.

>They were a foregone conclusion in many cases but they were a damn sight fairer than the trial the nazis gave their victims.

More like people have their heads so far up their morally relativistic asses that they cannot even make themselves agree that genocide and wars of aggression that kill 70 million people is wrong.

those things are MORALLY wrong but not LEGALLY wrong in this context

It literally doesn't matter, because laws come into existence because of general ideas about what constitutes normal ethical behavior.

Just because those laws didn't exist at that particular time and place, does not mean that they didn't deserve to be punished, and in order to do the punishing, the West did what it always does. Commence a trial.

>Just because those laws didn't exist at that particular time and place, does not mean that they didn't deserve to be punished

Punish them, just don't do it under the pretense of law.

Ex-post facto law is WRONG WRONG WRONG

I don't get why it matters so much to you.

You're right. Might makes right. The ends justify the means. Just do whatever the fuck you want. Who cares about law or justice.

No, more like, who cares about one specific instance of ex-post facto law in a case 70 years ago, where everyone deserved what was coming to them anyway, and we now have an articulated system of laws dealing with genocide and crimes against humanity.

Yeah, just this one exception, the ends justify the means, they had it coming, who cares about due process

>we now have an articulated system of laws dealing with genocide and crimes against humanity.
Cool where do I get to vote on them? Where can I find these laws? Are they in a Constitution somewhere?

You didn't get to vote on any aspect of common law either, even if you were alive at such time when they were formulated.

Do you want to throw all of them out too?

All law is predicated on the threat of violence, all authority is derived from it. If you win the war, you have the authority and the violence to impose your conception of law on the defeated.

Vae victus.

>Yeah, just this one exception

Yes this one exception. Because this exception is the one we are talking about, and the one you are obsessed with you fucking moron.

You're totally right in the case of law. Do you really think law is made or enforced by the "weak"? Legislators, justices, and pretty much every aspect of government establishes and enforces their laws by virtue of power over the governed, be it military, economic (owning the means of production that non-subsistence life pracitcal) or intellectual/ideological (defining "the right thing to do", although that's becoming less common in recent years). The only thing that keeps the mighty from going berserk is whatever ethics they choose to apply to themselves, which again is effectively determined by the laws they enacted. This may be more true in corrupt, totalitarian nations than it is in "freer" ones, but it's still there in any system of government. The only difference is who is "mighty"; even anarchism has the same situation, but with power spread out differently.

If you think for a second they didn't know exactly what awaited them if they tried their shit and lost, you're deluded.

The Germans lost their right to vote when they elected Hitler and then gave him authoritarian powers.

Sometimes the right thing to do is not legal.

In this case it doesn't matter.

For the good of the world they had to be hanged, cremated, and ashes scattered in unknown locations.

It had to be done. Also I believe a lot of laws in modern times are legal, but also morally wrong and should not be followed.

not an argument

not an argument

not an argument

not an argument

not an argument

A constitution was ratified in my nation which included common law within its due process clause that gave courts in my country jurisdiction to make rulings, not international tribunals.

Law is predicated on the threat of violence but not all violence is justified through law.

...

>Also I believe a lot of laws in modern times are legal, but also morally wrong and should not be followed.
user, we have had this discussion: children are not mature enough to give consent.

>then gave him authoritarian powers
Hitler wasn't given authoritarian powers by a majority vote but through parliamentary decision.

thats not an argument

I don't care. You don't have any arguments other than "WAHHHH WAHHHHH, THE EBUL ALLIES DID SOME FEE FEE ON MY NAZI FRIENDS"

Some children are mature enough to give consent. To package all minors rights together is legally wrong. Minors rights should be handled on an individual basis. You could have them take a test to get a cummy license to see if they're capable of consenting to a voluntary contract of sex.

not an argument, i dont even like the nazis

That's not an argument either, unless you're going for argumentum ad nauseum.