Resorted to war of reason, in the court trial, it is ridiculous thing, as the beginning of the Japanese war criminals in the United States defense lawyer said, since there are the laws of war, can't deny the legitimacy of war exists, and then about the result of war casualties this is the inevitable result of the war, not so someone to participate in the leadership of the war on trial. Such a thoughtful and shameless argument was directly rejected by the presiding judge in a couple of sentences on the grounds of insufficient factual evidence or irrelevance to the case, which undoubtedly rendered the existence of this court meaningless.
Even if the perpetrators of the heinous crimes of human genocide should be punished in a civilized order, this cannot be restored by the establishment of an international tribunal. The matter of history should be left to history to tell, not to review history and try its figures in a court of law. Whatever the outcome of the trial, it is a travesty that has clearly been made in the brief period of more than a year at the court to assert the suffering that the world has faced over the past decade.
What's more, talking about fairness and justice, in addition to procedural justice, the court is not full of interest disputes, should have accepted the history of the trial of the people, actually in the court of trial survive, and even a good death, it is jaw-dropping.
When the guilt of the millions who have died is given to one man, when the war of the whole nation is placed on the words of three or two in a court of law, there is a sense of magical reality.
The lowly did not dare to forget about the country, read here, only in the heart of chairman Mao immortal maxim:
If we seek peace through struggle, it will survive; if we seek peace through compromise, it will die.
0 of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this