Post by mish on Aug 1, 2015 3:13:06 GMT -5
Here's how MacArthur, by then SCAP (Supreme Commander Allied Powers),
resolved the appeals (Yup, they APPEALED. Gotta hand it to those
defense counsels; what they did defined devotion to duty) of Generals
Yama____ta and Homma after both were sentenced to death in the war
crimes trials:
Yama____ta:
Recourse was first had to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to intervene.
Next came an appeal to President Truman, who upheld the Military Commission's
verdict. Last recourse was to SCAP:
It is not easy for me to pass penal judgment upon a defeated adversary in a major military campaign. I have reviewed the proceedings in vain search for some mitigating circumstances on his behalf. I can find none. Rarely has so cruel and wanton a record been spread to public gaze.Revolting as this may be in itself, it pales before the sinister and far reaching implication thereby attached to the profession of arms. The soldier, be he friend or foe, is charged with the protection of the weak and unarmed. It is the very essence and reason for his being. When he violates this sacred trust, he not only profanes his entire cult but threatens the very fabric of international society. The traditions of fighting men are long and honorable. They are based upon the noblest of human traits-sacrifice. This officer, of proven field merit, entrusted with high command involving authority adequate to responsibility, has failed this irrevocable standard; has failed his duty to his troops, to his country, to his enemy, to mankind; has failed utterly his soldier faith. The transgressions resulting therefrom as revealed by the trial are a blot upon the military profession, a stain upon civilization and constitute a memory of shame and dishonor that can never be forgotten. Peculiarly callous and purposeless was the sack of the ancient city of Manila, with its Christian population and its countless historic shrines and monuments of culture and civilization, which with campaign conditions reversed had previously been spared.
It is appropriate here to recall that the accused was fully forewarned as to the personal consequences of such atrocities. On October 24-four days following the landing of our forces on Leyte-it was publicly proclaimed that I would "hold the Japanese Military authorities in the Philippines immediately liable for any harm which may result from failure to accord prisoners of war, civilian internees or civilian non-combatants the proper treatment and the protection to which they of right are entitled."
No new or retroactive principles of law, either national or international, are involved. The case is founded upon basic fundamentals and practices as immutable and as standardized as the most natural and irrefragable of social codes. The proceedings were guided by that primary rational of all judicial purposes-to ascertain the full truth unshackled by any artificialities of narrow method or technical arbitrariness.The results are beyond challenge.
I approve the findings and sentence of the Commission and direct the Commanding General, Army Forces in the Western Pacific, to execute the judgment upon the defendant, stripped of uniform, decorations and other appurtenances signifying membership in the military profession.
Homma:
Im Homma's case, it was his wife who sought to present a plea for clemency to SCAP after verdict was passed on her husband.MacArthur saw her, and promised to give her plea "the gravest consideration:"
I am again confronted with the repugnant duty of passing final judgment on a former adversary in a major military campaign. The proceedings show the defendant lacked the basic firmness of character and moral fortitude essential to officers charged with the high command of military forces in the field. No nation can safely trust its martial honor to leaders who do not maintain the universal code which distinguishes between those things that are right and those things that are wrong. The testimony shows a complete failure to comply with this simple but vital standard. The savageries which resulted have shocked the world. They have become synonyms of horror and mark the lowest ebb of depravity of modern times. There are few parallels in infamy and tragedy with the brutalization of troops who in good faith had laid down their arms. It is of peculiar aversion that the victims were a garrison whose heroism and valor has never been surpassed. Of all fighting men of all time none deserved more the honors of war in their hour of final agony. The callousness of denial has never been exceeded. This violation of a fundamental code of chivalry, which has ruled all honorable military men throughout the ages in treatment of defeated opponents, will forever shame the memory of the victorious troops. I can find no circumstances of extenuation although I have searched for some instance upon which to base palliation.
In reviewing this case I have carefully considered the minority views presented by distinguished justices of the United States Supreme Court in negation not only as to jurisdiction but as to method and merit. My action as well as the record in this case would be incomplete were I to fail the obligation as the final reviewing authority of frank expression on issues of so basic a nature. I do so from the standpoint of a member of the executive branch of the government in process of its responsibility in the administration of military justice.
No trial could have been fairer than this one, no accused was ever given a more complete opportunity of defense, no judicial process was ever freer from prejudice. Insofar as was humanly possible the actual facts were fully presented to the commission. There were no artifices of technicality which might have precluded the introduction of full truth in favor of half truth, or caused the slanting of half truth to produce the effect of non-truth, thereby warping and confusing the tribunal into an insecure verdict. On the contrary, the trial was conducted in the unshaded light of truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Those who would oppose such honest method can only be a minority who either advocate arbitrariness of process above factual realism, or who inherently shrink from the stern rigidity of capital punishment. Strange jurisprudence it would be, which for whatever reason defeated the fundamental purpose of justice-to rectify wrong, to protect right and to produce order, safety and well-being. No sophistry can confine justice to a form. It is a quality. Its purity lies in its purpose, not in its detail. The rules of war and the military law resulting as an essential corollary therefrom have always proven sufficiently flexible to accomplish justice within the strict limitations of morality.
If this defendant does not deserve his judicial fate, none in jurisdictional history ever did. There can be no greater, more heinous or more dangerous crime than the mass destruction, under guise of military authority or military necessity, of helpless men incapable of further contribution to war effort. A failure of law process to punish such acts of criminal enormity would threaten the very fabric of world society. Human liberties, the fundamental dignities of man, the basic freedoms upon which depend the very future of civilization, all would be in peril and hazard. Soldiers of an army invariably reflect the attitude of their general. The leader is the essence. Isolated cases of rapine may well be exceptional but widespread and continuing abuse can only be a fixed responsibility of highest field authority. Resultant liability is commensurate with resultant crime. To hold otherwise would be to prevaricate the fundamental nature of the command function.This imposes no new hazard on a commander, no new limitation on his power. He has always, and properly, been subject to due process of law. Powerful as he may become in time of war, he still is not autocratic or absolute, he still remains responsible before the bar of universal justice. From time immemorial the record of high commanders, of whatever side, has been generally temperate and just. The lapses during this latest war are contrary to past trend. By universal practice such military transgressions are tried by military tribunals. No escutcheon is more unsullied of revenge and passion than that of the United States. Firmly rooted in long and noble tradition American military justice may safely be predicted to remain so.
I approve the finding of guilt and direct the Commanding General, United States Forces in the Western Pacific, to execute the sentence.
Part Eight: The Occupation of Japan, 1945-1950, MacArthur, Reminiscences, Bluejacket Books, Naval Institute Press, 1964
resolved the appeals (Yup, they APPEALED. Gotta hand it to those
defense counsels; what they did defined devotion to duty) of Generals
Yama____ta and Homma after both were sentenced to death in the war
crimes trials:
Yama____ta:
Recourse was first had to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to intervene.
Next came an appeal to President Truman, who upheld the Military Commission's
verdict. Last recourse was to SCAP:
It is not easy for me to pass penal judgment upon a defeated adversary in a major military campaign. I have reviewed the proceedings in vain search for some mitigating circumstances on his behalf. I can find none. Rarely has so cruel and wanton a record been spread to public gaze.Revolting as this may be in itself, it pales before the sinister and far reaching implication thereby attached to the profession of arms. The soldier, be he friend or foe, is charged with the protection of the weak and unarmed. It is the very essence and reason for his being. When he violates this sacred trust, he not only profanes his entire cult but threatens the very fabric of international society. The traditions of fighting men are long and honorable. They are based upon the noblest of human traits-sacrifice. This officer, of proven field merit, entrusted with high command involving authority adequate to responsibility, has failed this irrevocable standard; has failed his duty to his troops, to his country, to his enemy, to mankind; has failed utterly his soldier faith. The transgressions resulting therefrom as revealed by the trial are a blot upon the military profession, a stain upon civilization and constitute a memory of shame and dishonor that can never be forgotten. Peculiarly callous and purposeless was the sack of the ancient city of Manila, with its Christian population and its countless historic shrines and monuments of culture and civilization, which with campaign conditions reversed had previously been spared.
It is appropriate here to recall that the accused was fully forewarned as to the personal consequences of such atrocities. On October 24-four days following the landing of our forces on Leyte-it was publicly proclaimed that I would "hold the Japanese Military authorities in the Philippines immediately liable for any harm which may result from failure to accord prisoners of war, civilian internees or civilian non-combatants the proper treatment and the protection to which they of right are entitled."
No new or retroactive principles of law, either national or international, are involved. The case is founded upon basic fundamentals and practices as immutable and as standardized as the most natural and irrefragable of social codes. The proceedings were guided by that primary rational of all judicial purposes-to ascertain the full truth unshackled by any artificialities of narrow method or technical arbitrariness.The results are beyond challenge.
I approve the findings and sentence of the Commission and direct the Commanding General, Army Forces in the Western Pacific, to execute the judgment upon the defendant, stripped of uniform, decorations and other appurtenances signifying membership in the military profession.
Homma:
Im Homma's case, it was his wife who sought to present a plea for clemency to SCAP after verdict was passed on her husband.MacArthur saw her, and promised to give her plea "the gravest consideration:"
I am again confronted with the repugnant duty of passing final judgment on a former adversary in a major military campaign. The proceedings show the defendant lacked the basic firmness of character and moral fortitude essential to officers charged with the high command of military forces in the field. No nation can safely trust its martial honor to leaders who do not maintain the universal code which distinguishes between those things that are right and those things that are wrong. The testimony shows a complete failure to comply with this simple but vital standard. The savageries which resulted have shocked the world. They have become synonyms of horror and mark the lowest ebb of depravity of modern times. There are few parallels in infamy and tragedy with the brutalization of troops who in good faith had laid down their arms. It is of peculiar aversion that the victims were a garrison whose heroism and valor has never been surpassed. Of all fighting men of all time none deserved more the honors of war in their hour of final agony. The callousness of denial has never been exceeded. This violation of a fundamental code of chivalry, which has ruled all honorable military men throughout the ages in treatment of defeated opponents, will forever shame the memory of the victorious troops. I can find no circumstances of extenuation although I have searched for some instance upon which to base palliation.
In reviewing this case I have carefully considered the minority views presented by distinguished justices of the United States Supreme Court in negation not only as to jurisdiction but as to method and merit. My action as well as the record in this case would be incomplete were I to fail the obligation as the final reviewing authority of frank expression on issues of so basic a nature. I do so from the standpoint of a member of the executive branch of the government in process of its responsibility in the administration of military justice.
No trial could have been fairer than this one, no accused was ever given a more complete opportunity of defense, no judicial process was ever freer from prejudice. Insofar as was humanly possible the actual facts were fully presented to the commission. There were no artifices of technicality which might have precluded the introduction of full truth in favor of half truth, or caused the slanting of half truth to produce the effect of non-truth, thereby warping and confusing the tribunal into an insecure verdict. On the contrary, the trial was conducted in the unshaded light of truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Those who would oppose such honest method can only be a minority who either advocate arbitrariness of process above factual realism, or who inherently shrink from the stern rigidity of capital punishment. Strange jurisprudence it would be, which for whatever reason defeated the fundamental purpose of justice-to rectify wrong, to protect right and to produce order, safety and well-being. No sophistry can confine justice to a form. It is a quality. Its purity lies in its purpose, not in its detail. The rules of war and the military law resulting as an essential corollary therefrom have always proven sufficiently flexible to accomplish justice within the strict limitations of morality.
If this defendant does not deserve his judicial fate, none in jurisdictional history ever did. There can be no greater, more heinous or more dangerous crime than the mass destruction, under guise of military authority or military necessity, of helpless men incapable of further contribution to war effort. A failure of law process to punish such acts of criminal enormity would threaten the very fabric of world society. Human liberties, the fundamental dignities of man, the basic freedoms upon which depend the very future of civilization, all would be in peril and hazard. Soldiers of an army invariably reflect the attitude of their general. The leader is the essence. Isolated cases of rapine may well be exceptional but widespread and continuing abuse can only be a fixed responsibility of highest field authority. Resultant liability is commensurate with resultant crime. To hold otherwise would be to prevaricate the fundamental nature of the command function.This imposes no new hazard on a commander, no new limitation on his power. He has always, and properly, been subject to due process of law. Powerful as he may become in time of war, he still is not autocratic or absolute, he still remains responsible before the bar of universal justice. From time immemorial the record of high commanders, of whatever side, has been generally temperate and just. The lapses during this latest war are contrary to past trend. By universal practice such military transgressions are tried by military tribunals. No escutcheon is more unsullied of revenge and passion than that of the United States. Firmly rooted in long and noble tradition American military justice may safely be predicted to remain so.
I approve the finding of guilt and direct the Commanding General, United States Forces in the Western Pacific, to execute the sentence.
Part Eight: The Occupation of Japan, 1945-1950, MacArthur, Reminiscences, Bluejacket Books, Naval Institute Press, 1964
?