Ohio Senator Robert A. Taft’s opposition to the Nuremberg Trials stands as one of the most politically courageous and intellectually honest positions taken by an American statesman in the immediate aftermath of World War II. At a time when the Allied victory demanded moral vindication and when public bloodlust sought retribution, Taft dared to question whether the proceedings violated fundamental principles of justice—principles that supposedly distinguished Western civilization from the tyranny it had just defeated. […]
Moreover, Taft understood the dangerous precedent being established. Creating international legal mechanisms that victorious powers could wield against defeated enemies would not create a more lawful world order. Instead, it would provide a veneer of legitimacy for future interventions and regime changes undertaken in the name of “international justice.” How right he was. The road from Nuremberg leads directly to the legal gymnastics used to justify military interventions from Kosovo to Iraq to Libya—all cloaked in the language of universal human rights and international law, all ultimately serving the geopolitical interests of dominant powers. Läs artikel