For history buffs...Nurenberg...Truth or theater ?

Question

United States Senator Robert Taft from Ohio states in (President) John Kennedy's, "Profiles in Courage"...Nurenberg was a farce because the accused could never have been found innocent, which eliminates any concept of a fair trial.

Niall Ferguson, Harvard Professor,, author of War of the World, stated...Nurenberg was a farce because the Allied powers put on trial Nazi Germany, when one of the members of the Allied powers was far more guilty of war crimes, crimes against the state and crimes against humanity than Nazi Germany. Ferguson was referring to the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin.

Stalin was far more brutal due to the greater amount of people effected by the murderous regime of the Communist Party in Russia under Stalin and for a longer period of time.

Is there any truth to either Senator Taft or Niall Ferguson?

And, what about the trial of Sadam Husain, Milosevic or if captured alive, ...Osama bin Laden.

Truth as we know a trial should be, theater or P.R.?

Answer 1

Emperor Justinian said in the 6th century:

Iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius suum cuique tribuens

"Justice is the constant and perpetual will to attribute to every man that which is due"

There are volumes written on the meaning of this subject. I will only point out the ancient meaning of law in that there is one written by man which is called statute (lex, legis) and there is one that is attributed to nature and humanity (jus, jusis). That which is law attributed to nature and humanity exists outside of politics. These laws need not be written down; we know them by virtue of being human beings (right to self defense, right to live, right to freedom, right to possession of private property)

The problem with trying a case in a newly conquered country is which laws dictate the procedure, statute, and punishment for the action. These are invented by a culture within a political sphere and so are not infallible in the administration of justice (for instance, a case is dismissed on a technicality and double jeopardy rules state that an accused cannot be retried).

The goal of Justice is to deliver unto each that which is due. From analyzing the Nurenberg trials, I must say that those who were put to death certainly deserved it. The procedure may have been different from what you and I are used to at common law.

The trials themselves serve as a symbol, and because they are part of a war, they have some political elements to them. They are given the name "trial" rather than "hearing" because their purpose is to serve justice. They are symbolic because they mean something to those who were most affected by a war. Note the symbolic significance of the Iraqis trying their former leader rather than an international court.

The quote by Justinian does not include truth (veritas). If you have ever read "A Civil Action" you will quickly realize that a trial is not about revealing the truth. It is about administrating to each what is due. The rules of proceedure are designed to prevent abuse where justice fails to be administered. The Nurenberg trials had procedures that were designed to quickly gather the evidence so that a determination of involvement could be made. This was designed mostly for the lower ranking members of the Nazi party. It was obvious that those who were in charge would be put to death, trial or not, and this would be just.

Regardless of the procedure, justice is served. It may seem like a show when compared to what we are used to, but the end result is still Justice as long as the accused is deserving. This makes such tribunals legitimate in a very ancient way.