On November 24, 1945, 21 men filed into the Nuremberg Palace of Justice to be tried for crimes that had never existed before. This is known as Ex post facto. In other words people were tried for crimes that did not exist at the time of the alleged incidents, but only made criminal after the facts. This is "victors justice" and vengeance. Men were charged for instance for being part of a criminal organization, the SS, the Gestapo etc, when at the time these government institutions were perfectly honorable and legal. In fact Heydrich at the time was head of Interpol. It was after the war the NSDAP, the SS and Gestapo were declared to be criminal organizations and hence illegal.
This would be like any person reading this, being a member of a group like the police, army only to find yourself in prison 20 years later for such membership because it was decided after the event such institutions were illegal.
The antagonism to ex post facto laws is not based on a lawyer's prejudice encased in a Latin maxim. It rests on the political truth that if a law can be created after an offense, then power is to that extent absolute and arbitrary. To allow retroactive legislation is to disparage the principle of constitutional limitation. It is to abandon what is usually regarded as one of the essential values at the core of democratic faith.
Its your fault, US allies blaming Germans
As revisionists we are often criticized for being over dramatic in our damming of some of the protocols that led to the creation of the Holocaust myth. We are not the only one, some very prominent people have agreed with out stance as follows.
Professor Harry Elmer Barnes
, Ph.D. said:
“The Nuremberg] war-crimes trials were based upon a complete disregard of sound legal precedents, principles, and procedures. The court had no real jurisdiction over the accused or their offenses; it invented ex-post facto crimes; it permitted the accusers to act as prosecutors, judges, jury, and executioners; and it admitted to the group of prosecutors those who had been guilty of crimes as numerous and atrocious as those with which the accused were charged. Hence, it is not surprising that these trials degraded international jurisprudence as never before in human experience.”
U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas Kennedy
“No matter how many books are written or briefs filed, no matter how finely the lawyers analyzed it, the crime for which the Nazis were tried had never been formalized as a crime with the definiteness required by our legal standards, nor outlawed with a death penalty by the international community. By our standards that crime arose under an ex-post facto law. Goering et al deserved severe punishment. But their guilt did not justify us in substituting power for principle.”
Edgar N. Eisenhower
, American Attorney, brother of President Dwight D.Eisenhower said:
“I think the Nuremberg trials are a black page in the history of the world…I discussed the legality of these trials with some of the lawyers and some of the judges who participated therein. They did not attempt to justify their action on any legal ground but rested their position on the fact that in their opinion, the parties convicted were guilty…This action is contrary to the fundamental laws under which this country has lived for many hundreds of years, and I think cannot be justified by any line of reasoning. I think the Israeli trial of Adolf Eichmann is exactly in the same category as the Nuremberg trials. As a lawyer, it has always been my view that a crime must be defined before you can be guilty of committing it. That has not occurred in either of the trials I refer to herein.”
Major General J.F.C. Fuller
, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O. said:
“My opinion always has been that the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials were acts of vengeance. War is a political and not a legal act, and if at the termination of a war, should it be considered that certain of the enemy’s leaders are politically too dangerous to be left at large, then, as Napoleon was, they should be banished to some island. To bring them to trial under post facto law, concocted to convict them, is a piece of hideous hypocrisy and humbug.”
Rear Admiral, U.S.N. Dan V. Gallery
“This kangaroo court at Nuremberg was officially known as the ‘International Military Tribunal.’ That name is a libel on the military profession. The tribunal was not a military one in any sense. The only military men among the judges were the Russians… At Nuremberg, mankind and our present civilization were on trial, with men whose own hands were bloody sitting on the judges’ seats. One of the judges came from the country which committed the Katyn Forest massacre and produced an array of witnesses to swear at Nuremberg that the Germans had done it.”
William L. Hart,
Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio said:
“The designation and definition by the London Charter of the so-called crimes with which the defendants were charged, after such so-called offenses were committed, clearly violated the well-established rule against ex-post-facto legislation in criminal matters. The generally accepted doctrine is expressed in the adage: “Nullum Crimen Sine Lege” – a person cannot be sentenced to punishment for a crime unless he had infringed a law in force at the time he committed the offense and unless that law prescribed the penalty. Courts in passing on this proposition had declared that: “It is to be observed that this maxim is not a limitation of sovereignty, but is a general principle of justice adhered to by all civilized nations.”
In my opinion, there was no legal justification for the trial, conviction or sentence of the so-called “war criminals” by the Nuremberg Tribunal. We have set a bad precedent. It should not be followed in the future".
Admiral Husband E. Kimmel
“The war crimes trials were a reversion to the ancient practice of the savage extermination of a defeated enemy and particularly of its leaders. The precedent set by these trials will continue to plague their authors.”
Rear Admiral Robert A. Theobald
, U.S.N. said:
“To me, the Nuremberg trials have always been totally inexcusable and a horrible travesty of justice. This is especially true when such trials are used to punish the men of the military services who were directing those services in time of war, and thus giving nothing more than an expression of the basic purposes of their whole adult life. In the execution of their wartime duties, these officers naturally carried out, to the letter, the orders, and directions which they received from the head of their government.
If an officer… should ever, for one instant, consider disregard or disobedience to his government’s orders, all cohesion in the military services would fail, from that moment, and the military services would fail in the one reason for their existence – the waging of successful war in the interests of their country.”
Honorable Edward Leroy Van Roden
, President Judge said:
“My conclusion is that the entire program of War Crimes Trials, either by International Courts, the members of which comprise those of the victorious nations, or by Military Courts of a single victor nation is basically without legal or moral authority… The fact remains that the victor nations in World War II, while still at fever heat of hatred for an enemy nation, found patriots of the enemy nation guilty for doing their patriotic duty. This is patently unlawful and immoral.
One of the most shameful incidents connected with the War Crimes Trials prosecutions has to do with the investigations and the preparation of the cases for trial. The records of trials which our Commission examined disclosed that a great majority of the official investigators, employed by the United States Government to secure evidence and to locate defendants, were persons with a preconceived dislike for these enemy aliens, and their conduct was such that they resorted to a number of illegal, unfair, and cruel methods and duress to secure confessions of guilt and to secure accusations by defendants against other defendants. In fact, in the Malmedy case, the only evidence before the court, upon which the convictions and sentences were based, consisted of the statements and testimony of the defendants themselves. The testimony of one defendant against another was secured by subterfuge, false promises of immunity, and by mock trials and threats.”