War-crime trials

[Dirty Meg]

At risk of being controversial, what are peoples views on war-crimes trials, in particular, but not restricted to the Nuremberg trials? It seems to me that while the people responsible for the holocaust were certainly deserving of punishment, a person cannot normaly be prosecuted without some kind of prior legal precedent. As far as I know there were no laws concerning the prosection of people who carry out genocide until after the Nuremberg trials. There was the Geneva convention, which laid down rules concerning how PoWs and civilians were allowed to be treated in war time but it didn't lay down punishments for those who broke those rules. What are other peoples views on this subject?

[Harkoliar]

i dont know much about this matter, although i would like to hear peoples opinions about it and those who know about the internatinal war crimes. any international lawyers out there?

[mad=dog]

The judicial system is part of the trinity of government and cannot function properly without the other two - the legislative and executive. That would be the problem in this case. There is no institution with the power to create viable laws and there is none to enforce them.
You mention the Nuremberg trials, however these trials was not specifically minted on crimes against the Jewish people, but in broader context crimes against humanity. The main bulk of the court was gathered from the US judiciary. In all there where 11 trials/courts ranging from trials against the Einsatztruppen, trials against doctors and trials against the leadership of germany and austria. Et cetera.
I don't know what you are aiming at?