Validity of Tribunal

Top Jap Trials Await Supreme Court Action News Article

Reports on the delay of trial for Tojo and other accused major war criminals as they await the United States Supreme Court's decision regarding the legality of Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita's trial. Delves into legal consequences that could arise from whatever decision the Supreme Court made as well as how the charter for the IMTFE was altered in light of the charter that established the trials in Manila.

Tojo May Argue Rights of Court News Article

Reports on the potential defense move to challenge the validity of the Tokyo tribunal's jurisdiction and it's legality after Sir William Webb indicated that that line of reasoning would be permitted. Also relates continued outbursts in court by defendant Shumei Okawa as well as the reading of the full indictment and subsequent adjournment.

Japs' Defender Argues A-Bomb Was Murder, Too News Article

Reports on the statements of defense attorney Major Bruce Blakeney who asserted that "America's atom bombing of Hiroshima was no less murderous than Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor." Chief Prosecutor Joseph B. Keenan offered a quick rebuttal stating "we make no apologies for the use of the atomic bomb against Japan." He further argued, regarding the validity of the Tribunal, that "the lack of precedent . . . should not be used as an escape hatch for the guilty." The article also discusses the motion submitted by W. G. Furness to have four of the accused military generals tried by court martial rather than an international tribunal.

Tokyo Tribunal Sets June 3 as Tojo Trial Date

Reports on the arraignment of Tojo and 26 other war criminals in front of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and that all accused entered pleas of innocent. The defense had entered motions to dismiss challenging the court's jurisdiction as well as their contention that "under the terms of the Potsdam declaration, war crimes can be charged against persons who violated international law after the outbreak of hostilities, and that the court therefore cannot try high government officials for acts committed prior to the war."

Cramer's Seat on Tribunal Challenged News Article

Reports on the defense challenges to the replacement of John P. Higgins with Myron C. Cramer as a judge on the Military Tribunal for the Far East. The defense requested a mistrial on the grounds that charter had not specifically allowed for Cramer to sit as a replacement on the tribunal.

War Crimes Prosecution Planning Memorandum

Top secret planning memorandum for the prosecution of war criminals after World War II, including, but not limited to: individuals (Hitler, Goering, Himmler, and others); organizations (such as the S. S. and Gestapo). On the first page of the document is written this warning: "Caution: This is not yet an agreed plan. The circulation of this paper by the immediate members of the Chief of Counsel's staff will be limited to those accredited individuals whose work makes access to the paper necessary." The memorandum was produced by the authorization of John J. McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War.
1945CE May 17th

Court Upholds Right of Cramer on Bench News Article

Full title "Court upholds right of Cramer on Bench, Defense motion to remove new American justice is denied at War Tribunal." Reports on the efforts by the defense section to have a mistrial declared in light of the fact that Cramer had been appointed as a replacement for Higgins and therefore had not been allocated a spot on the court in the tribunal's charter (he would have been a 12th appointment). The motion had been presented by Owen Cunningham, defense attorney for Hiroshi Oshima. Not all of the defense attorney's agreed with Cunningham's tactic.


Subscribe to RSS - Validity of Tribunal