"My original assertion was that the other prosecutors were "almost comically disappointed" by the legal theory offered by the U.S. prosecutor. "

Your response here makes no sense, is a a non sequiter. The 'legal theory' was what grew into the Principles. Therefore... (you can derive a conclusion, can't you?)

"If it wasn't too much trouble, I'd delve into the transcripts and cite their words, but I doubt your limited comprehension would give you the same impression in any event. "

Thats so impressive. Great way to back yourself up in a debate. Really makes you look like you know what you are talking about. Gee! Sure am glad you decided not to demonstrate your prowess in defending yourself! I might have actually thought that you had a position to defend instead of a conglomeration of rhetoric and beliefs.

"Your next coupla paragraphs argue against strawmen (you interpret "abomination" to mean an "absolutist position" and an argument for "precedence as the sole grounding for legality," which of course isn't true. "

So you say. Frankly I did neither. But I am talking to a brick wall here. And I urge you to delve into a basic course on rhetoric and argument. You are badly decieved about what a 'Strawman' is. And its difficult not to interpret your statement that "that ex post facto law is considered an abomination by jurists and philosophers." as not an absolutist statement about the considerations of 'jurists and philosophers'.

"IIRC, Hitler's Germany resigned from the League of Nations years before he began gassing Jews."

And your point? Laws can still take effect even if the judged reject the legal authority. Try using this argument against a speeding ticket next time you get one. The judge will get a hoot.

"And I'm not concerned with whether or not you believe prosecuting people using ex post facto law is or was a good thing. The discussion pertained to whether the Germans violated German law when they gassed Jews, and the legal theory the U.S. offered to legitimize prosecution.
"

Quite to the point, the discussion has been about legal theory. Because I'm not buying the (rather absurd and indefensible) theory you are pushing about the nuremburg trials IS THE POINT! Man you are dense. I am pointing out that by standardly interpreted foundations of Ethics and Law, Nuremburg was a poster child for the triumph of Law.

"You really do have problems with reading comprehension. This excerpt is concerned with the international human rights movement, not "the intellectual foundation for the modern notion of human rights." "

Wow, you really are into the realm of semantic masturbation. Its like saying a Philosophy course is really not about Philosophy, per-se, but the international instruction of philosophy.

Like I said: I'm done with you. You never answered any of my main points of refutation, and seem to want to split semantic hairs to try to defend yoursef. I think its self-evident that you have nothing and that your best attempts at defending yourself only serve to render your argument invalid and contradictory (Remember the Locke/Hobbes points you never responded to?)

"but I see no evidence that your intellectual hubris will allow you the luxury of thought. "

Witty. you have cleft my frontal lobes in twain and redered up broken sentience up on the beach of your intellect.

Keep this in mind, Odin- don't come unarmed and illiterate to a battle of Wits, you only look more of an idiot for it.

Davin L.