From October 1944 to September 1945, the 14 Army Group of the so-called Japanese Imperial Army as well as military governance that were taking operations in the Philippine was under the Command of General Tomoyuki Yamashita. In this case it was stated that just before World War II, there were various atrocities that were carried out by troops that were under the command and control of General Yamashita against the Philippines’ civilian population. “It is important to note that immediately Japan surrendered unconditionally to the United States of America, General Yamashita surrendered and ended up being a war prisoner (Reel, 1949:73).
Main Issues before the Court
After being taken as a war prisoner Army’s Judge advocate General Department ended up charging General Yamashita as a violator of war laws. Under this charge, the allegations were:
[…those forces under his command engaged in a deliberate plan to massacre and exterminate a large portion of the civilian population of Batangas Province as a result of which more than 25,000 men, women, and children all unarmed noncombatant civilians, were brutally mistreated and killed] (Paine, 2011: 23).
However, the General pleaded not guilty and argued that he never engaged in such criminal acts and he never ordered his troops to engage in such acts (Paine, 2011). In addition he never had control over the troop that was under his command.
Another issue was the determination of whether General Yamashita was given a fair trial under the U.S Articles dealing with wars and the convention of Geneva as well as the U.S constitution
Court’s Decision and Rationale Concerning the Issues
The court found General Yamashita guilty and sentenced him to death. The Court held that it is the responsibility of an Army Commander to ensure that he or she has taken appropriate measures to ensure that he/she has controlled the troops under him/her. This enables him/her to prevent acts and practices which violate war laws, which might “attend the occupation of hostile territory by an uncontrolled soldiery,” (Mahle, 2011: 122), the General was found guilty for his failure in taking measures that would have save lives of the victims.
Concerning the legality of the commission that was formed by General Styer, the commission was constitutional as it was formed by the military command, political wing of the government, Japanese government terms of surrender and international law along with usage. “It is clear that, military commission can be created by any appropriate military command, when the offense is defined by the law of war which might be included in jurisdiction constitutionally” (Paine, 2011).
Personal Opinion on Court’s Decision
In my opinion, the Court was right in sentencing to death General Yamashita on violation of war laws. This is based on the fact that, it is the responsibility of those in leadership position to take control of their groups. Though General Yamashita asserts that he did not involve in such practices directly, or even he did not give an order for such actions, then it is true that that ought to be described as unlawful breach of duty. As a commander, he is empowered to take control of all operations carried out y the troops that are under his command. The law of war clearly states that a violation can be prevented through the control of troops operations by commanders who should be responsible for his subordinates (Shanor, & Hogue, 2003). As a result, General Yamashita was the commander of all Japanese forces that were operating in Philippine, so he was responsible for their actions.
References
Mahle, E. (2011). “The Yamashita Standard” Web.
Paine, T. (2011). “In Re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946)” Web.
Reel, A. (1949). The Case of General Yamashita. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Shanor, E. & Hogue, L. (2003). Military Law in a Nutshell. Saint Paul: West Publishers.