 |
to have committed a crime against peace? Your Honors, I simply cannot
conceive of that provision's purpose being to establish the legal basis for
wholesale punishment of thousands and thousands of honorable citizens.
I cannot conceive of any
counsel, bred in the spirit of true liberalism, freedom, and democracy, who
would think of giving that interpretation to that provision.
I do not want to be unfair and say that
the prosecution did not see the danger of such an interpretation. I quote from
General Taylor's speech: |
| |
"This provision, we believe, is
not intended to attach criminal guilt automatically to all holders of high
positions, but means, rather, that legitimate and reasonable inferences are to
be drawn from the fact that a defendant held such a position, and places upon
him the burden of countering the inferences which must otherwise be
drawn." |
| What General Taylor obviously tries to do is this: he wants to shift
the burden of proof. Practically speaking, that amounts to the same result as
if he flatly did construe the above mentioned provision in the indicated
impossible way. And there we simply cannot follow him. We all know the old
Latin saying: negativa non sunt probanda. This is not a denazification
court; this is a criminal court, and we therefore have to stick to the
elementary principle, recognized by the penal laws of all civilized nations,
that if somebody is to be punished his personal guilt must be proved. In this
very courthouse, Military Tribunal II, on 16 April 1947, in the case of the
United States of America vs. Erhard Milch, gave eloquent expression to
this fundamental principle by stating: |
| |
"We must never falter in maintaining, by practice as well as by
preachment, the sanctity of what we have come to know as due process of law,
civil and criminal, municipal and international. If the level of civilization
is to be raised throughout the world, this must be the first step. Any other
road leads but to tyranny and chaos. This Tribunal, before all others, must act
in recognition of these self-evident principles. If it fails, its whole purpose
is frustrated and this trial becomes a mockery. At the very foundation of these
juridical concepts lie two important postulates: (1) Every person accused of
crime is presumed to be innocent, and (2) that presumption abides with him
until guilt has been established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Unless the court which bears the proof is convinced of guilt to the
point of moral certainty, the presumption of innocence |
236 |
. 
