Search for: "Yamashita"
Results 61 - 77
of 77
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jul 2008, 2:43 pm
The Court extended this ruling in In re Yamashita, allowing commissions to try a Japanese general who had participated in atrocities against civilians (also violative of the law of war). [read post]
24 May 2014, 8:22 am
Yamashita Lola M. [read post]
3 Oct 2013, 1:00 pm
Moreover, the three Supreme Court cases regularly relied upon by military commission proponents – Quirin, Yamashita, and Eisentrager – each upheld military jurisdiction only after finding that at least one charge actually stated a violation of international law. [read post]
22 Apr 2010, 2:32 pm
Indeed, Rutledge had written separately in concurrence in Hirabayashi, to emphasize that the Court’s acceptance of the military’s necessity justification here did not mean that such reasoning would invariably succeed, or that all such reasoning was beyond the power of the courts to review.By In re Yamashita (upholding the military commission trial of a Japanese general), issued the year before Justice Stevens took up work at the Court, Rutledge was writing in dissent, rejecting… [read post]
23 Apr 2010, 4:42 am
By In re Yamashita (upholding the military commission trial of a Japanese general), issued the year before Justice Stevens took up work at the Court, Rutledge was writing in dissent, rejecting the Government’s position “that there is no law restrictive upon these proceedings other than whatever rules and regulations may be prescribed for their government by the executive authority or the military,” in favor of the view that the U.S. [read post]
2 Oct 2020, 1:09 pm
” Yamashita v. [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 12:37 pm
By In re Yamashita (upholding the military commission trial of a Japanese general), issued the year before Justice Stevens took up work at the Court, Rutledge was writing in dissent, rejecting the Government’s position “that there is no law restrictive upon these proceedings other than whatever rules and regulations may be prescribed for their government by the executive authority or the military,” in favor of the view that the U.S. [read post]
27 Mar 2007, 11:38 pm
Army Judge Advocate General Enoch Crowder, author of the statutory language construed by the Supreme Court to authorize military commissions in the Quirin and Yamashita decisions, found this out in losing McClaughry v. [read post]
19 Aug 2011, 7:36 am
According to In re Yamashita, 321 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1946), “The trial and punishment of enemy combatants who have committed violations of the law of war is thus not only a part of the conduct of war operating as a preventive measure against such violations, but is an exercise of the authority sanctioned by Congress to administer the system of military justice recognized by the law of war. [read post]
21 Feb 2007, 9:39 am
The Court has, for example, entertained the habeas petitions of an American citizen who plotted an attack on military installations during the Civil War, Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2 (1866), and of admitted enemy aliens convicted of war crimes during a declared war and held in the United States, Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), and its insular possessions, In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946). [read post]
9 May 2014, 2:14 pm
In 2001, the Washington Supreme Court admitted Takuji Yamashita, a Japanese immigrant who had been refused admission to the profession in 1902. [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 10:29 am
Prolific writer He has written 14 books, several of them critically acclaimed, including the historical, "A Trial Of Generals (Homma, Yamashita, MacArthur)," the true crime tale "To Honor And Obey," and the legal textbook "Drunk Driving Defense. [read post]
21 Oct 2016, 6:39 am
Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul is a Yemeni citizen, currently held in Guantanamo Bay, who was convicted in a military commission under the 2006 Military Commissions Act for “inchoate conspiracy” to commit war crimes. [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 5:56 am
This form of liability is recognized in the Department of Defense Law of War Manual and was also embraced by the Supreme Court in In Re Yamashita (1946). [read post]
14 Jun 2015, 2:20 pm
At their simplest, both Judge Henderson's 85-page dissent from the D.C. [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 7:00 am
Bamzai’s brief cites cases that predate the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) involving military commissions from the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War II (citing Ex parte Vallandingham, In re Vidal, and In re Yamashita respectively) and compares the CAAF to the National Labor Relations Board, over which the Supreme Court exerts no original review (for the latter analogy, he refers an argument made by Richard Fallon in his treatise on Federal Courts). [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 4:45 pm
This morning, the full D.C. [read post]
