3 ms·
> Just pointing out it's difficult to call something a "crime" if there was limited legal basis for it (no international treaty) at the time. You are unaware o
by hh3k0 5y ago
> Just pointing out it's difficult to call something a "crime" if there was limited legal basis for it (no international treaty) at the time.
You are unaware of the Nuremberg trials, it seems?
- dijksterhuis 5y agoI'm just repeating what is on the wiki page and saying that 70 years ago != today.
- hh3k0 5y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Ex_post_facto_charges https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Ex_post_fac...
- dijksterhuis 5y agoI said it's difficult to call something a crime when there is limited existing legal basis. Not that it wasn't a crime. Nor that it was a crime. Also, definitely IANAL.
- hh3k0 5y agoSince you said: > Just pointing out it's difficult to call something a "crime" if there was limited legal basis for it (no international treaty) at the time. I can't help but wonder if you'd find it equally difficult if someone calls certain actions of the Nazis a crime -- assuming there was limited legal basis for it (no international treaty) at the time, etc. Or is it only difficult when we're talking about American crimes?
- dijksterhuis 5y ago> Or is it only difficult when we're talking about crimes [that have not been prosecuted in a court of law, only the court of HN comments]? More accurate.
- Manuel_D 5y agoActually, a high ranking Germany naval officer was tried for ordering unrestricted submarine warfare during the Nuremberg trials and was successfully able to defend against this charge by pointing out that the Allies engaged in the same strategy [1]. The Allies did recognize the hypocrisy of punishing defeated enemies of the same actions they took. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Order_No._154#Nuremberg_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Order_No._154#Nuremberg_tr...