WAR CRIMINALS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 9 June 1945, Page 5

WAR CRIMINALS

FORTHCOMING TRIALS COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE REPORT TO PRESIDENT TRUMAN Washington, June 7. “We will accuse a large number of individuals and officials who were in authority in the Government, in military establishments, including the General Staff, and in the financial, industrial and economic life of Germany who can be proved to be common criminals,” said Mr Justice Jackson (chief U.S. counsel in the prosecution of war criminals) reporting to President Truman. “We also propose to establish the criminal character of several voluntary organisations. If these are found to be criminal, the individual member’s only defence would be personal extenuation, such as the claim that he participated under duress. The burden of proving that defence will be the responsibility of the accused.” Mr Justice Jackson revealed that many suspected war criminals were already in the hands of the United States. He said their custody and treatment appeared to require immediate attention, and he asked the War Department to deny them the privileges to which their rank entitled them if merely prisoners of war. He added: “No substantial differences exist between the American and United Kingdom representatives and minor differences have oeen adjusted easily. France has accepted the principle of a military tribunal and is expected to designate a representative shortly. Russia while not jet committed, has been kept informed of the steps taken. There is no reason td doubt that Russia will unite in the prosecution. We propose to make provision for others of the United Nations to become adherents. “We* should not recognise such a defence as the obsolete doctrine that the head of a State is immune from legal liability. There is more than a suspicion that this idea is a relic of the doctrine of the Divine right of kings which is inconsistent with the position the United States takes towards its own officials. We do not accept the paradox that legal responsibility should be least where the power is greatest. We stand on the principle of responsible government declared three centuries ago to King James by Lord Chief Justice Coke who proclaimed that even the King is still under God and the law.

“Our case against the major defendants is concerned with the Nazi master plan, not with individual barbarities and perversions which occurred independently of any central plan. The groundwork of our case must be factually authentic and constitute a well documented history of what we are convinced was a grand concerted pattern to incite and commit the aggressions and the barbarities which shocked the world. We must not forget that when the Nazi plans were boldly proclaimed they were so extravagant that the world refused to take them seriously. Unless we write the record of this movement with clarity and precision we cannot blame the future,’ if in the days of peace, it finds incredible the accusatory generalities uttered during the war. We must establish the incredible events with credible evidence. STERILE LEGALISMS “The United States will maintain a legal position based on commonsense justice which is relatively simple and non-technical. We must not permit it to be complicated ,or obscured by the sterile legalisms which were developed in the age of imperialism to make war respectable.“What appeals to men of goodwill and commonsense as a crime which comprehends all the lesser crimes is the crime of making unjustifiable war. War necessarily is a calculated series of killings, destruction of property and oppressions. Such acts unquestionably would be criminal except that international law throws a mantle of protection round acts which otherwise would be crimes when committed in the pursuit of legitimate warfare. Innovations and revisions in international are brought about by the aetions of Governments designed to meet changes from time to time, adapting settled principles to new situations. Hence I am not disturbed by the lack of precedent for the inquiry we propose to conduct. It is high time that we acted on the juridical principle that aggressive war-making is illegal and criminal.” “LEGAL STATUS ALTERED” Mr Justice Jackson cited the Kellogg Pact of 1928, by which Germany, Italy, Japan, and practically all the other nations renounced war, and said: “Unless this pact altered the legal' status of wars of aggression it has no meaning at all and comes close to being an act of deception. We, therefore, propose to charge that war of aggression is a crime and that modern international law has abolished the defence that those who incite or wage it are engaged in legitimate business. Thus may the forces of law be mobilised on the side of peace. “We stand at one of those rare mo* ments when the thought, institutions, and habits of the world have been shaken by the impact of the world war on the lives of countless millions. Such occasions rarely come and quickly pass. We must direct the world’s thought to firmer enforcement Of the laws of international conduct so as to make war less attractive.” President Truman told a Press conference that he was in complete agreement with the proposal for the prosecution Of German industrialists for war crimes as well as the German general staff. There was no prospect that the United States would have to conduct the trials alone, as Britain had already consented to an international tribunal, and it was believed that France and Rusisa would do so soon. (Earlier message on Page 3).