The purpose of this paper is to examine the Johnson Administration's attitudes toward the “Russell Tribunal” which was formed on the initiative of Bertrand Russell and was held in Stockholm and Copenhagen in 1967. The Tribunal accused the United States and its allies of committing “war crimes” in the war in Vietnam. The Tribunal is now being considered to be worth notice since the International Tribunal on Crimes against Women was recently organized after the model of the “Russell Tribunal.” In addition, the U. S. government has paid little attention to the moral responsibility for the civilian casualties in such recent wars as the Gulf War, the War in Kosovo, and the War in Afghanistan. So, we now need to reexamine the most significant feature of the Tribunal: accusing the “American War” of “genocide.” This paper deals with the Johnson Administration's attitudes toward the Tribunal's accusation, based on the recently declassified primary documents.<br>The Johnson Administration deliberately ignored the Tribunal in order not to raise the Tribunal's stature as well as to limit its impact on world opinion. The Administration totally ignored the invitations from Russell, who asked the U. S. to appear and state their case. During the Tribunal, the Administration had tried to avoid making the Tribunal the subject of official U. S. notice. However, the State Department instructed the American Embassies to discuss the matter on an informal basis and ask the host governments not to support the Tribunal. It should be noted that as the result of efforts by the American Embassies, most of the heads of state who were the sponsors of the Russell Peace Foundation publicly disavowed the Tribunal.<br>In the Tribunal, many witnesses gave extensive evidence on the use of the anti-personnel bombs called CBU as well as the massive and deliberate bombardment of civilian populations and civilian targets. Even though the Johnson Administration acknowledged that CBU bombs had been dropped on North Vietnam, it denied that they were directed against civilians. The Administration felt that the Tribunal appeared to have a very limited attention from the press and to have only a negligible impact on world opinion. The Administration paid little attention to the accusation that the U. S. was guilty of “genocide.” Johnson took this attitude mainly because he continued to justify the U. S. war in Vietnam to defend South Vietnam against the communists. We can see the continuity between the Johnson and the current administrations in terms of their little concern about their attack against the civilian populations and civilian targets. Therefore, it can be said that it is still an unfinished journey for American policy makers to come to terms with the moral responsibility for their war conduct.