Originally Posted by
rickair7777
Absolutely a KC as applied to US persons. I have no faith or trust in such things, especially if applied to US persons. Way too many competing motives, agendas, allegiances, corruption, etc.
There is no crime over which ICC claims jurisdiction, that the US doesn't have some similar legal remedy. Or if there is, there's a reason we don't (ex. some nations have robust "hate speech" laws, which basically apply to whatever dissent their regime wants to silent). We can (and should) try our own citizens. No interest in World Government, thanks.
Right place and right time, he lucked out.
They decided they needed him as a unifying figurehead to help get the people behind the new government. This despite very strong sentiment amongst the allies that he be treated as a war criminal.
It helped his case that his support for the war had been anemic all along, and that he was actively trying to negotiate surrender terms before Hiroshima.
Do you think of the Nuremberg trials as illegitimate?
That the defeated leadership of Germany was put on trial by jurists and judges of the Victor's make it a kangaroo court?
Or was it an attempt to apply some sort of justice and legal framework regarding monstrous crimes committed against Mankind and the very concepts of civilization? An assertion that there should be some basic fundamental way to adjudicate obvious evil, even if it hadn't previously been legally articulated?
We (as in Mankind) are unraveling the lessons of Nuremberg when we assert that the ICC lacks jurisdiction. Or that national chauvanism should triumph over both evil and justice.