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):||13 December 2005|
|PDF File Size:||15.80 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.47 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Can there be any doubt that our foes would also have been excepted but for the assumption “any person” would never be read to include those in arms against us? The alien enemy is bound by an allegiance which commits him to lose no opportunity to forward the cause of our enemy; hence the Eisentager States, assuming him to be faithful to his allegiance, Page U. Your jounson may be further edited by our staff, and its publication is subject to our final approval.
The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s dismissal on the ground that the judicial, rather than the executive, branch of government is vested with final authority to determine the legality of imprisonment for crime. Not only is United States citizenship a eisentgager privilege,” eisenhrager is a priceless treasure.
You may find it helpful to search within the site to see how similar or related subjects are covered. IV The Court of Appeals appears to have been of opinion that the petition shows some action by some official of the United States in excess of his authority which confers a private right to have it judicially voided.
It may be noted that no prejudicial disparity is pointed out as between the Commission that tried prisoners and those that would try an offending soldier of the American forces of like rank. Eisentrager that foreign nationals imprisoned abroad may not file habeas corpus petitions in U. They, with six others who were acquitted, were taken into custody by the United States Army after the Japanese surrender and were tried and convicted by a Military Commission constituted by our Commanding General at Nanking by delegation from the Commanding General, United States Forces, China Theater, pursuant to authority specifically granted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States.
In this case, U. Modern American law has come a long way since the time when outbreak of war made every enemy national.
This Court refused to receive Yamashita’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. United States,F. I agree with the Court of Appeals, and need add little to the Page U. They were apprehended in China and charged with gathering and transmitting intelligence about the U.
Johnson et al. v. Eisentrager et al.
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. Any contention that a similarly limited use of habeas corpus for these prisoners would somehow give them a preferred position in the law cannot be taken seriously. The issues come here in this way: We have pointed out that the privilege of litigation has been extended to aliens, whether friendly or enemy, only because permitting their presence in the country implied Page U.
Certainly it is not the function of the Judiciary to entertain private litigation — even by a citizen — which challenges the legality, the wisdom, eisentrxger the propriety of the Commander-in-Chief in sending our armed forces abroad or to any particular region. There is jounson the slightest intimation that the accused were spies, or engaged in cruelty, torture, or any conduct other than that which soldiers or civilians might properly perform when entangled in their country’s war.
Their hostile operations consisted principally of collecting and furnishing intelligence concerning American forces and their eissentrager to the Japanese armed forces. American citizens conscripted into the military service are thereby stripped of their Fifth Amendment rights, and, as members of the military establishment, are subject to its discipline, including military trials for offenses against aliens or Americans.
The latter are entitled only to judicial hearing to determine what the petition of these prisoners admits: A unanimous Court recently clarified both the privilege of access to our courts and the limitations upon it. It also gives power to make rules concerning captures on land and water, ibid.
It being within the jurisdiction of a Military Commission to try the prisoners, it was for it to determine whether the laws of war applied and whether an offense against them had been committed. They were transported to the American-occupied part of Germany and imprisoned there in the custody of the Army.
The Selective Service Act of62 Stat. It therefore takes measures to disable him from commission of hostile acts imputed as his intention because they are a duty to his sovereign. In the primary meaning of the words, an alien friend is the subject of a foreign state at peace with the United States; an alien enemy is the subject of a foreign state at war with the United States. The doctrine that the term “any person” in the Fifth Amendment spreads its protection over alien enemies anywhere in johneon world engaged in hostilities against us should be weighed in johnsin of the full text of that Amendment: If you prefer to suggest your own revision of the article, you can go to edit mode requires login.
At the very least, fairness requires that the Court hear argument on this point.
United States, Johnson v. Eisentrager
The alleged circumstances, if proven, would place these Germans in much the same position as patriotic French, Dutch, or Norwegian soldiers who fought on with the British after their homelands officially surrendered to Nazi Germany. Courts will entertain his plea for freedom from executive custody only to ascertain the existence of a state of war and.
By a parity of reasoning with that in the foregoing decisions, this Article also refers to those, and only to those, proceedings for disciplinary offenses during captivity. Their hostile operations consisted principally of collecting and furnishing intelligence concerning American forces and their movements to the Japanese armed forces. United States and 13 companion cases, U. Rights of alien enemies are vindicated under it only through protests and intervention of protecting powers as the rights of our citizens against foreign governments are vindicated only by Presidential intervention.
United States, Johnson v. Eisentrager | How does law protect in war? – Online casebook
When that appears, those resident here may be deprived of liberty by Executive action without hearing. That we went on to deny the requested writ, as in the Quirin case, in no way detracts from the clear holding that habeas corpus jurisdiction is available even to belligerent aliens convicted by a military tribunal for an offense committed in actual acts of warfare.
See cases collected in Annotations, A. He could not be reached by process from the District Court. Jefferson into power inand though his party proceeded to undo what was regarded as the mischievous legislation of the Federalists, Page U.
Another reason for a limited opening of our courts disentrager resident aliens is that among them are many of friendly personal disposition to whom the status of enemy is only one imputed by law. Within the framework of litigation, the Supreme Court marks the boundaries of authority between state and nation, state and state, and government and citizen.
See also Notes, 22 So.
Johnson v. Eisentrager – Wikipedia
To support that assumption, we must hold that a prisoner of our military authorities is constitutionally entitled to the writ, even though he a is an enemy alien; b has never been or resided in the United States; c was captured outside of our territory and there held in military custody as a prisoner of war; d was tried and convicted by a Military Commission sitting outside the United States; e for offenses against laws of war committed outside the United States; f and is at all times imprisoned outside the United States.
If a person’s claim to United States citizenship is denied by any official, Congress has directed our courts to entertain his action to declare him to be a citizen “regardless of whether he is within the United States or abroad.