Nuremberg Juxtaposition to Terrorist Trials

Christopher Dodd takes the stand that the Nuremburg trials are the definition of just trials for war criminals. Slight problem, the Nuremburg trials are considered by many to be questionable at best. Let's start with Dodd's statements.

Just as the word "Nuremberg" once defined the United States' moral authority and commitment to justice, what we risk today is that, one day, the loss of that moral authority and a commitment to injustice may also be defined by a single word: "Guantanamo."

Once again, the question is being asked: Why not just give in to vengeance and show our enemies less mercy than they showed their victims? Why not just abandon due process and the rule of law and the right to a fair trial?

Because the United States stands for something more.

Now, as then, this nation should never tailor its eternal principles to the conflict of the moment, because if we do, we will be walking in the footsteps of the enemies we despise. By abandoning the rule of law, as Congress did last week, we will lose much more than what we gain.

I must start with that last statement about Congress abandoning the rule of law. Am I missing something? I could have sworn that Congress is the body that defines law. That alone would make the legislation that the Congress has passed relating to the detainees more valid than Nuremburg. It almost sounds that he is contending that the trial system is a body of vengeance. In fact, one of the biggest complaints against Nuremburg relates to "victor's justice." Read the Wikipedia entry for the Origin and Creation of the court. When you get through with that go to the section on the validity of the court.

Seems to me that Dodd is posturing a position that has more complaints than he should be willing to take. Maybe the Congressional solution isn't nearly as bad as he would have you think.