Thread by @EveKeneinan

Translation:

I’m right, but maybe not quite if he can juuuuust twist the terms enough.

https://twitter.com/Lee86046441/status/1125510111655546882

Question for these idiots:

If killing the Jews was ILLEGAL in Nazi Germany, WHY did the Nuremberg Trials have to INVENT several new CATEGORIES of crime (e.g. crimes against peace, crimes against humanity) IN ORDER TO TRY THEM LEGALLY?

The problem with Nuremberg as a matter of LAW, was that it violated almost all the basic TENETS of LAW.

Harlan Fiske Stone, the US Chief Justice called it a “grade-A lynching.”

It isn’t that the Nazis weren’t GUILTY OF MONSTROUS EVIL.

We knew that already.

The problem was THEY HAD NOT BROKEN ANY LAWS.

The were eventually tried, convicted, and hanged, for violating laws that WERE NOT ARTICULATED AS SUCH UNTIL AFTER THE FACT.

I’m not even saying the Nazis did not deserve to be PUNISHED for their evil deeds.

But doing it under color of LAW, when you have to rape the law to do it—was probably a bad idea.

It’s a pretty core principle of LAW that you can’t criminalize something AFTER THE FACT, and THEN try someone for breaking the law that didn’t EXIST when they “broke” it.

I think it is pretty clear that, IF IT WERE TRUE, as that Lee guy is claiming, it was ILLEGAL to carry out the Holocaust under the Nazi regime, THEN we could have tried those who did so under the laws that made it illegal.

But it wasn’t illegal.

So we had to make up new laws.