I was perhaps reading more into posts than the posters intended - but there did appear to be voices saying that the accusations are too heinous for him to deserve a fair hearing - with all the protection that the law of the country trying him affords. But if we tear down the ramparts of law to get at a particularly wicked defendant, then who among us could hope to survive a wrongful accusation?
An example was the outcry against the way that the defendant’s face was shrouded in the photographs. Failing to do so would, in most of Europe, be regarded as a horrible infringement on the right to due process. The American ceremony of the ‘perp walk’ in which a prominent arrestee is paraded into a jail or courthouse under the eye of the media, would be regarded as a lawless act, presuming guilt. (I personally think those countries are on to something. The ‘perp walk’ serves two purposes: poisoning the jury pool and improving the prosecutor’s chance for reëlection.)
I was therefore arguing, perhaps with excessive zeal, for the presumption of innocence.
“Superior orders” is surely not a complete defense. It is accounted for, though, sometimes, as a diminution of responsibility in a sentencing hearing. Otherwise, we would have hanged many thousands of common soldiers. Moreover, the decision to be merciful to the lesser criminals was made consciously. The Morgenthau Plan was rejected. The criminals among the rank and file went unpunished in the belief that justice would be better served in the long run by forging a lasting peace. The Nuremberg trials were of defendants who had command responsibility, not of common soldiers. Does that situation change because we have run out of commanders to try, because all the survivors were too young to be anything but common soldiers? Perhaps - particularly if you think that we must make examples of whoever remains from the defeated regime. It is still important to remember, though, that we are trying them personally, not the evil that they served.
