...was used in Washington, D.C. in July of 1942 for the trial of eight German spies who landed from Germany by submarines on the American coasts for the purpose of blowing up American railroads, bridges and factories. In that case an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in America and that tribunal affirmed the proceedings before the commission and, therefore, military commissions as a court are well-founded in American law and their legality has been confirmed by the United States Supreme Court." 

Reconciliation of the foregoing statement with the book in reference is utterly impossible. At that time, i.e. while Yamashita's trial was in progress, his counsel, as reflected by this formal statement of Major Guy, a member senior to Reel, (and experienced lawyer by civil profession, was entirely satisfied with the legality and composition of the military commission and the legal procedures governing the trial. He publicly pointed out that "military commissions as a court are well-founded in American law and their legality has been confirmed by the United States Supreme Court." This confirmed fully and unequivocally the legality in the eyes of counsel of the arraignment and trial of Yamashita before that form of a tribunal -- a fact which his subordinate Reel challenges four years later in his referenced book. Indeed, counsel was so completely satisfied at that time that Yamashita was being accorded a fair and just trial of the issues raised by the charge, that he gave it this unqualified endorsement:  "He (Yamashita) is being accorded all of the rights and defenses that would be accorded an American officer on trial." Could it have been anything but his own complete accord with this view that caused Yamashita, after hearing the sentence pronounced upon him, to say, "I want to thank the commission for a fair trial" (Nippon Times of December 9, 1945). Yamashita indeed, as his attorney stated, was accorded all of the rights and defenses that would be accorded an American officer on trial. What more then this could one ask in the trial of an enemy officer?

The Japanese reaction to the penalty meted out to Yamashita after all of the incidents of trial and appeal had been concluded is fairly summarized in the editorial of the Nippon Times of February 10, 1946, reading in part:

"The story of the atrocities which the troops under General Yamashita committed has shocked the Japanese people no less than anyone else when the facts finally became known to them. The Japanese people are agreed that there must be proper punishment and atonement for such crimes, and it is in full accord with the Japanese conception of responsibility for the commander to assume the full burden of the acts of his subordinates. There can be none who will question the full justice of the penalty which has been imposed."

It is to be regretted that in the face of almost universal acceptance, including the Japanese, of the justice inherent in the Yamashita judgment certain writers of influence in American community life, as well as journals of distinction and responsibility, have lent themselves at this late date to the Yamashita propaganda without apparent effort to check the veracity of the statements and allegations contained therein. By failing this simple precaution they became partisans to a grave injustice against their country, its record, tribunals and public officials while professing a sense of deep outrage at a pretended injustice against an enemy national.

COURTNEY WHITNEY
Brigadier General, U.S. Army
Chief, Government Section