The problem is as I pointed out, the attempt can turn around on us. Nurnberg, if you know anything about the history of military law, was the first time where a war crime trial was not held by the military that had been shamed; and it was an illegal act. Under civil law, it is defined as Ex Post Facto (After the fact). The Kellogg-Briand pact which was the basis of it had never been ratified by the League of Nations, and since the League could not even sanction a member nation as we do under the UN, using a treaty that had not been ratified is like telling a seated president he must obey the War Powers Act.
In fact, when I researched the idea of pointing out why modern war crimes trials would be bad, I found out that only one trial in the last 150 years was legal (A whatever prize to who can tell me which one that was), the rest violated the laws of the nations they were held in or by.
Yet the 'trial' of Americans captured in Korea and Vietnam followed the same rule we used in Germany and later the Far East; 'We say you're guilty, deal with it'. If you've ever asked anyone what was the statement most used during Nurnberg was, most would say 'I was obeying orders; a BS reply, since of all the nations represented on both sides of the case, only the Germans had the Prussian Ethic before 1944. That ethic states that obedience to an illegal oirder is in and of itself illegal.
The actual main statement? 'We are not on trial, you are'.