World Review: How to pass judgment on war criminals

Every country has its own dirty wars, genocides, holocausts, comfort women and apartheid experiences, said Lt. William Calley, the man who ordered the Mi Lai massacre.

However, after the unspeakable killings, rapes and acts of torture have been committed, there must be some form of judgment handed down to the perpetrators of these crimes to ensure the resolution of lingering revenge from the victimized group.

Last week, Argentina's federal appeals court ruled that the blanket amnesty handed down in 1990 to the dictators, who ruled Argentina in the late 1970s, was unconstitutional. During the '70s, more than 30,000 Argentines were desaparecidos [HTML_REMOVED] "disappeared."

Although the ruling will likely be appealed and is probably a political move to rally popular support behind Argentina's President Nestor Kirchner [HTML_REMOVED] who is running for reelection in October [HTML_REMOVED] it is an example of the countries worldwide where justice is being demanded by those who were victims of war crimes.

Another example is Japan, whose top officials are often cited for apologizing to foreign governments for their soldiers' conduct during World War II, using human subjects in experiments and forcing over 100,000 women to serve as sex slaves. Nevertheless, with only one trial of Japanese War criminals, held immediately after World War II, few victims of Japanese war crimes were vindicated.

The list of countries that continue to live with the legacies of unrequited guilt for past crimes is endless. But, Argentina's recent announcement should make those who are looking to put these horrific legacies in the past, never to resurface again as revenge killings, to think twice.

South Africa, for example, is one of the few countries that granted amnesty to Caucasian Apartheid-era criminals by holding "truth and reconciliation" trials. During these trials, perpetrators stood before their victims and had to answer questions about why they did what they did.

South Africa's hands-on approach in administering justice, by holding face-to-face meetings, is the best method of resolution to war crimes, which continue to fester and invoke murderous sentiment around the world.

After the October shooting at an Amish school in Pennsylvania, which ended in the perpetrator's suicide, members of the Amish community immediately opted to forgive the man's family. The grandfather of one of the shooting's victims told his grandson, "We must not think evil of this man." This grant of mercy helped end the cycle of violence that continues to haunt so many countries to this day.

Despite the creation of the U.N. International Criminal Court in Belgium, war crimes are typically handled on a case-by-case basis in the country that the crimes took place. The face-to-face method has been used in South Africa, Rwanda and Pennsylvania and has proved effective at lowering the potential for future revenge violence.

Japanese, Argentine, Sudanese and other war criminals should stand trial before their victims and allow those whose rights they violated to pass judgment on them. Most victims are beyond feeling hatred for their violators and simply want to meet them face-to-face and be viewed as human beings, a trait their assailants once withheld from them.

Only when this happens can the legacy of past war crimes be buried and never resuscitated for politicians who want to start wars or win elections. The time for face-to-face reconciliation is now, but not only because it's proven so effective. In many cases, especially Japan and Argentina, the perpetrators and victims are old or dying, and time is running out for them to provide a just ending to their unfortunate stories.

Reach columnist Jake Sommer at news@thedaily.washington.edu.