The Pittsburgh Press (February 6, 1946)
Editorial: Yamashita and the court
It is a healthy thing that the war criminal conviction of Gen. Yamashita was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The fewer such strings left untied the better. Inevitably there will be propaganda in the future to the effect that America, carried away by a spirit of revenge, violated the letter and spirit of justice which makes our civilization superior to the barbarism of the enemy.
The majority opinion of Chief Justice Stone, refusing to stay the hanging of Yamashita, is a sober and fair answer to the petition of Army counsel appointed to defend the enemy general.
Yamashita was convicted of condoning some 60,000 atrocities by his troops in the Philippines against civilians and prisoners. The defense argued that the military trial commission was not created legally, that it could not try him after the end of hostilities, that he did not violate the law of war, and that the commission heard improper evidence.
The Supreme Court ruled that the commission was set up legally by Gen. MacArthur under presidential order, and in conformity with an act of Congress, international law and Jap surrender terms. It pointed out that a system of military justice could not operate if it had to catch and try all criminals before an armistice, that the state of hostilities had not yet formally ended and would not until there was a peace treaty.
Of great importance in clarification of the issue and as a precedent, was the decision holding commanders responsible for vigilance to prevent such atrocities, As Justice Stone said, the purpose of the law of war to protect civilians and prisoners from brutalities “would largely be defeated if the commander of an invading army could, with impunity, neglect to take reasonable precautions for their protection.”
Under the rules, now upheld by the Supreme Court, the proper reviewing authority is the theater commander, Gen. MacArthur.