Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Cadsby 4534 days ago
You are correct that there were many problems and no small amount of hypocrisy involved in the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. (Much more so in the latter, but that's a different discussion)

But the point I was responding to was of the parent's usage of, what I interpreted to be, sarcasm quotes around the word trial; implying that the idea of trying Bin Ladin was ludicrous on it's face. I disagree. Despite all the valid criticism one can levy against any system of criminal justice, it's an important pillar of our society that when a crime has occurred, no matter how heinous or vile, the suspected perpetrators are apprehended, and evidence must be produced against them before punishment is meted out. We don't just take them out back and shoot them in the head, no matter how obvious we imagine their guilt to be. This process has value, despite it's many flaws in the way it's actually implemented.

2 comments

Which society? The US isn't the ruler of the world. It can't purport to impose criminal jurisdiction on foreigners waging war against it, and any attempt to pretend to do so would be a sham. There is the domestic criminal justice system, and internationally there is only war between sovereign actors.
The US isn't the ruler of the world

63 countries have US military bases and troops, 156 countries have US troops (overlapping sets), 46 have no US military presence[0]. The Five Eyes are basically the US's subalterns in Empire. Outside of Russia , North Korea and China calling non US countries independent is a bit of a stretch. Classical international law certainly wouldn't have considered any country with another's military bases anything but a protectorate.

[0]www.miprox.de/USA_speziell/US-Military-Bases-Worldwide. jpg

That stretches it a bit. If a foreign base in your country makes you a protectorate, the USA is a protectorate of Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holloman_Air_Force_Base#German_...)

In other words: one should nuance that a bit. Yes, in NATO, he USA is by far the biggest player, and it contributes beyond its size, but protectorate stretches it, certainly in some cases.

>...Implying that the idea of trying Bin Ladin was ludicrous on > it's face. I disagree.

I'm with you. In fact it's a really a terrible shame that the original attack in 2001 was not treated as the work of gangsters, which it was, rather than an act of war, which it clearly was not. Once the latter path had been seized upon, war was waged back against....what? A movement?

The use of war vocabulary simply legitimized bin Laden in the eyes of many terrible people. He definitely surfed the US's response effectively.