Working diligently on making a newer paragraph based on a wrecked translation..

The defense attorney were preparing a supplemental motion created by the American council without altering in the defense truncation of council Kiyose by the day before.

George A. Furness claimed that a truly fair trial should be done by the representative of a neutral country completely unrelated to the war. The trial of determining winner by using those that were involved in such thing in the first place can never be fair. Afterward, the council Ben Bruce Blakeney took the witness and mentioned and insisted that war isn't a crime. Why is such a statement were concocted by the entity?
He said that international law have never regarded wars for the pursuit of national interest.
By looking back into history, the trial consisted of war planning and execution has never been considered as a crime. We know that such an aspiration from the prosecution would try to make a new law in this trial but an attempt in itself would cripple the new realization of law based of high order, therefore the causes of action named crimes against peace has to be rejected by this court of law.

Blakeney also stated that it is false and illegal to judged individual for the act of the state. International laws is intended to be adapted for a nation and not for an individual. It is false that this court would judged a new crimes of war by the fault of a single individual. His discussion went on shortly after.

This clauses wasn't printed in as no interpreter were available by that time but these days, it were displayed as a stenographic records that were published in Japan recently.
Reasoning of Blakeney wasn't necessarily intended to attack the inhumanity of the new weapon or the atomic bomb from the front. However, in those day of May 1946, under occupation, it must have aroused the court of law formed into the UN today to refer to the atomic bomb.