Tactical Commanders Sample Clauses

Tactical Commanders. The tribunals agreed that, unlike commanding generals, tactical commanders were responsible only for the actions of military units directly subordinate to them. As the Hostage tribunal put it, “[t]he matter of subordination of units as a basis of fixing criminal responsibility becomes important in the case of a military commander having solely a tactical command.” 85 The tribunals nevertheless interpreted the idea of “subordination” very expansively. First, a tactical commander was responsible not only for the actions of combat units under his command, but also for the actions of his subordinate commanders. 86 A tactical commander could thus be criminally responsible for failing to prevent his subordinate commanders from unlawfully applying an order that was not criminal on its face.87 Second, subordination could exist either de jure or de facto: as long as a tactical commander exercised effective control over a military unit or civilian organization, he was superior to it for purposes of command responsibility. In High Command, for example, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ argued that he was not responsible for the mistreatment of POWs because he did not have “direct command authority” over the soldiers who had committed the mistreatment. Tribunal V rejected that argument: This Tribunal is not concerned with fine formalities or divisions of authority. The evidence establishes overwhelmingly the over-all control and supervision of the defendant ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ as to prisoners of war under the supreme authority of the OKW and his power over prisoner of war ▇▇▇▇▇ and prisoner of war affairs. The evidence shows that he exercised that authority by issuing orders; that he had the right of inspection both in himself and his subordinate; that such inspection was a duty entrusted to him and carried out by him; that he had the sources of knowledge and the duty was placed upon him to know and supervise what took place in these camps, and that he 82 Id. at 1257.