Law of War
...persons in execution of such plan.” (Documents of the Laws of War, pg 160) It seems to be a fair idea to have such rules governing armed conflict in order to protect the civilians in the general location of such a conflict. However, when the conflict is over and if war crimes have been committed, how then are criminals of war brought to justice and what will prevent future acts of such war crimes from reoccurring? Often more questioned is the “why were” war crimes committed. The International Military Tribunals of Nuremberg and Tokyo are important in understanding what happens when alleged criminals of war are unable to be apprehended and justly tried? Are they forgotten about, or are they man hunted as other criminals are in order that justice is served? What happens if these alleged violators are found residing somewhere other than where their pursuers want to bring them to justice? How does one go about legally obtaining the custody of one such suspect? After the fall of German forces, many Nazi SS Officers found themselves feeing hostile lands to join the French Foreign Legion. In time, there became so many that a special Brigade was formed of just Nazi SS Officers. These once German SS Officers were the same ones who later viciously fought during the Vietnam War along side of the French and South Vietnamese, many continuing to commit war crimes, now only in a different country and in different uniforms. Some of the answers to these questions can be found in looking at how Israel went about obtaining the custody of individuals that it thought to be guilty of Nazi War Crimes. To understand the complications involved in Israel placing suspected Nazi War Criminals on trial through international extradition, a review of the history of Israel's situation needs mentioning. During World War II the Nazis were persecuting Jews in their concentration camps. At this time the State of Israel did not exist. The ending of the war meant the ending of the persecution, and when the other countries discovered what the Nazis had done, Military Tribunals quickly followed. Some of the accused war criminals were tried and sentenced, but others managed to escape judgment and thus became fugitives running from international law. Israel became a state, and some of the Jews that survived the Holocaust and war moved to the state largely populated by people of Jewish ancestry. “The new State of Israel felt a moral commitment because of its large Jewish population and set about searching for the fugitive Nazi war criminals.” (Extradition of Nazis from the United States to Israel, pg. 43) The State of Israel viewed itself as the nation with the greatest moral jurisdiction for the trial of Nazi war criminals, and other nations and societies around the Globe agreed with Israel's claim. Another issue in dealing with the complicated process of extradition is that of identification and proof of identification. Leading Nazi war criminals such as Adolf Eichmann and Klaus Barbie offered no real dispute in the matter of identification; however, war criminals that were not so prominent leave room to question whether they truly are who they are accused of being. This is further clouded by hearsay identification of Jewish survivors who state remembering the individuals actually being there and committing these war crimes. Adolf Eichmann of the Reich Security Main Office was the alleged strategist behind the so-called "final solution of the Jewish question." (A Dilemma of Law and Morality, pg.318) There have been roughly six million murders attributed to him, so it is easy to understand why concentration camp survivors spent fifteen years searching for him. Perseverance paid off when Adolf Eichmann was found in Argentina living under an assumed name. A group of volunteers, some of whom were Israeli citizens acting without the support or direction of the Israeli Government, removed Eichmann from Argentina and brought him to Israel where they turned him over to government so that a trial could take place. The type of criminal cases that most of us are familiar with are those that attempt to prove whether a defendant committed a particular act or acts. International extradition cases involve two distinct areas: First, the prosecution must prove that the defendant is actually the person sought by the requesting country. Second, the court must find probable cause to believe that the accused committed the offense of war crimes. How this is achieved can be done through the aid of a photograph comparison with the accused, fingerprints, or an eyewitness. In the matter of probable cause the court used the formulation of "any evidence warranting the finding that there was reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty." (Extradition of Nazis, pg. 46) Furthermore, it has been indicated that the extradition process incorporates these rules: Probable cause to support extradition may be based entirely on hearsay, and the defendant cannot present exculpatory evidence, which the presiding judge would have to weigh or balance. (Extradition of Nazis, pg. 48) It must be kept in mind that the extradition process does not attempt to prove the innocence or guilt of the accused but rather whether the individu...