5cjxburmr

command responsibility as a mode of liability. 337 In some cases, this theory of superiorresponsibility has been applied to civilian superiors. 338Command responsibility, as a mode of liability, is not a form of strict liability. 339 Thecommander’s personal dereliction must have contributed to or failed to prevent the offense; theremust be a personal neglect amounting to a wanton, immoral disregard of the action of his or hersubordinates amounting to acquiescence in the crimes. 34018.23.4 Aiding and Abetting. The theory of aiding and abetting holds an individual liablefor an offense committed by another based on certain assistance that the individual gave inrelation to the crime. Aiding and abetting liability for a crime can be usefully analyzed asconsisting of three elements: (1) knowledge of the illegal activity that is being aided and abetted;(2) a desire to help the activity succeed; and (3) some act of helping. 341This theory of liability is applicable in prosecutions in Federal court under title 18, 342prosecutions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 343 and prosecutions by U.S. military337 See ICTY STATUTE art. 7(3) (“The fact that any of the acts referred to in articles 2 to 5 of the present Statute wascommitted by a subordinate does not relieve his superior of criminal responsibility if he knew or had reason to knowthat the subordinate was about to commit such acts or had done so and the superior failed to take the necessary andreasonable measures to prevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators thereof.”); ICTR STATUTE art. 6(3) (same);ROME STATUTE art. 28.338 See Prosecutor v. Musema, ICTR Trial Chamber I, ICTR-96-13-A, Judgment and Sentence, 132 (Jan. 27, 2000)(“As to whether the form of individual criminal responsibility referred to under Article 6(3) of the Statute alsoapplies to persons in both military and civilian authority, it is important to note that during the Tokyo Trials, civilianauthorities were convicted of war crimes under this principle.”).339 See also Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, ICTY Trial Chamber, IT-95-14/2-T, Judgment, 369 (Feb. 26, 2001)(“It should be emphasised that the doctrine of command responsibility does not hold a superior responsible merelybecause he is in a position of authority as, for a superior to be held liable, it is necessary to prove that he ‘knew orhad reason to know’ of the offences and failed to act to prevent or punish their occurrence. Superior responsibility,which is a type of imputed responsibility, is therefore not a form of strict liability.”).340 United States v. von Leeb, et al. (High Command Case), XI TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE NMT 543(“A high commander cannot keep completely informed of the details of military operations of subordinates and mostassuredly not of every administrative measure. He has the right to assume that details entrusted to responsiblesubordinates will be legally executed. The President of the United States is Commander in Chief of its militaryforces. Criminal acts committed by those forces cannot in themselves be charged to him on the theory ofsubordination. The same is true of other high commanders in the chain of command. Criminality does not attach toevery individual in this chain of command from that fact alone. There must be a personal dereliction. That canoccur only where the act is directly traceable to him or where his failure to properly supervise his subordinatesconstitutes criminal negligence on his part. In the latter case it must be a personal neglect amounting to a wanton,immoral disregard of the action of his subordinates amounting to acquiescence. Any other interpretation ofinternational law would go far beyond the basic principles of criminal law as known to civilized nations.”).341 Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General, United States Assistance to Countries that Shoot Down CivilAircraft Involved in Drug Trafficking, Jul. 14, 1994, 18 OPINIONS OF THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL 148, 156(“Aiding and abetting liability for a crime can be usefully analyzed as consisting of three elements: ‘[1] knowledgeof the illegal activity that is being aided and abetted, [2] a desire to help the activity succeed, and [3] some act ofhelping.’ All three elements must be present for aiding and abetting liability to attach.”) (changes in original)(citation omitted).342 18 U.S.C. § 2 (“(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands,induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done1124