*1 972 Borough Corp. of Cliffside v. 1081.
Nо. Visidor Louis Eisen- Certiorari denied. Ct. N. Sup. Park. L. Paul petitioner. Bernstein fоr Frederick stein and for Basile Worley Ill. Sup. Ct. v. Illinois. 1013. et al. petitioners. for Lucius Echeles Julius
Certiorari Zoning of Board 1096. Daddona al. v. City Appeals Conn. of Stamford. Theo- Gruber for denied. Samuel dore Godlin 2d Cir. 1012. Mitchell Robert L. Bobrick Attorney General for the United
Vinson and Douglas, dissenting. report did not was ordered, Petitioner induction years’ five indicted, convicted, imprison- sentenced his was 369 ment and conviction affirmed. F. 2d His was “war” being in Vietnam was that.the conducted violation of various treaties to we which signatory, especially were August 8, 1945, 59 Stat. whiсh (a) Article 6 “waging declares that of a.war of aggression” is a “crime against peace” imposing “individual responsibility.” provides: Artiсle
“The fact that the Defendant pursuant acted order of Gоvernment or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, may but bе considered mitigation punishment if the Tribunal deter- mines that justice so .requires.” “war” in was a claimed of- aggression” “war *2 him responsible Article makes
of London and that though he is do so.* in it even ordered to participating prosecutor the States at Jackson, Mr. United Justice in “If acts violation trea Nuremberg, stated: certain - they are are crimes whether the United crimes, ties or Germany them whether them, States does does prepared lay we are to down a rule of criminal con not against willing duct others which we would not be to against (International havе invoked us.” on Conference Military Trials, Dept. of 3080, p; 330.) State Pub. No.
Article VI, cl. of the Constitution states that “Treaties” are part “suprеme Land; a of the Law of the Judges every and the in State shall be thеreby.” bound body There a opinion is considerable that our actions in waging aggressive Vietnam constitute the of an “war.”-
This case рresents questions: the London, (1) Treaty whether the is a treaty the VI, of Art. cl. 2; (2) whether the question waging to the of an aggressive “war” is in the context of this criminal prosecution a justiciable question;
(3) whether the еpisode is a “war” the sense the Treaty;
(4) whether petitioner, hаs standing to raise the question;
(5) whether, has, if he the may be tendered аs a this criminal case or in amelioration of the punishment.
Thesе are extremely sensitive-and delicate questions. they But I should, think, be аnswered. Even those who *The charged trial court jury the that of London did not any “in respect interfere manner in to this fulfilling defendant duty under this ordеr.” were unconstitu- Nuremberg judgments that
think laws post ex relating to by our tional facto guarantee Treaty of view different take a have would of future standard lay down purports that signatories. all the conduct I think But merits. on the opinion no I intimate here haveWé granted. be shоuld certiorari petition Service Selective present-dаy recurring question a. cases. Super- Inc., Great Scot Conren, dbа Board. v. National Labor Relations
market is of denied. 7th Cir. Stewart Williаm, granted. be certiorari should opinion Roberts for E. *3 Norton Ordman, Dominick Manoli and
Arnold Come fоr Fla. Mise. Ornales v. Florida. 356, cloth, Fair pro se. Earl Mahorner, and James G.
Attorney Florida, General of General, Attorney Assistant 769, Mise. C. A. Munich 9th Cir. Certiorari S. Carter McMorris for peti- Marshall, Solicitor General Attоrney tioner. Vinson, and Marshall Tamor General Golding for the United Statеs. Lovejoy Mise. al. v. United
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Leon B. Polsky for Assistant Attor- Vinson, ney General Beatrice Rosenberg Kirby W. Patterson for the United States.