JAP. WAR LEADERS

Evening Star, Issue 26011, 28 January 1947, Page 5

JAP. WAR LEADERS

DEFENCE CASE OPENS GENERAL McARTHUR'S AUTHORITY CHALLENGED TOKIO, January 27. Opening the defence phase in the trial of the major Japanese war leaders, American and Japanese defence attorneys challenged General MacArthur’s authority to create an international, military tribunal, and declared that Japan was 1 forced to fight- a war of self-de-fence, and moved that the case be dismissed. The defence attorneys, referring, to the atrocities committed by Japanese troops, said that Japan had never ratified the Geneva Convention on the treatment of war prisoners, although she told the world after the war broke out that she would abide by the general outline of the convention. Regarding Pearl Harbour, the defence contended that no international law was broken because the United States had been in a de facto state of war with the Japanese for several years as a result of sending supplies to China since 1937 with economic, financial, and military assistance. MACARTHUR BOUND BY U.S. CONSTITUTION. Claiming that no law exists authorising any international tribunal? to sit in judgment on the moral conduct of individuals of a sovereign nation, the defence disputed General MacArthur’s right to issue the charter of April 26, 1946, which has become the legal foundation of the tribunal. The attorneys asserted that General Mac Arthur, as an American citizen, was bound by the United States Constitution, and was not permitted to accept any office or title from a foreign State without the consent of Congress. They said that not the slightest effort had been made to obtain the approval or ratification by Congress of General MacArthur’s action in creating a tribunal representing 10 foreign nations. “ Thus the picture stands of a general of the United States army who, without authority, establishes an alleged body of international law carrying the possibility of capital punishment and who reserves the right individually to review any sentence -rendered by the tribunal which in his opinion did not accord with his notion of a fair trial.” The defence said that the Potsdam Declaration was nothing more than an ultimatum to surrender and the Japanese instrument of surrender was “ nothing more than capitulation subject to certain conditions.” The defence denied that there was any infringement .of international law in the invasion of China and regarding Manchuria, asserted that Japan occupied a special historical and incontrovertible position there which 6he was entitled to defend. The defence also claimed that the prosecution introduced no substantial evidence of conspiracy by the accused to commit the crimes charged against them, and added that the accused were being tried illegally for breaking laws created after the acts had been committed. On behalf of 11 of the accused the defence urged that the charges he dismissed, because “ a fair trial is impossible.” The defence also argued that in distinction from those tried at Nuremberg, the Japanese accused had

not seized power, but were bona fide members of 12 Cabinets from 1928 and acted only as duly appointed officials. It ‘was further, claimed that hearsay evidence and affidavits had been admitted which were prejudicial to a fair trial under international law and under the laws of the participating countries. INVALID INDICTMENTS. Referring to the first 36 indictments grouped as crimes against peace, the defence asserted, that they are invalid on the ground that all the treaties cited reserved to each signatory nation the right to determine what constituted war in self-defence. The defencfe added that all the signatories of the Kellogg-Briand Treaty demanded such a stipulation and Japan had-gone to war in self-defence because of military encirclement by-the United States, Britain, China, and the Netherlands. The next 16 indictments charging murder were alleged to be invalid for the same reasons, also on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to show the direct connection of any accused with an express order except regarding his duties as a Government official. Finally, regarding the conventional war crimes alleged in the last three indictments, the defence contended that the prosecution had failed to-show any accused personally responsible for the acts of the Japanese commander* in the field who had. control of prisoners of war and internees.