Total justice is an obsession not only of everyday (American) life, but has its grip on the politics of war too. Although European aristocrats in the nineteenth century still could look at their territorial wars as the ultimate means of political distribution among family members, modern national leaders have to find legitimacy in morally destroying the enemy regime. The media are as important as conventional weapons, and courts or tribunals have become new players in the game. With courts defining what is seen as bellum iustum, a body of law is being built up, with Nuremberg and the Yugoslavia tribunals as the main precedents. These tribunals show that the courtroom does not often reveal moral victory. The dilemmas of the Saddam Hussein tribunal also demonstrated that a war may be lost not only on the battlefields but also in the courtroom.

It is a modern custom for victors of war to try the losers before a tribunal, charging them with moral guilt for crimes of war, genocide, and violations of human rights. The aim is to expose the obscene crime of a few selected culprits so as to evoke total moral condemnation of the defeated regime. The most eager helpers are incriminated, but the mass of fellow travelers may be excused for their opportunism. Drawing borderlines between these groups is a political decision made with a view to the future. The time and complexity of legal procedures help move the political purge to some historical distance.