No, that is obviously not also true of the Holocaust. Again: pretzels! It's really easy to look up why we invented new categories of crime for the Holocaust.
It is entirely true. The Holocaust was a sovereign nation committing actions that were legal within its judicial system at the time.
> The drafters of [the Nuremberg Charter] were faced with the problem of how to charge the men at the Nuremberg Trial with committing the Holocaust and other state-sanctioned atrocities committed in Germany and German-allied states by the Nazi regime. As far as German law was concerned the men had committed no crime, but only followed orders. Not following orders however, in Nazi Germany, was a horribly punished crime. The problem in trying the individuals responsible for the German atrocities lay in the fact that, like in World War I, a traditional understanding of war crimes gave no provision for atrocities committed by a state on its own citizens or its allies. Therefore, to solve this problem and close the loophole, Article 6 of the Charter was drafted to include not only traditional war crimes and crimes against peace, but also crimes against humanity…
You're misunderstanding the issue. As far as German law was concerned, ordering the deaths of millions of people wasn't a crime because of uniquely awful German law dehumanizing those people. International law was required, in part, because there was no other way to apply the obvious murder statutes to the case (you'd need to do that under German law, which was warped by the Nazis) and in part because the crimes were themselves more horrible than just murder. It was not because there was some weird bank-shot way in which knowingly operating death camps was alien to ordinary notions of criminal law.
Also: stop comparing things to the Holocaust. Still more pretzel twists. All you have to do is not pursue this dumb rhetorical strategy of depicting policy you don't like as "murder".
> As far as German law was concerned, ordering the deaths of millions of people wasn't a crime because of uniquely awful German law dehumanizing those people.
As far as American law is concerned, causing the deaths of many people isn’t a crime because of uniquely awful regulatory regime dehumanizing those people.
> Also: stop comparing things to the Holocaust.
It illustrates well the point that “just because a killing is lawful doesn’t necessarily mean it shouldn’t be considered murder”.
Because you're intent on framing a policy decision you dislike as "murder" you've found yourself arguing that running a death camp wouldn't be prosecutable without a "crimes against humanity" law, and comparing the administration of health care systems to the Holocaust. This is what I mean by saying you've twisted yourself into a pretzel. You made a bad argument. It's not the end of the world; I do it all the time. Let it go.
No, that is obviously not also true of the Holocaust. Again: pretzels! It's really easy to look up why we invented new categories of crime for the Holocaust.
It is entirely true. The Holocaust was a sovereign nation committing actions that were legal within its judicial system at the time.
> The drafters of [the Nuremberg Charter] were faced with the problem of how to charge the men at the Nuremberg Trial with committing the Holocaust and other state-sanctioned atrocities committed in Germany and German-allied states by the Nazi regime. As far as German law was concerned the men had committed no crime, but only followed orders. Not following orders however, in Nazi Germany, was a horribly punished crime. The problem in trying the individuals responsible for the German atrocities lay in the fact that, like in World War I, a traditional understanding of war crimes gave no provision for atrocities committed by a state on its own citizens or its allies. Therefore, to solve this problem and close the loophole, Article 6 of the Charter was drafted to include not only traditional war crimes and crimes against peace, but also crimes against humanity…
You're misunderstanding the issue. As far as German law was concerned, ordering the deaths of millions of people wasn't a crime because of uniquely awful German law dehumanizing those people. International law was required, in part, because there was no other way to apply the obvious murder statutes to the case (you'd need to do that under German law, which was warped by the Nazis) and in part because the crimes were themselves more horrible than just murder. It was not because there was some weird bank-shot way in which knowingly operating death camps was alien to ordinary notions of criminal law.
Also: stop comparing things to the Holocaust. Still more pretzel twists. All you have to do is not pursue this dumb rhetorical strategy of depicting policy you don't like as "murder".
> As far as German law was concerned, ordering the deaths of millions of people wasn't a crime because of uniquely awful German law dehumanizing those people.
As far as American law is concerned, causing the deaths of many people isn’t a crime because of uniquely awful regulatory regime dehumanizing those people.
> Also: stop comparing things to the Holocaust.
It illustrates well the point that “just because a killing is lawful doesn’t necessarily mean it shouldn’t be considered murder”.
Because you're intent on framing a policy decision you dislike as "murder" you've found yourself arguing that running a death camp wouldn't be prosecutable without a "crimes against humanity" law, and comparing the administration of health care systems to the Holocaust. This is what I mean by saying you've twisted yourself into a pretzel. You made a bad argument. It's not the end of the world; I do it all the time. Let it go.
> you've found yourself arguing that running a death camp wouldn't be prosecutable without a "crimes against humanity" law
I have cited how we did, indeed, have to do exactly that.
> comparing the administration of health care systems to the Holocaust
Yes. Both involve causing megadeaths in a way existing law is entirely unprepared for.