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 for these petitioners were tried before tribunals set up under a military program which took over all government and superseded all civil laws and courts.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
..... review was permitted. section 11 of the selective service and training act does not distinguish between one order of a board and another. provided that he has exhausted his administrative remedies, the registrant who has not been actually inducted into the armed forces may, in defense to a criminal prosecution, attack a board's ..... subject to military discipline or authority, and, for violation of duties or orders, he cannot be tried by court-martial or military tribunal. on the contrary, the selective service act expressly provides the same civil penalties and mode of trial for violating duties arising when he enters the camp as for those arising ..... consequence thereof, determination of issues of fact, including credibility and inferential conclusions, properly to be made in the trial court, rather than by an appellate tribunal. since issues of credibility also may be involved in determining whether the evidence would support no other conclusion than that the registrant was a minister, that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... u.s. 672. some of those petitioners were citizens of the united states, some were civilians, others members of the armed forces. in some instances, the detention was pursuant to sentences imposed by military tribunals for alleged offenses, death being the penalty in one. in other cases, the petitioners claimed to be confined for indefinite ..... accordance with such regulations as he may prescribe." proclamation 2655, 10 fed.reg. 8947. this proclamation was issued pursuant to the authority conferred by the alien enemy act of 1798, 1 stat. 577. [ footnote 2/11 ] furthermore, as the solicitor general points out in his brief, there is "no reason why the ..... applications for writs of habeas corpus to secure their release from detention under removal orders issued by the attorney general under a presidential proclamation pursuant to the alien enemy act. the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia dismissed on appeal. this court granted certiorari. 333 u.s. 826. affirmed, p. 335 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... powers to bring before military tribunals persons accused of having committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war." article 228. this court has characterized as "well established" the "power of the military to exercise jurisdiction over members of the armed forces, those directly connected with such forces, or enemy belligerents, prisoners of ..... court of the district of columbia for writs of habeas corpus. they alleged that, prior to may 8, 1945, they were in service of german armed forces in china. they amended to allege that their employment there was by civilian agencies of the german government. their exact affiliation is disputed, and, for ..... war, or others charged with violating the laws of war." duncan v. kahanamoku, 327 u. s. 304 , 327 u. s. 312 , 327 u. s. 313 -314. and we have held in the quirin and yamashita cases, supra, that the military commission is a lawful tribunal .....
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
..... ; it merely makes clear that there need be no indictment for such military offenses as congress can authorize military tribunals to try under its article i power to make rules to govern the armed forces. p. 350 u. s. 14 , n. 5. 4. the act is not a valid exercise of the power granted congress in article i of the constitution "to make rules ..... members or part of the armed forces. there is a compelling reason for construing the clause this way: any expansion of court-martial jurisdiction like that in the 1950 act necessarily encroaches on the jurisdiction of federal courts set up under article iii of the constitution, where persons on trial are surrounded with more constitutional safeguards than in military tribunals. article iii provides for .....
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!Court : US Supreme Court
..... wife living as a civilian with page 354 u. s. 82 our armed forces in a foreign country. in both cases, jurisdiction was exercised by a military tribunal pursuant to an act of congress authorizing such jurisdiction over all persons accompanying the armed forces outside the territorial jurisdiction of the united states. the distinction that, in ..... power of congress to provide for trial of civilian dependents accompanying members of the armed forces abroad by court-martial in capital cases. the normal method of trial of federal offenses under the constitution is in a civilian tribunal. trial of offenses by way of court-martial, with all the characteristics of its ..... s. 4 all persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces without the continental limits of the united states. . . ." counsel for mrs. covert contended that she was insane at the time she killed her husband, but the military tribunal found her guilty of murder and sentenced her to life imprisonment. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... her status as a person "accompanying the armed forces without the continental limits of the united states" by returning to this country voluntarily. but that is not this case. the issue here is whether we should create an exception to the general rule that jurisdiction of a tribunal, once acquired, continues until final disposition. at ..... local facilities, is simply a matter of administrative convenience, and it would do violence to the purpose of congress to provide a "prompt review of the constitutionality of federal acts," fleming v. rhodes, 331 u. s. 100 , 331 u. s. 104 , to interpret 1252 restrictively. for all practical purposes, the district of columbia jail ..... employee thereof, as such officer or employee, is a party." it is conceded that, in issuing the writ of habeas corpus, the district court held an act of congress unconstitutional. appellee's sole contention is that appellant, the superintendent of the district of columbia jail, does not come within the requirement of 1252 that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... burns v. wilson, 346 u. s. 137 (1953), this court exerts "no supervisory power over the courts which enforce [military law]; the rights of men in the armed forces must perforce be conditioned to meet certain overriding demands of discipline and duty, and the civil courts are not the agencies which must determine the precise balance to be struck ..... in that regard. as long ago as 1902, this court recognized that it was a "salutary rule that the sentences of courts-martial, when affirmed by the military tribunal of last resort, cannot be revised by the civil courts save only when void because of an absolute want of power, and not merely voidable because of the defective ..... u. s. 140 . if there is injustice in the sentence imposed, it is for the executive to correct, for, since the board of review has authority to act, we have no jurisdiction to interfere with the exercise of its discretion. that power is placed by the congress in the hands of those entrusted with the administration of military .....
Tag this Judgment!