(no subject)

[winterbadger]

From the MSNBC article on White House attempts to avoid war crimes guilt

The memo, by Justice lawyers John Yoo and Robert Delahunty, also concludes—in response to a question by the Pentagon—that U.S. soldiers could not be tried for violations of the laws of war in Afghanistan because such international laws have "no binding legal effect on either the President or the military.")

What were the Nuremberg trials about?

Comments

[winterbadger]

After the case vengeance. It was vengeance applied unevenly, and in my opinion, probably unjustly. It was a wonderful show, it was a wonderful act of "we punished the bad guys", but in all reality, we created rules after the fact and punished them for it.

Huh? The indictments specifically spell out charges and particular international treaties and conventions violated by the persons indicted. While the charter of the International Military Tribunal laid out particular descriptions of crimes, it was based on and made reference to national and international law.

Both of them are delivering 'justice' as defined by those with the biggest guns, after the fact.

Are they really acting without reference to international law and convention? I find that kind of hard to believe. As for having the biggest guns, one of the sad facts of life is that criminals rarely submit to trial and punishment without being forced to do so. Having the biggest guns, especially in the case of international conflict, is necessary to conducting a meningful trial.