"[Chief US prosecutor] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas." - US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone [0]
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." - US Constitution Article 1 Section 9 [1]
"No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed." - United Nations Universal Declaration of human rights. Article 11 [2]
Is that a rhetorical question? Of course yes! More seriously, international tribunals always present a difficulty from the law standpoint. "Presidents" always arrange their country to not sign international treaties and dodge international penalties (e.g. Singapore has never signed treaties against torture). Of course Nuremberg and Tokyo trials could be viewed as a farce by exaggerating the doubts, but they're extremely widely legitimate. Legality without legitimacy also happens: The Hague tribunal is legal but its legitimacy is criticized because it only attacks African presidents. Being legal is the bonus that brings a mathematical proof to a decision, but being legitimate is even more important.
In a parallel fashion, WWII's Prisoners Of War (POWs) were renamed DEF by the US ("Disarmed Enemy Forces"), to dodge the Geneva convention about POWs, and some were badly treated (The Wikipedia page has a discussion on the numbers – see "Other Losses").
Yes. My point was that if atrocities against civilians in Hiroshima or Dresden were not crimes by gizmo686's logic above, then neither were Nazi atrocities, and Nuremberg and Tokyo trials were nothing but a fancy lynching.
Not quite. If the Allies prosecuted German pilots and their commanders for, say, strategic bombing of London - including civilian targets - then yes, it would have been a sham. But they weren't, precisely because the Allies did it too. So the atrocities people were prosecuted for at Nuremberg was stuff like shooting surrendered prisoners, or deliberately executing civilians in controlled areas.
Yes. However, I was merely applying gizmo686's criterion of a crime, "it has to be a standard that was at force at the time of the attack", to Nazis in similar fashion as (s)he applied it to Allies.
The way they did it was by claiming that the crimes didn't stem from any written law, but rather from an unwritten universal (for Europe, at least) custom. This is not actually all that far fetched - the notion of "customs of war" long predated any formal conventions etc.
That's ridiculous. The nazis eradicated a peaceful civilian population. The USA nuked cities where literally everyone was somehow engaged in a war against them, and who had started it in the first place.
Does that mean that Nuremberg and Tokyo trials were just a farce?