The double-standard precedent is so botched it's known as the "Yamashita Standard" in legal terms, and ironically it's often the Americans who violate it. You can look it up yourself, but It's basically the whole chain of command/responsibilty arguement.

Put in a practical, modern context, it would mean that in the Abu Ghraib incident, General Ricardo Sanchez, not Lynndie England should have been held responsible. Absurd? That's EXACTLY what happened to Yamashita.

Translation:
The wheel of time can turn back any more.
The only question remains:
Why do we still do not learn from historical events
and continually commit the same mistake again …?
The justice is trampled underfoot.
It is screaming at the sky – but this does not help.
Those who have caused harm will forever have to have a guilty conscience. This is probably the only
Gerechtigketi. – Thank you. –

General Yamashita was convicted and executed solely at the insistence of British authorities and General Douglas MacArthur. The British were attempting to wipe out the bitter memory of the greatest defeat in the history of the Empire, MacArthur who ignorantly imagined himself to be a great soldier, simply wanted to exterminate the glory of one who actually was. And killing the dirty yellow "nips" after the war wasn't particularly difficult.

The Malayan Campaign which ended when the British surrendered the fortress of Singapore and 130,000 troops to the 30,000 exhausted, starving men of the 25th Imperial Japanese Army, who were at that moment not only out of food and medicine but also out of both rifle and artillery rounds was one of the greatest military accomplishments in the war annals of human history.

Yamashita's victory was an extraordinary feat, perhaps the greatest victory of any general in the entirety of WW II and it broke the back of European colonialism in Asia forever.

Long Live the Tiger of Malaya!

Banzai!

They were dropped on 2 heavily populated cities. These were not strategic bombs or dropped strategically, say on military or other targets. They were dropped onto heavily populated areas. Just how many Japanese civilians died and how many others suffered a fate worse than hell no one can accurately say, but the figure is astounding by any measure.

The man who made the decision to drop them was as guilty as any Japanese officers who gave orders to massacre filipino or any other South East Asian civilians. Two such bombs wiped off twice as much the total number of people the Japanese troops massacred. The Americans can claim they atomic bombs were used in order to bring peace.

But the facts speak for themselves – 2 series of massacre and crimes against humanity were commited. One was done in the name of war and the other in the name of peace. By whatever name it was called – a massacre is still a massacre. This sought of American justification seemed to rule even decades after WW2.

During the My Lai massacre (the Vietnam War) one US army general was quoted as saying (as a matter of army policy at that time and referring to mass destruction of people and property pertaining to targeted villages) that "… in order to save them (the villages) we had to destroy them." This was their justification.

So after the 2 atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the My Lai (and other villages) Massacre, which American general or President was ever brought to trial for crimes against humanity?