Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
S. armed forces. 339 U.S. 763, 782 (1950).
The Court examined the issue of whether the military authorities had jurisdiction to try the offenders. It reasoned that military authorities have had a historical right, during and after hostilities, to punish those who have violated the laws of war, and this history predates the existence of the United States, and therefore, the existence of the Constitution. Respondents' convictions were the result of a military commission exercising this historic right, and it was the military commission's sole ability to determine whether the laws of war applied to Respondents and whether Respondents had violated those laws. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Court appellate jurisdiction over these types of military commission trials.
In fact, the Court went so far as to look into the Geneva Convention and whether it would bar this type of military commission, though the Court did not have to do so. Having already determined that the federal judiciary did not have jurisdiction over the issue, the Court was free to ignore the Geneva Convention issues. However, the Court determined that the requirement that notice of trial of prisoners of war be given to the protecting power was inapplicable to trial for war crimes committed before capture, as was the provision that prisoners of war be tried by the same courts as persons belonging to the armed forces of the detaining power. In other...
The Court held that a nonresident enemy alien has no access to U.S. courts during a time of war. The Court held that the Executive Branch has power over enemy aliens, which is not to be hampered or delayed by litigation. The Court held that nonresident enemy aliens, who were captured and imprisoned abroad, had no right to a writ of habeas corpus in a court of the United States. The Court held that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or immunity from military trial and punishment upon any alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States. The Court held that Respondents' petition did not allege any facts showing a lack of jurisdiction in the military authorities to accuse, try, or condemn Respondents. The Court determined that nothing in the Geneva Convention prohibited prosecution of Respondents by a military tribunal. The Court held that there was no basis for invoking federal judicial power and refused to decide were the petition should have been filed if there had been a basis for invoking such power.
References
Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950). Retrieved October 5, 2011 from Findlaw website:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/339/763.html
Habeas Corpus and War on Terror For many people in the United States, habeas corpus is the foundation stone of the country's legal system. The concept is the principal constitutional check on subjective government power by allowing an arrested individual to challenge the legitimacy of his/her detention. However, this foundation of the legal system has emerged more as a tool of politics as it is of law, especially with regards to
Habeas Corpus: In addition to being borrowed from a Latin word, Habeas Corpus is a term associated with an important right given to individuals in the United States. Generally, a writ of habeas corpus is a legal mandate that requires a prisoner to be presented before court to ascertain whether the government has the power to continue detaining him/her. In order for the writ to be applicable the detained individual or
Habeas Corpus/Patriot Act Habeas Corpus: Relevance and Controversies In basic terms, habeas corpus seeks to offer a detainee a chance to question or challenge the legality or validity of his or her detention. Given that the writ utilizes a fresh lawsuit (civil) to attack a judgment, it is regarded a "collateral attack." To begin with, there are those who see the writ as an obstruction to justice given its general view that
Thus, the CSRT was an ineffective "dummy" review tribunal that sought to reinforce the current status of detainees in the Guantanamo detention camp -- denied to have a review of their case, and denied of any right to be tried by a court for their case. Another compelling argument that ultimately granted the petitioners to their right to exercise the writ of habeas corpus was the Supreme Court's recognition that
habeas corpus U.S. Constitution relationship protection civil liberties. 2-The historical evolution habeas corpus, including English American traditions. The writ of habeas corpus is one of the fundamental rights that a person detained is given. This writ of habeas corpus demands that a person detained by the authorities has the right to be brought before the court so that the basis for such detention can be established. A suspect irrespective of
Controversial President Lincoln Abraham Lincoln lived during very controversial times. Moreover, he was elected president in an age in which the very foundation of American social and political life was fraught with controversy. Therefore, it is not surprising that Lincoln's presidency was filled with the sort of controversy that typified the age in which he lived. In fact, many of the more controversial aspects of Lincoln's presidency had widely escape