Seriously...

First of all, I admit you are correct, and I did use the term "legality" when I shouldn't have. There was no precedent in Western Law for what the Allies were doing at Nuremberg because it had never been attempted before... precedent-setting does not equate to illegal, and I admit to having used the wrong term in my argument. I apologize and retract the "legality" statement.

I wasn't trying to make the case that Nuremberg was null and void because it was unprecedented... far from. The US Constitution was "unprecedented", but it stands as a major milestone in the development and understanding of both formal government organization and the ideals behind what government actually is. Nuremberg was a milestone in that it reflected the recognition of participating nations (and those that came after or followed the example) of the fundamental evil that is inherent in all forms of "total warfare".

That all warfare carries a fundamental risk of "evil' does not mean that I don't recognize that there are also "necessary evils" that must be understood to exist. The reason I didn't use the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of the extremes of modern warfare was that I am utterly convinced that the decision to use the bombs in the manner that they were used resulted in the saving of thousands (and yes, potentially millions) of lives. Who could rationally argue against the use of the bombs, when the US told the Japanese that we were going to destroy cities until such time as they surrendered unconditionally? The decision to risk the cost of a nuclear device was completely and totally in the hands of the Imperial Japanese government, and they chose to ignore that risk until both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed and hundreds of thousands were dead. Those two bombings ENDED the war with Japan and removed the necessity of invading the home islands and dragging the war on for another year (or more).

There are those, however, who feel that the strategic firebombing of Germany and Austria in '45 by the US and British was "overkill" (my term, not theirs). "Big Week" was a huge success in '44, because it targeted Luftwaffe production facilities and did so much damage that the Germans never again threatened Allied civilian areas with daylight bombing capabilities. Questions were asked about the Hamburg and Dresden bombings, though, because they specifically targeted civilian populations, rather than industrial, military or transportation facilities... enough questions, in fact, for George Marshall to convene a commission to investigate the campaigns and their planner's intentions. These were the same questions asked when discussing why the bombing of RAF facilities during the Battle of Britain were understood to be "acceptable" under the customs and laws of warfare, but the shift from RAF targets to civilian centers was a "war crime" for which Goering was charged and found guilty.

Personally, I am satisfied with what the Marshall Investigations found out: that the German military had a substantial presence in the cities, and were (in effect) using the civilians as "human shields" in the hopes of avoiding the strategic bombing that would have destroyed them anywhere else.

The tough point here is that Marshall would never have had to convene the inquiries if it hadn't been for the fact that we accused both Goering and Donitz of the exact same thing... and found them guilty of war crimes. They both used that fact in their defense, with the result that many in Germany still feel that the US efforts were "criminal" and some form of reparation should have been made to the cities effected.

Is it wrong for me to suggest that we learn from the mistakes that were made by the Allies in '45-'48 when it comes to Afghanistan and Iraq? Our efforts in Germany and Japan post-WWII were based on our understanding that the effects of the Treaty of Versailles directly contributed to the horror that was WWII. Have we forgotten that lesson? Do we actually GAIN anything from supporting an effort to try OBL here in the US for "crimes against humanity"? Osama bin Laden, more than any other human being alive today, was responsible for the war that the Afghans have been living with for nine years or more... why not let THEM try OBL for the pain and suffering he has brought down on them? Why not convene another tribunal, consisting of "Allied" judges that INCLUDE Afghanis, Kenyans, Spanish, Iraqi, British, and American judges.. . since all of those nations were also attacked or terrorized by OBL at some point in the last 20 years?

THOSE are the questions I'm asking... not if the Nuremberg Trials were "immoral" or "wrong" for having been undertaken. No amount of effort can produce "perfect justice" in this world... that is God's alone to hand down... but Nuremberg was an attempt, and while it might not have been perfect, it was far better than leaving it untouched. It is unfair (of me, or anyone else) to look at Nuremberg ONLY from the view of today's understanding... it would be the ultimate case of "Monday night quarterbacking" and it isn't contextually fair to do so. If I gave the impression that this was my intent, I apologize.

Call it another case of my anxiety at "big government intervention" in matters best left to smaller authorities...