Court : US Supreme Court
..... related only to military functions, such as, for illustration, curfew rules or blackouts. for these petitioners were tried before tribunals set up under a military program which took over all government and superseded all civil laws and courts. if the organic act, properly interpreted, did not give the armed forces this awesome power, both petitioners are entitled to their freedom. i in interpreting the ..... courts of law be supplanted by military tribunals. ii since the act's language does not provide a satisfactory answer, we look to the legislative history for possible further aid in interpreting the term "martial law" as used in the statute. the government contends that the legislative history shows that congress intended to give the armed forces extraordinarily broad powers to try civilians before .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... councilman weighs in favor of abstention in this case. first, hamdan is not a member of our nation s armed forces, so concerns about military discipline do not apply. second, the tribunal convened to try hamdan is not part of the integrated system of military courts, complete with independent review panels, ..... the comity considerations councilman identified weighs in favor of abstention here. first, the assertion that military discipline and, therefore, the armed forces efficient operation, are best served if the military justice system acts without regular interference from civilian courts, see id., at 752, is inapt because hamdan is not a service member. ..... 415 f. 3d, at 36 37 (discussing councilman and new ). first, military discipline and, therefore, the efficient operation of the armed forces are best served if the military justice system acts without regular interference from civilian courts. see councilman , 420 u. s., at 752. second, federal courts should respect the balance that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... in which they had been customary -- as either abolishing all trials by military tribunals, save those of the personnel of our own armed forces, or, what in effect comes to the same thing, as imposing on all such tribunals the necessity of proceeding against unlawful enemy belligerents only on presentment and trial by ..... belligerents. it is without significance that petitioners were not alleged to have borne conventional weapons or that their proposed hostile acts did not necessarily contemplate collision with the armed forces of the united states. paragraphs 351 and 352 of the rules of land warfare, already referred to, plainly contemplate that ..... -97; bluntschli, droit international codifie (5th ed. tr. lardy) 639; 4 calvo, le droit international theorique et pratique (5th ed. 1896) 2119; (c) any hostile act: 2 winthrop, military law and precedents, (2nd ed. 1896) 1224. cf. lieber, guerrilla parties (1862), 2 miscellaneous writings (1881) 288. these authorities are unanimous in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... insurrection had recently been suppressed and was only kept from breaking out again by the presence of the armed forces of the united states, he was not called upon by any rule of law to answer to a civil tribunal for his military orders and satisfy it that they were authorized by his superiors, or by the ..... authority of the confederate government -- that is, into the enemy's country -- their officers and soldiers were not subject to its laws, nor amenable to its tribunals for their acts. they were subject only to their own government, and only by its laws, administered by its authority, could they be called to account. as was observed ..... but, to justify the taking without the consent of the owner, the necessity must be apparent, leaving no available alternative. four months before the marauding expedition, acting under the verbal and secret orders of the defendant, entered the plantation and dwelling house of the plaintiff during his temporary absence and seized the goods and chattels .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... coast, "by its geographical location is particularly subject to attack, to attempted invasion by the armed forces of nations with which the united states is now at war, and, in connection therewith, is subject to espionage and acts of sabotage, thereby requiring the adoption of military measures necessary to establish safeguards against such enemy operations ..... and the executive, to impose this restriction as an emergency war measure. the exercise of that power here involves no question of martial law or trial by military tribunal. cf. 71 u. s. 4 wall. 2; ex parte quirin, supra. appellant has been page 320 u. s. 93 tried and convicted in the ..... 18, 1942); ibid. -- cumulative through february, 1943 (issued by war production board, statistics division, april 3, 1943). [ footnote 2 ] see "attack upon pearl harbor by japanese armed forces," report of the commission appointed by the president, dated january 23, 1942, s.doc. no. 159, 77th cong., 2d sess., pp. 12, 13. [ footnote 3 ] sixteenth .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
..... and equality of states in international law: "considerations of international comity could not possibly affect the claimants' husbands' access to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal from the armed forces and i do not see how they could affect claims by the claimants if there is a sufficiently strong connection of their employment to ..... was so closely connected to englandas to be within section 94(1) of the employment rights act 1996. they were "piggy-backed" by their husbands into the same terms and conditions as employees of the british armed forces posted to serve abroad, who undoubtedly fall within the botham exception. they were thus in a ..... , the hong kong airline; but he was based at heathrow under the airline's "permanent basings policy". 5. section 94(1) of the employment rights act 1996, which grants employees the right not to be unfairly dismissed, no longer contains any geographical limitation. parliament had repealed the previous exclusion of employees (mariners .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... enforce obedience throughout the state, arresting and imprisoning and punishing in its judicial tribunals those who had appeared in arms against it. we do not understand from the argument that the constitution under which the plaintiff acted is supposed to have been in force after the constitution of may, 1843, went into operation. t he contest ..... dorr, who had been elected governor under the new constitution, prepared to assert the authority of that government by force, and many citizens assembled in arms to support him. the charter government thereupon passed an act declaring the state under martial law, and at the same time proceeded to call out the militia to repel the ..... waging war, yet, i concede, it is attempting to suppress domestic violence by force of arms, and, in doing it, the president may possess and exert some belligerent rights in some extreme stages of armed opposition. it is he, however, and those acting under his orders, who, it will be seen, may possibly then, at times .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... his command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes." the bills of particular further alleged that specific acts of atrocity were committed by "members of the armed forces of japan under the command of the accused." nowhere was it alleged that the petitioner personally committed any of the ..... that "testimony by deposition may be adduced for the defense in capital cases. " (emphasis added.) this language clearly and broadly covers every kind of military tribunal, whether "court" or "commission." it covers all capital cases. it makes no exception or distinction for any accused. article 38 authorizes the president, by regulations ..... the power to "prescribe the procedure, including modes of proof, in cases before courts-martial, courts of inquiry, military commissions, and other military tribunals" takes on a rather senseless meaning, for the president would have such power only with respect to those military commissions exercising concurrent jurisdiction with courts- .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... states, he may, in time of war, establish and prescribe the jurisdiction and procedure of military commissions, and of tribunals in the nature of such commissions, in territory occupied by armed forces of the united states. his authority to do this sometimes survives cessation of hostilities. [ footnote 12 ] the president ..... persons accompanying or serving with the armies of the united states without the territorial jurisdiction of the united states. . . ." [ footnote 18 ] the 1916 act also increased the nonmilitary offenses for which civilian offenders could be tried by courts-martial. [ footnote 19 ] article 15, however, completely disposes of that contention. ..... september 21, 1949, the occupation statute had taken effect. under it, the president vested the authority of the united states military government in a civilian acting as the united states high commissioner for germany. he gave that commissioner "authority, under the immediate supervision of the secretary of state (subject, page .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... tribunals. in cases of conspiracy or joint crime, parallel trials would have to be held in separate courts. since the trials could not proceed at the same time, one would of necessity precede and influence the other, and results could understandably be disparate. nor is the problem of insignificant proportions. reliable figures show that our armed forces ..... territorial or consular court does not preclude, but must necessarily include, the power to provide for trial before a military tribunal unless that alternative is "so clearly arbitrary or capricious that legislators acting reasonably could not have believed it to be necessary or appropriate for the public welfare. [ footnote 8 ]" the choice ..... balzac v. porto rico, 258 u. s. 298 , 258 u. s. 304 -305. in an earlier case, this court had sustained the constitutionality of an act of congress which created consular courts to try, pursuant to treaties, american citizens for crimes committed in japan, china, and other countries. in re ross, 140 u .....
Tag this Judgment!