3 ms·
And Justice Douglass (from the US supreme court) agreed with that: "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled, Law was c
by gizmo686 12y ago
And Justice Douglass (from the US supreme court) agreed with that: "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled, Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time." [1]
Ex post facto is also explicitly forbidden by the US consitution (Article 1, sections 9, 10) [2], and by the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 11, section 2) [3].
On a technical level, you can argue that torture was already illegal under US law, however the torturers were advised by agents of the State that what they were doing was legal, so ex-post-facto could very reasonably apply. There may be people high up on the chain of command who can be prosecuted under US law, but for the most part prosecutions would have to go through international law.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#cite_ref-reappraisal_95-0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#cite_ref-reapp...
[2] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans...
[3] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
- woah 12y agoSo you're saying that anything done by the state should be legal, and if you have a problem then you should apply diplomatic (ultimately military) pressure? Sounds like a recipe for atrocities and then war (like in nazi Germany). It's unfortunate that the high level sociopaths will probably get away with it, but we should still prosecute the lower level sociopaths who did the torturing. This will make it hard to order people to do this in the future. Ask yourself two questions: Is it ok to kidnap someone, lock them in your basement, beat them and rape them? Does some shit written on a piece of paper make it ok?
- gizmo686 12y agoI am saying that if the state said something is legal, it should not then prosecute people for having done it while the state was saying it is legal. If you have a problem with what another state is doing (and you are a state), then you should apply diplomatic/military pressure; I do not know what other recourse you have. In this case, what was done is illegal under international law, and was illegal under international law at the time it was done, so people can be tried in international court without ex post facto concerns. I am one of those people who disagree with the Nuremberg trials. If something atrocious happened, but was legal, then we should make it illegal and accept the fact that some people got away with doing horrible things.