Nostr Web Client

Understood. The post war trial did convict nazis. The idea was that an unjust/ immoral law is not a law hence if it's legal to kill someone it doesn't absolve one just because it was legal. I am forgetting things maybe, but the argument was something similar like that. It did raise a question into what being a law is. Someone can clarify if they know the particulars of the trials.

Logen Kain 1y ago

Yea, it's been years since I've studied the trials, but those were high ranking officials. Different rules apply.

When a country loses a war, what happens to its officials must align with the political goals of the winners.

Maybe that's executions, maybe that's mercy, trade power, or any number of other options.

For the average person? If they are following the laws of their government, they should not be expected to have been also following the laws/ethics/culture of the victors.

Imagine if an anti abortion country defeats a pro abortion country.

Do the victors punish all the people who had abortions?

What if it's via exposure instead? Where is the line? Murder? Who defines that?

The victors can change the law, but they have no moral grounds to punish the citizens for crimes they did not commit.

Furthermore, amnesty tends to go over better than persecution. Victors aren't looking for rebellion.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Raw 1y ago

Absolutely agree on everything. But why does the application of laws depend on the status of a person? Doesn't treating high ranking officials differently than normal citizen break the "Rule of law" Equality before the law.

One could argue on lines of the 'victor's rule' (I coined the term here just for brevity), they won so they can do what they want. But it does feel wrong.

I absolutely loved your points, I am fascinated. 💕

Logen Kain 1y ago

Why does the application of laws depend on status?

We are strictly speaking about foreign laws being applied to a given, perhaps formerly, sovereign nation.

Things that happen to someone with high status have different results in regard the local populations as well as foreign.

If you have a policy of killing respected conqured leaders, not only will this grow resentment from conqured nations, but other nations are less likely to surrender. Among other political issues.

If you always show mercy this encourages people to surrender, but may also embolden rebelious types to think they can surrender if they fail.

Take a random group of low status people and cruicify them and a bunch of people may be upset for a bit, but the greater political landscape doesn't care.

Also, time, money, and effort involved with going after individuals of a conqured nation may not be worth it.

High status individuals are few, what happens to them have wide ranging consequences, and they tend to be more efficient targets.

Really though, that applies everywhere, even outside our specific situation.

Logen Kain 1y ago

Oh, and who's "rule of law"? The conqured nations law, or the conqurerer's?

Are we appealing to a higher authority?

Is this two nations of the Holy Romean empire duking it out and following the emporers rule of law?

A dieity's?

If two equally soverign nations fight, neither have "rule of law" over the other's citizenry.

Raw 1y ago

By rule of law I meant Dicey's rule of law. Also, i think I am in a wrong here to always assume the winners were modern democratic state, Modern nation state.