Paper short abstract:

This paper discusses ethical concerns around interpreters involved in criminal acts by drawing on historical cases of interpreters convicted as war criminals at post-WWII British military trials against the Japanese, focusing on complex issues of interpreters' visibility and joint responsibility.

Paper long abstract:

In the wake of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and post-conflict operations as well as proceedings at international criminal courts, greater attention has been paid to interpreters in conflict for the past two decades. There has been a growing body of scholarly work on policy, training, and ethical issues of military linguists. Further, in response to the plight of interpreters in current conflict zones, non-profit organizations have acted to protect and support those interpreters.

This paper raises new questions about the role, responsibility, ethics, and protection of interpreters in war and conflict by drawing on historical cases of interpreters convicted as war criminals at post-WWII British military trials against the Japanese. War crimes trials held by Allied nations in various locations in the post-war Asia-Pacific resulted in the prosecution of over 100 interpreters who had been associated with the Japanese military. Of those interpreters, at least 40 were convicted by the British - more than any other Allied nation. The British trial records reveal that almost all those interpreters were convicted for being jointly "concerned in" unlawful acts rather than for bearing direct responsibility. In other words, they were charged for taking part as interpreters in crimes committed by their units. The defenses of "I was just interpreting" and "I just followed superior orders" never prevailed. Interpreters were deemed part of the criminal enterprise as they enabled ill-treatment and torture of POWs and local civilians through the act of interpreting.

Despite the argument that interpreters are not responsible for the content of messages they deliver, these cases bring to the fore issues of interpreters' joint responsibility for taking part in criminal acts. Is there such a thing as "just interpreting" in violent military settings? In high-pressure, chaotic situations, under the military code of absolute obedience to superior orders, can interpreters resist superior orders to take part in unlawful acts such as torturing a POW to extract critical information? With the CIA admitting to "enhanced interrogation" of "detainees" in conjunction with the "War on Terror," these are real and current questions interpreting scholars and practitioners should be addressing.