His assassination also had the unfortunate side effect of turning him into a martyr that has attracted a lot of people to join Al Qaeda, making it stronger than it's been in years.
There's no question some horrible people who did dreadful things were hanged as a result of those trials.
But nn such a context it's impossible to not to have any decision overshadowed as "victor's justice" no matter how seemingly legitimate. And there _was_ ambiguity in some cases. Example: the victor decides that "waging war" is the crime while the general from the losing side is professionally executing his judgement in fighting a battle. Or where the losers were punished for something that the winners also did (e.g. destruction of Dresden: terrible, ineffective in pursuit of the war, and completely understandable in context).
Basically trials, in this context, are solely to assuage the guilt of the victors. They are no more just than simply executing those the victors have decided are guilty.
BTW there was a lot of contemporary discussion on this; this is not an ex post facto opinion.
In addition to Hans Fritzsche, Franz von Papen, and Hjalmar Schacht in Nuremberg, over 1,000 Japanese defendants were acquitted of war crimes in the trials in the Far East.
That seems a pretty staggering number of acquittals for "show trials," if you're using "show trial" in its normal sense, where a guilty verdict is a foregone conclusion.
If you just mean it would have been unlikely for Göring to mount a satisfactory defense, when he conspired to confiscate Jewish property after Kristallnacht and allowed the attempted extermination of the Hungarian Jews, you'd be right. But that has more to do with the nature of his involvement.
Consider the higher ranking Dönitz, effectively head of state. His defense actually worked fairly well, and he thus received a lighter sentence. (On charges that he sunk neutral vessels, his defense countered that the US had done the same, and he received no additional jail time for it. On charges that he waged unrestricted warfare against British merchants, he received a "not guilty" as his defense argued that they all supported the war effort, etc. He claimed that he didn't know anything about the policy in the camps, he was just a naval man. He received a 10 year sentence - that's lighter than some murderers get.)
I still think they are better than plain shooting someone because they indicate a willingness to follow higher standards than the other party. Moral high ground is important in conflicts motivated by ideology. On a tangent I also feel that the lack of moral high ground is why approval of U.S. foreign policy is declining among its allies and even more so among neutral countries.
But the point I was responding to was of the parent's usage of, what I interpreted to be, sarcasm quotes around the word trial; implying that the idea of trying Bin Ladin was ludicrous on it's face. I disagree. Despite all the valid criticism one can levy against any system of criminal justice, it's an important pillar of our society that when a crime has occurred, no matter how heinous or vile, the suspected perpetrators are apprehended, and evidence must be produced against them before punishment is meted out. We don't just take them out back and shoot them in the head, no matter how obvious we imagine their guilt to be. This process has value, despite it's many flaws in the way it's actually implemented.
63 countries have US military bases and troops, 156 countries have US troops (overlapping sets), 46 have no US military presence[0]. The Five Eyes are basically the US's subalterns in Empire. Outside of Russia , North Korea and China calling non US countries independent is a bit of a stretch. Classical international law certainly wouldn't have considered any country with another's military bases anything but a protectorate.
[0]www.miprox.de/USA_speziell/US-Military-Bases-Worldwide. jpg
In other words: one should nuance that a bit. Yes, in NATO, he USA is by far the biggest player, and it contributes beyond its size, but protectorate stretches it, certainly in some cases.
I'm with you. In fact it's a really a terrible shame that the original attack in 2001 was not treated as the work of gangsters, which it was, rather than an act of war, which it clearly was not. Once the latter path had been seized upon, war was waged back against....what? A movement?
The use of war vocabulary simply legitimized bin Laden in the eyes of many terrible people. He definitely surfed the US's response effectively.