We disagree... For those who don't know, the Nuremberg trials was an international tribunal set up by the allies to convict the Nazis for their crimes. Let me start off by stating I do not condone the actions of the Nazis in anyway and believe they were right to be punished, I just have a problem with the way they have been punished. It wasn't a real trial but rather a stage of high politics and a way for the victors to spit on the losers. Let me explain why. First of all, the trials violated so many legal principles lying at the foundation of the rule of law that no semblance of a fair trial existed. For example: The prohibition of ex post facto laws. One key legal principle is that laws don't have a retroactive effect: you can't be punished for a law that didn't exist at the time of the act. The sad and unfortunate truth is that the Nazis did not violate any laws. Not the laws of their own country obviously, but neither any international laws. Human rights and war crimes as we know them today were invented after WW2, making them inapplicable to the actions of the Nazis. The presumption of innocence. Make no mistake that every person in that court room bar the defendants had the intent on punishing the Nazis with devastating blows. The defendants had inadequate time to prepare and rules on evidence were ignored. Moreover, the defendants were unable to appeal. It was set up in the way so that the Nazis had been given no proper chance to defend themselves. They were monsters of course, but bigger monsters have been given fairer trials. Judicial impartiality. This is a simple one to explain. A judge and jury should be completely impartial as to prevent any biases and prejudices. Seeing as the judges were all allied, impartiality was nonexistent. And last: there was no solid legal basis for the existence of the tribunal itself. It was founded on both the London Charter and the Instrument of the Surrender of Germany. Two treaties that Germany was no part of. In international law, a treaty a country has not signed and ratified is not legally binding for that country. The reason why Germany complied was because it was in control of the allies. It was force that made them comply rather than legality. "Who cares if it wasn't entirely legal? At least justice was finally served!" That's only partially true. The truth is that during WW2 all countries were committing atrocities, yet the allies were never punished. That is called victor's justice. If the world truly cared about real justice, then the persons in charge of dropping the bombs on Japan should also have been tried. Or how about the perpetrators of Maquis, the Laconia incident or the various massacres the US had committed during the war. That never happened and that's why the Trial was a game of politics rather than legal justice. Not to mention that a lot of Japanese government & military officials made deals with the USA in exchange for immunity. Justice? Not for them. In the end I this was probably the lesser evil. The alternatives would be letting the Nazis off or killing them extrajudicially, both of which aren't better options. But let's all stop pretending Nuremberg was a valid criminal trial and admit what it really is: a political game of punishing the losers masquerading as a pseudo-legal tribunal. end quote
You give the POTUS chair to a monkey, and it does better. https://www.straitstimes.com/world/...o-dissuade-iran-from-closing-strait-of-hormuz
Excellent... We will agree to disagree and wait until we both answer for our actions. Good Luck and God Bless.
. Most Excellent post... Insider Trading... Oh My... I am sorry... But vztrdr said it was a done deal, finito, endo, say goodnight mama, no more questions molly, the verdict is in... So... I guess not... like most of life... We have to wait and see... .
I dunno, there's a Muslim church just a few blocks from my house that has had a noticeable increase in activity the past couple of weeks, streets filled with cars. Now these US bombings... I dunno...