Seriously?

Titus comment of 9/20/10:
I did not, nor do I now, argue against the "legality" of the [Nuremberg] trials, because our legal system is based on statutory, precedent-based decisions founded on basic enumerated governmental authority. What I questioned was the "legitimacy" of our participation with other, less able "legal" partners and the taint that puts on both those procedings and all that stems from them.

Titus post of 9/19/10 entitled "What Movie":
I still question the "legality" of Nuremberg. Many of the charges levelled against the Nazi leadership were not "crimes" prior to November 20th, 1945, and thus the men on trial couldn't have knowingly committed crimes that didn't exist. Again, I'm not saying there wasn't culpability on the part of the Nazi leadership... there was, indeed... but the capital crimes they were accused of had never been codified prior to the end of WWII.

****
Titus post of 9/20/10 titled "Addendum":
One thing that still bothers me about Nuremberg is that we sat, side-by-side, with judges from the USSR (all Red Army generals or marshalls) who were probably just as guilty of crimes against humanity as any Nazi...

Titus post of 9/19/10 titled "What movie?":
All the Allied Powers waged war against civilian targets at some time during the course of the conflict (Curtis LeMay's fire-bombing campaign, for example), yet that was a leading crime in all the Nuremberg convictions.

****
Titus post of 9/20/10 titled "Addendum":
So, when I say "we" I say it because the US remained involved in Nuremberg in spite of the problematic nature of our less-than-likely partners, France and the USSR.

Titus post of 9/19/10 tiled "Why Am I Always The Bad Guy?":
There was a real question concerning the legitimate means by which the Allies (US, UK, USSR and France) could sit in judgement of 24 men and six national organizations (labeled "criminal" by the Nuremberg Court).

I'm going to bed now. I had a long night at work ... and an even longer one after.