i know the US doesnt seem to have a problem with this but in australia and i belive the UK too the only laws which can be retrospective are ones which help people and tax laws (which are anounced and put into effect before they are passed by the parliment), criminal law cant be made retrospective EXCEPT to remove a crime or lesson the sentance.
Actually,
ex post facto laws are prohibited by
Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, which has been in place since, basically, the beginning of the nation's independence. There is no way around this but by constitutional amendment. The Constitution, however, would not prohibit the prosecution of ex post facto laws on German officials because it has no sovereignty there.
In the United Kingdom, there is no constitution
per se, and Parliament has supremacy in all matters of law. So basically whatever they say is the supreme law of the land. Wikipedia (admittedly, not the best source on all things legal) has this to say: "In the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are strictly frowned upon, but are permitted by virtue of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Historically, all acts of Parliament before 1793 were ex post facto legislation, inasmuch as their date of effect was the first day of the session in which they were passed. This situation was rectified by the Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793."
As to the fact that the Germans were tried by ex post facto laws, that remains to be proven. The Nuremberg trials tried the accused under the three previous Geneva Conventions (to which the Germans were signatories), the various other treaties signed by Germans since the 19th century (most notably, its surrender after WWI and it's treaties of "peace" since the rise of Hitler). All of the matters of law which were applied to the accused were in place prior to the outbreak of the war. Because of this curious fact, no crimes committed by any official before the outbreak of war were permitted to be entered into evidence during the trial, neither was any internal/civil criminal accusations permitted in the trial; only war crimes which had broken previous international treaty obligations to which the Germans had participated prior to the war. The sovereignty of the tribunals was legitimate in that it was a condition of Germany's unconditional surrender at the end of the war.
Now charging people with invading poland when it wasnt illegal to invade a country before the end of the war wasnt following this basic principle
Unprovoked war was prohibited by various treaties, not the least of which was Germany's treaty obligations ending the First World War.
the other problems i have was the fact that they were exercuted inspite the fact that as far as i know the british had already abolished the death penelty and the fact that the alies wernt procuted for THERE crimes (like the fire bombing of Dresden)
This is a joke, right? First off, Google "death penalty" it's really easy. Britain didn't abolish the death penalty until the 60's and France didn't officially abolish it until the 80's (in case you missed the point: WWII ended more than 20 years before the Brits abolished it). Second off, the fire bombing of Dresden wasn't a war crime in that it was the result of a provoked attack by an aggressor nation. In self defense, especially one in which the defenders were fighting for their very survival, fire bombing an invading nation certainly was totally legitimate and legal (though, this may have changed in the years since WWII). Now, if you, on a personal level, have arbitrarily decided that it's a war crime, that's another matter. But we're talking international law not personal opinion on the matter. (Note: by saying that the Allies broke modern international law, you're creating an
ex post facto situation)
I'm with Norsefire. Whoever has the power decides what is or isn't a crime. And I am loath to hand over such power to some supernational body made up of people who hate the US.
Indeed. While I think that the laws the Germans were tried for were legitimate enough to conduct the trials, I'm of the opinion that the one's who were obviously guilty should have been executed, out of hand. Trials are in place to assuage doubt and to guarantee fairness. Everybody knew that the main German officials were guilty and what was going to happen to them after the trial. The judges were hand picked for one reason (especially the Soviet judges). The main trials were a charade. Trials for lesser officials were legitimate because of indeterminate information.
International courts are just one more example of wasteful bureaucracy.
I couldn't agree more.
~String