Evening star., 1945-08-10
Wur Guilt Is Defined

War GuiIt Is Defined
The four-power agreement on the
trial Of war criminals is. as Justice
Jackson said in announcing it,
blend of mutual concessions" There
has been an effort to combine Amer
lean with other standards Of JUS
tice, especially in relation to the
rights of the accused. The result, in
some particulars. may be discom-
fitting to those who would compare
all of the provisions of the agree
ment with the Constitution of the
United States or applicable statutes.
No such conformity was attempted
nor was it necessary. The trials of
the war criminals are in themselves
a precedent, calling for precedents
in the manner and the objective OF
their conduct. The agreement just
Signed-a notable milestone in the
development of international law
represents choice between what
were three possible courses of ac-
tion.
One would have been the release
without punishment of those held as
war criminals, as others have been
released after other unjustifiable
wars of aggression. That. as Mr..
Jackson told the President last June,
in the light of the price paid to win
the war, would mock the dead and
make cynics of the living"
Another choice would have been
to execute or otherwise to punish
war criminals without definite flnd-
ings of guilt, fairly arrived at. And
that, as Justice Jackson wrote.
would violate pledges repeatedly
given. and would not set easily on
the American conscience or BE
remembered by our children with
pride"
The third. which has been chosen,
was to indict. by agreement among
four of the Allies who have paid
most to win this war, crimes which,
except when clothed in the "respec-
liability of organized warfare, have
been recognized as crimes since the
dawn of civilization-crimes against
peace, crimes in the conduct of war
and crimes against humanity. On the
indictment thus drawn, the men
now held in custody as war criminals
and others yet to be apprehended
will be tried.
The agreement defines the crimes
and the fact that the definition is
made after the arrest of those who
are to be tried suggests an ex post
facto proceeding, contrary to our
own ideas of justice. But the con-
cept of the trials as means of
establishing guilt of war makers is
paramount to other considerations
and will receive the support of peo-
pie everywhere as major step in
making the outlawry of war some
thing more than phrase.
Another important principle es-
tablished by the agreement is that
membership in an organization
found guilty of war crimes, as de-
fined, is proof of individual guilt,
though punishment itself may be
influenced by mitigating circum-
stances. Thus, If the German gen.
'eral staff or the Gestapo are ad-
judged guilty of war crimes, their
members are also guilty in greater
or lesser degree.
In these circumstances, the forth
coming trials at Nuremberg and
other places assume significance
for posterity which exceeds their
Importance in relation to the fate
of individual defendants. 1t is to be
hoped that the long, and at times
seemingly dilatory, preparations in
reaching this agreement will not be
repeated in respect to the trials
themselves. The quicker they begin
the more effective will be the results.