Posted on 06/12/2008 4:43:45 PM PDT by mojito
Respondents, who are nonresident enemy aliens, were captured in China by the United States Army and tried and convicted in China by an American military commission for violations of the laws of war committed in China prior to their capture. They were transported to the American-occupied part of Germany and imprisoned there in the custody of the Army. At no time were they within the territorial jurisdiction of any American civil court. Claiming that their trial, conviction and imprisonment violated Articles I and III, the Fifth Amendment, and other provisions of our Constitution, laws of the United States and provisions of the Geneva Convention, they petitioned the District Court for the District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus directed to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and several officers of the Army having directive power over their custodian. Held:
1. A nonresident enemy alien has no access to our courts in wartime. Pp. 768-777.
(a) Our law does not abolish inherent distinctions recognized throughout the civilized world between citizens and aliens, nor between aliens of friendly and enemy allegiance, nor between resident enemy aliens who have submitted themselves to our laws and nonresident enemy aliens who at all times have remained with, and adhered to, enemy governments. P. 769.
(b) In extending certain constitutional protections to resident aliens, this Court has been careful to point out that it was the aliens' presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act. P. 771.
(c) Executive power over enemy aliens, undelayed and unhampered by litigation, has been deemed, throughout our history, essential to wartime security. P. 774.
(d) A resident enemy alien is constitutionally subject to summary arrest, internment and deportation whenever a "declared war" exists. Courts will entertain his plea for freedom from executive custody only to ascertain the existence of a state of war and [339 U.S. 763, 764] whether he is an alien enemy. Once these jurisdictional facts have been determined, courts will not inquire into any other issue as to his internment. P. 775.
(e) A nonresident enemy alien, especially one who has remained in the service of the enemy, does not have even this qualified access to our courts. P. 776.
2. These nonresident enemy aliens, captured and imprisoned abroad, have no right to a writ of habeas corpus in a court of the United States. Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 ; In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 , distinguished. Pp. 777-781.
3. The Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States. Pp. 781-785.
(a) The term "any person" in the Fifth Amendment does not extend its protection to alien enemies everywhere in the world engaged in hostilities against us. Pp. 782-783.
(b) The claim asserted by respondents and sustained by the court below would, in practical effect, amount to a right not to be tried at all for an offense against our armed forces. P. 782.
4. The petition in this case alleges no fact showing lack of jurisdiction in the military authorities to accuse, try and condemn these prisoners or that they acted in excess of their lawful powers. Pp. 785-790.
(a) The jurisdiction of military authorities, during or following hostilities, to punish those guilty of offenses against the laws of war is long-established. P. 786.
(b) It being within the jurisdiction of a military commission to try these prisoners, it was for it to determine whether the laws of war applied and whether they had been violated. Pp. 786-788.
(c) It is not the function of the Judiciary to entertain private litigation - even by a citizen - which challenges the legality, wisdom or propriety of the Commander-in-Chief in sending our armed forces abroad or to any particular region. P. 789.
(d) Nothing in the Geneva Convention makes these prisoners immune from prosecution or punishment for war crimes. P. 789.
(e) Article 60 of the Geneva Convention, requiring that notice of trial of prisoners of war be given to the protecting power, is inapplicable to trials for war crimes committed before capture. Pp. 789-790.
(f) Article 63 of the Geneva Convention, requiring trial of prisoners of war "by the same courts and according to the same [339 U.S. 763, 765] procedure as in the case of persons belonging to the armed forces of the detaining Power," is likewise inapplicable to trials for war crimes committed before capture. P. 790.
5. Since there is no basis in this case for invoking federal judicial power, it is not necessary to decide where, if the case were otherwise, the petition should be filed. Pp. 790-791.
84 U.S. App. D.C. 396, 174 F.2d 961, reversed. The District Court dismissed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the confinement of respondents by the United States Army in occupied Germany. The Court of Appeals reversed. 84 U.S. App. D.C. 396, 174 F.2d 961. This Court granted certiorari. 338 U.S. 877 . Reversed, p. 791.
The entire decision can be read at the link.
Black robed judges are sooo smart aren`t they?
Non citizens that want to kill you and get caught
are granted full rights any US citizen has,
full Constitutional/Bill or Rights rights.
Somehow this idea was too controversial for Kennedy, et.al.
John Paul Stevens Ford(R) Anthony Kennedy Reagan(R) David Souter G. H. W. Bush(R) Ruth Bader Ginsburg Clinton(D) Stephen Breyer Clinton(D)
Decided AGAINST precedent, appointed by a Republican President.
Decided AGAINST precedent, appointed by a Democrat President.
===
Justices deciding FOR precedent and NOT giving enemy
combatants Constitutional rights:
Clarence Thomas G. H. W. Bush(R) Antonin Scalia Reagan(R) John Roberts G. W. Bush(R) Samuel Alito G. W. Bush(R)
Decided FOR precedent, appointed by a Republican President.
Has John McCain made a statement regarding this decision? I know he has said Gitmo should be closed, but if he stands by this decision, conservatives MUST nominate their own third party candidate.
Has John McCain made a statement regarding this decision? I know he has said Gitmo should be closed, but if he stands by this decision, conservatives MUST nominate their own third party candidate.
I really don’t think John McCain is going to change his mind on Gitmo and as far as a third party candidate go’s I would like to see a real conservative run. So far I haven’t seen one.
McCain is ticking me off more each time he opens his mouth.
bookmarking
Thanks.
bookmark
bookmark
McCain said today he is against the decision. That’s today. Says he still wants to close Gitmo.
A couple years ago, he tried to push through legislation that would have done about the same thing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2030253/posts?page=26#26
What can we, the citizens, do?
This is a trash decision, made by trash Justices.
Congressman Billybob
| McCain - I'll close Guantanamo |
||
|
03/18/2007 7:50:24 AM PDT · by areafiftyone · 112 replies · 1,424+ views Washington Times - UPI ^ | 3/18/07Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told a London newspaper he act quickly to restore the international reputation of the United States if he becomes president. In an interview with The Telegraph, McCain said that would include shutting down the terrorist detention camp at Guantanamo Bay and taking quick action on global warming. |
||
We don't have a "declared war". Congress can pass resolutions until Hell freezes over, but it is not legally the same as a "declaration" of war.
----
3. The Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States. Pp. 781-785.
In the service of a government at war with the United States.
Al Quada is not a government, it is a fanatical religious movement.
-----
The last part mentions the Geneva Convention, which was an agreement between governments.....not a voluntarily associated group of people.
DO NOT take my post as a defense of anyone or their actions.
I'm just saying that until the federal government quits with the Big Brother routine and goes after the NATIONS that sponsor these freaks, the WOT will continue.
Never, ever, forget what John Sunnunu did to this nation by foisting Souter upon us. He should be the subject of an eternal FReep.
You ask, “What can we, the citizens, do?”
Heed these words:
“Arm yourselves, and be ye men of valour, and be in readiness for the conflict; for it is better for us to perish in battle than to look upon the outrage of our nation and our altar. As the Will of God is in Heaven, even so let it be.” This call and spur to the faithful servants of Truth and Justice was quoted by Churchill in his first broadcast as Prime Minister to the British people on the BBC - May 19, 1940, London. The original quote is found in First Maccabees of the Apocrypha.
The time for a new American Revolutionary War is drawing near. Choose your fate, slavery or liberty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.