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.

Author: Mijar Sagul
Country: Sri Lanka
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Automotive
Published (Last): 22 August 2007
Pages: 498
PDF File Size: 14.7 Mb
ePub File Size: 19.14 Mb
ISBN: 417-2-64275-781-5
Downloads: 46127
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Metilar

The trial court did not reach that question, because it concluded that eisentgager imprisonment outside its district eisentager it even from considering the petition; its doors were “summarily closed.

The petition specifies four reasons why conviction of the Military Commission was in excess of its jurisdiction: We are cited to no instance where a court, in this or johjson other country where the writ is known, has issued it on behalf of an alien enemy who at no relevant time and in no stage of his captivity has been within its territorial jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction of military authorities, during or following hostilities, to punish those guilty of offenses against the laws of war is long established. One was, or Page U.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Johnson v. Eisentrager | law case |

Ex parte Kawato, U. It might also require transportation for whatever witnesses the prisoners desired to call as well as transportation for those necessary to defend legality of the sentence. 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.

In our jurisprudence, no Government action which is void under the Constitution is exempt from judicial power. This landmark Supreme Court case was reexamined in in light of the detention of alleged al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists following the September 11,terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And see also Milch v.


The general statement was early made on combined authority of Kent and Story “[t]hat they have no power to sue in the public courts of the enemy nation. Constitution of the United States17 September Yamashita’s offenses were committed on our territory, he was tried within the jurisdiction of our insular courts, and he was imprisoned within territory of the United States.

Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950)

They were then transferred to a German prison and remained in the custody of the United States Army. When a foreign enemy surrenders, the situation changes markedly.

If this was ever something of a fiction, it is one validated by the actualities of modern total warfare. Did the Military Commission lack jurisdiction to try and convict the Respondents or did it act in any other way in excess eisnetrager its lawful powers for the purposes of establishing a violation of the rights of the Respondents? United States, 8 Cranch12 U.

However illegal their sentences might be, they can expect no relief from German courts or any other branch of the German Government we permit to function. Correction of their errors of decision is not for the courts, but for the military authorities which are alone authorized to review their decisions.

Al-Qaedabroad-based militant Islamist organization founded by Osama bin Laden in the late s. 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.

If the Fifth Amendment protects them from military trial, the Sixth Amendment as clearly prohibits their trial by civil courts. Their hostile operations consisted principally of collecting and furnishing intelligence concerning American forces and their movements to the Japanese armed forces.


But other martyrized disciples were not so fortunate. Despite this, the doors of our courts have not been summarily closed upon these prisoners. It is claimed that their trial, conviction, and imprisonment violate Articles I and III of the Constitution, and the Fifth Amendment thereto, and other provisions of the Constitution and laws of the United States and provisions of the Geneva Convention governing treatment of prisoners of war.

This would require allocation of shipping space, guarding personnel, billeting, and rations. The issues come here in this way:. See 2 Works of Taxitus Oxford trans. Its Conduct and Legal Results,’ p. None of the places where they were acting, arrested, tried, or imprisoned was, it was contended, in a zone of active military operations, was not under martial law or any other military control, and no circumstances justified transferring them from civil to military jurisdiction.

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.

Among powers granted to Congress by the Constitution is power to provide for the common defense, to declare war, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, Art.

The court stated the steps in its own reasoning as follows:. Inthe 5th Congress passed three acts in rapid succession, “An Act concerning Aliens,” approved June 25, 1 Stat.