. NMT04-T0052
Volume IV · Page 52
| That they knew, no doubt, as well as all men
know it. They will not here deny their knowledge of the Lord's Commandment. As
military commanders, these men were bound by laws well known to all who wear
the soldier's uniform. Laws which impose on him who takes command the duty to
prevent, within his power, crimes by these in his control. These laws,
declaratory of common morality, rest lightly on the honorable soldier. He feels
no restraint in the rule that old men, women, and children shall be protected
as far as military necessity permits. It is this duty, legal and moral, to
prevent, to mitigate, and to disavow the slaughter of innocents, that all the
defendants flagrantly violated. The purpose of the laws of war to protect
civilian populations and prisoners would largely be defeated if a commander
could with impunity neglect to take reasonable measures for their protection.
This was declared by the Supreme Court of the United States¹ and relied
upon by Military Tribunal I in the case against German doctors.²
We shall show in this case that the rank and position of these defendants carried with it the power and duty to control their subordinates. This power, coupled with the knowledge of intended crime and the subsequent commission of crime during their time of command imposes clear criminal responsibility. It is not infrequent in the legend of these crimes that some word of explanation edges in as if to salve the conscience of the executioner. "So and so many persons were shot," the report will read "because they were too old and infirm to work," "this or that ghetto was liquidated, to prevent an epidemic," "so many children were shot, because they were mentally ill." Such lean tokens cannot exculpate these wrongs. The Euthanasia Doctrine based on a Hitler order scorning pre-existing law spurred the annihilation program. Military Tribunal 1, in discussing euthanasia laws, stated — |
" * * * The Family of Nations is not obligated to give recognition to such legislation when it manifestly gives legality to plain murder and torture of defenseless and powerless human beings of other nations."³ |
| Murder cannot be disguised as mercy.
Law No. 10 specifically declares that certain acts are crimes against humanity "whether or not in violation of the internal law of the country where perpetrated." The defendants here can seek no refuge in the law. |
¹ Application of Yamashita, 66 Supreme Court, pp. 340-347
² Judgment of Military Tribunal in Case No. 1, United States vs. Karl Brandt et al, See vol. II, pp. 171 to 300.
³ United States vs. Karl Brandt, et al. See vol. II, p. 198
