The rights of prisoners of war depends on which country holds them. In this lesson, we will learn how the Supreme Court’s decision in ”Johnson v. Eisentrager”. [Source: U.S. Supreme Court JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER, U.S. (); June 5, ; available on ]. Johnson, Secretary of Defense et al; Eisentrager alias Ehrhardt et al. Categories, War crimes. Keywords, detention, international armed conflict, jurisdiction, war.
|Published (Last):||7 October 2004|
|PDF File Size:||15.90 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.18 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The decision below would extend coverage of our Constitution to nonresident alien enemies denied to resident alien enemies.
The jurisdiction of military authorities, during or following hostilities, to punish those guilty eisentraget offenses against the laws of war is long established. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Inthe 5th Congress passed three acts in rapid succession, “An Act concerning Aliens,” approved June 25, 1 Stat.
These prisoners have been convicted of violating laws of war by engaging in, permitting, or ordering continued military activity against the United States after surrender of Germany and before surrender of Japan. Its Second and Third propositions were that “action of government officials in violation of the Constitution is void,” and “a basic and inherent function of the judicial branch.
Such extraterritorial sv of organic law would have been so significant an innovation in the practice of governments that, if intended or apprehended, it could scarcely have failed to excite contemporary comment. United States,8 Cranch ; De Lacey v.
Johnson v. Eisentrager – Wikipedia
And, of course, it cannot be claimed that such shelter is due them as a matter of comity for eisentraget reciprocal rights conferred by enemy governments on American soldiers.
Twenty one individuals, all German nationals, were tried and convicted by a United States military commission in China for violating the laws of war, namely by continuing to engage in, permitting or ordering military activity against the United States after the surrender of Germany.
This Court now affirms the District Court’s dismissal. The Respondents in the present case have never been on the territory of the United States; their capture, trial and imprisonment were all beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any court of johnsob United States.
Army arrested eisentrrager imprisoned more than 20 members of the German military.
Johnson v. Eisentrager
Habeas corpus, as an instrument to protect against illegal imprisonment, is written into the Constitution. No decision of this Court supports such a view. While the Court wisely disclaims any such necessary effect for its holding, rejection of the Government’s argument is certainly made difficult by the logic of today’s Page U. Court of Appeal of the District of Columbia, Johnson v.
And in The Japanese Immigrant Case, the Court held its processes available to “an alien who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here.
Views Read Edit View history. The Court of Appeals assumed, and we do likewise, that, while prisoners are Page U. This responsibility immediately raises questions concerning the extent to which our domestic laws, constitutional and statutory, are transplanted abroad.
Since, in the present application, we find no basis for eusentrager federal judicial power in uohnson district, we need. Since most cases involving aliens afford this ground of jurisdiction, and the civil and property rights of immigrants or transients of foreign nationality so nearly approach equivalence to those of citizens, courts in peace time have little occasion to inquire whether litigants before them are alien or citizen.
This claim the Court has twice considered and twice rejected, holding that such notice is required only of proceedings vd disciplinary offenses vss during captivity, and not in case of war crimes committed before capture. Moreover, the question of whether the petition showed on its face that these prisoners had violated the laws of war, even if it were relevant, is not properly before this Court. Index of page Summary Procedural history Legally relevant facts Core legal questions Specific legal rules and provisions Court’s holding and analysis Further analysis Instruments cited Related cases Social media links.
Supreme Courtwhere it decided that U. While his lot is far more humane. The court stated the steps in its own reasoning as follows:. Moreover, we could expect no reciprocity for placing the litigation weapon in unrestrained enemy hands. On 8 MayGermany unconditionally surrendered obliging all forces under German control to immediately cease hostilities. As we eiwentrager in the Yamashita case, “If the military tribunals have lawful authority to hear, decide, and condemn, their action is not subject to judicial review merely because they have made a wrong decision on disputed Page U.
May a civilian enemy alien present a habeas corpus petition to the courts of the detaining power? Please note that our editors may make some formatting changes or correct spelling or grammatical errors, and may also contact you if any clarifications are needed.
The ultimate question in this case is one of jurisdiction of civil courts of the United States vis-a-vis military authorities in dealing with enemy aliens overseas. Nor can the Court’s decision in the Yamashita case aid the prisoners. But that does not mean that the Constitution is wholly inapplicable in foreign territories that we occupy and govern. The Benito Estenger, U. They would diminish the eisentrage of our commanders not only with enemies, but with wavering neutrals. These prisoners have been convicted of violating laws of war, by engaging in, permitting or ordering continued military johnaon against the United States after surrender of Germany and eisfntrager surrender of Japan.
Johnson et al. v. Eisentrager et al.
Hopkins, the Court said of the Fourteenth Amendment, “These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of jounson, of color, or of nationality. Their hostile operations consisted principally of collecting and furnishing intelligence concerning American forces and their movements to the Japanese armed forces.
Certainly the Quirin and Yamashita opinions lend no support to that conclusion, for, in upholding jurisdiction, they eosentrager no reliance whatever on territorial location.
This statute was enacted or suffered to continue by men who helped found the Republic and formulate the Bill of Rights, and although it obviously denies enemy aliens the constitutional immunities of citizens, it seems not then to have been supposed that a nation’s obligations to its foes could ever be put on a parity with those to its defenders.
While the Court wisely disclaims any such necessary effect for its holding, rejection of the Government’s argument is certainly made difficult by the logic of today’s.
The contention that enemy alien belligerents have no standing whatever to contest conviction for war crimes by habeas corpus proceedings has twice been emphatically rejected by a unanimous Court. Did the Military Commission lack jurisdiction to try and convict the Respondents or did it act in any other way in excess of its lawful powers for the purposes of establishing a violation johnsno the rights of the Respondents?
Nohnson court later dismissed Habib v.