I feel like a man just served a sumptuous feast, where to begin?
"Dang! And I suppose you're grading on the curve, too? "

Either way, I'm afraid it wouldn't help you with that grade.

Brush up on that reading comprehension, Teach. I said "the others" (by context you shoulda grasped I was referring to other prosecutors) were "almost comically disappointed."

Your comments about reading comprehension aside, it does not alter my point- whatever set of critics you 'paint' here are answered decisevely in the historical context by the Legs of the Nuremberg legacy and its success in the modern era in defining national and international law and philosophical groundwork for international relations.

"Someone with your familiarity with acadamia no doubt knows that ex post facto law is considered an abomination by jurists and philosophers. (Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the establishment of such laws.) Knowing such things, you should understand why the Nuremberg trials were considered by some (yes, even by some in academia) to be legal travesties. "

This is an absurd statement. Our legal system and the legal systems of many (but not all) Western nations eschew prosecution using post-facto laws- but this is a far cry from your universal statement concerning 'jurists and philosphers'. Even 2 of the philosphers you note as foundational to our legal system (Hobbes and Locke) would not take an absolutist position against post-facto laws. It would depend upon the legitimacy of the Social contract and the status of ex post facto prosecution within that contract, they would say. Hobbes would make some noise about the King and his desires. Rousseu might disagree with you 2/3rds of the time, but his zealous notions of absolutist justice would probably get the better of him on off days.

On a sheer practical note, you simply can not point to precedence as the sole grounding for legaity- otherwise no codified laws would exist in any case. As for actually grounding the Nuremburg principles, the League of Nations had drawn up many articles through 1941 regarding the 'right' of freedom and establishing a notion (based on the american notion) of inalienable human rights. So its not like the foundations of the Nuremburg trial were arbitrary and thought-up on the spot even within a strictly contemporary context.

As far as: "the Nuremberg trials were considered by some (yes, even by some in academia) to be legal travesties. "- well, some people think that the holocaust never happened- and yes, some of them are 'in' academia (for whatever that means). It does not make their argument legitimate or founded. Yours is neither.

I'm not concerned that nobody sat down and postulated before 1936 that industrial murder was a crime against humanity. While the world had seen large-scale ethnic slayings before, never had it seen its industrialization and never had it seen the scale of what took place under the reign of Nazi germany. One of the points about law that you fail to grasp is that it is a socio-political expediency. In as much as tyrants will always be concerned about what will happen to them in public if they cross certain lines, it is a good thing that the post-facto Seven Principles of Nuremburg were formulated and the Nazis were made exaples of. Bravo! Here Law has filled its role!

Its also cited as the intellectual foundation for the modern notion of human rights (Notice VI.B and VI.C).



" LOL. It is? Who besides you has made such a ludicrous claim? Source, please! "

I'm sorry that you are so ignorant of the intellectual tradition of human rights. You should educate yourself. This is pretty much a fundamental historical fact in any first course in Ethics or International Policy that deals with a notion of 'Human Rights'.

Please look up the article from The Nation that is quoted here. It is excellent! Also, an example of a course that finds the notion so intuitively obvious that itputs it on its syllabus. and here is a book in modern bioethics that demonstrates the continuing relevancy of the Seven Principles of Neuremburg. I have not read it, but it has been recommended to me.

Ever hear tell of a lil concept called "natural law?" Hobbes, Mill, Rousseau, Locke -- any of them ring a bell? You DO know America's founders were big believers in natural law, don't you? And that Jefferson borrowed from Locke when he wrote The Declaration of Independence?

Ever here? Why yes, I happened to cover that in a course I taught at a top 20 University. And you are confused. The relevant concept is Social Contract, which was refined to its more-or-less modern notion in the writings of Locke and Rousseau as a response to Hobbes more-or-less apology for the right of kings and absolutist government. The american founders (or at least those the american constitution, bill of rights and Declaration of Independence reflects) were very interested in a PLURALIST social contract. A little revolution, now and then, is good for a nation? Ring a bell?

Now notice. In the sense that law is the working out if the implications and foundations of a social contract, post-facto prosecution is not explicitly 'unjust'.

Perhaps you could explain how the Nuremberg Principles "cited as the intellectual foundation for the modern notion of human rights" differs from the intellectual foundation laid by the gentlemen I mentioned. I'd love to hear your learned thoughts on the subject.

Easy, it doesn't differ much- which does not service your point that the fondation (Nuremberg Principles) on which the nazis were prosecuted was 'laughable and ex-post-facto', as you put it. In fact it provides a fine 'jurist and philosophical' grounding. So despite your rather pathetic attempt atr intellectual penache, you sort of kick yourself in the ass here. Intellectually speaking, of course

"I'll ask you the same question I asked David. If the most powerful member of the international community isn't held to account for breaking the law, how does international law differ from the Law of the Jungle? "

Implied social contract. I don't like it, but its not quite 'law of the jungle'

"It's comments like this that tell me you don't understand the argument, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. I said nothing in my earlier posts in this thread about what is morally right or of moral truths. Morality has nothing to do with the initial argument I made and yet you continue to somehow misinterpret my comments as confusing morality and legality. Couldja cite the specific sentences I wrote that gave you that impression? "

Wow. You are so dense.

1. "The AHD defines murder as -- "the unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice." Can you cite the Iraqi law(s) Saddam violated when he killed people?
"

2. I'd simply like to hear a valid rationale for calling Saddam a "murderer"

Your point is that by some legal interpretation, Saddam is not a murderer. My point is that beyond the legalistic definition, there is a prior moral truth which makes a person a murderer. This escapes you. You think you can use this syntactic quibble (in essence, defining a lump of coal as a teapot and proceeding to brew tea with it) to replace the semantic meaning on which the notion is grounded in the model of the universe.

This entirely escapes you. Law in itself does not necessrily define a universe in which all judgements derived form law are morally true (or rather, consistent with universal moral maxims). Law is a sociopolitical expedient and/or an expression of a social contract (at least for the west).

Also, in all your gas blowing, you fail to note that you cut yourself off at the knees yet again. The Nuremburg Principles exist as a codified set of laws by which Saddam can be judged as a murderer and a crimainal. So even following the argument strictly within your absurd premises, you have no case and your conclusion does not follow.

Ultimately, you are an ignorant troll Odin, and I wash my hands of you. You think argument is for the sole purpose of 'winning', and are willing to pull outrageous rhetorical stunts to get there. Since my other area of expertise is in Symbolic Logic, I'm afraid it won't work with me.

Davin L.