Search for: "In re Yamashita"
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Feb 2010, 8:10 pm
MacArthur, and In re Yamashita - opponents have argued that these decisions have been rejected by the “lessons of history. [read post]
28 May 2012, 10:13 am
But we’re forgetting about human nature. [read post]
26 Feb 2012, 8:48 am
The Supreme Court explained in In re Yamashita, 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]
31 Jul 2013, 4:11 am
As the Supreme Court’s decision in In re Yamashita said, “charges of violations of the law of war triable before a military tribunal need not be stated with the precision of a common law indictment. [read post]
10 Apr 2022, 3:50 pm
Admittedly, not everyone agrees that the conviction of Yamashita was just. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 8:20 am
In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 9 (1946) (“[T]he Executive branch of the government could not, unless there was suspension of the writ, withdraw from the courts the duty and power to make such inquiry into the authority of the commission as may be made by habeas corpus. [read post]
22 Mar 2007, 11:05 am
David Yamashita said staff are working with the Regional Arts and Culture Council and the artist on a new site, but it won't go back in its original spot.If I'm reading this correctly, we're about to divert maintenance money to "capital" projects, including the "free" park. [read post]
24 May 2014, 8:22 am
Yamashita Lola M. [read post]
13 Aug 2014, 4:34 pm
Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 786-87 (1950); In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 14 (1946); Quirin, 317 U.S. at 43. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 12:07 pm
As the Supreme Court explained in In re Yamashita, “charges of violations of the law of war triable before a military tribunal need not be stated with the precision of a common law indictment. [read post]
13 May 2010, 12:15 pm
Rutledge is best known, however, for his towering dissent in In re Yamashita. [read post]
20 Feb 2007, 10:00 am
It is the fact that the petitioners were enemy aliens - an undisputed fact - that is paramount in Eisentrager: The prisoners rely, however, upon two decisions of this Court to get them over the threshold -- Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, and In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1. [read post]
13 Dec 2006, 4:09 pm
It is the fact that the petitioners were enemy aliens - an undisputed fact - that is paramount in Eisentrager: The prisoners rely, however, upon two decisions of this Court to get them over the threshold -- Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, and In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1. [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]
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]
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]
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,… [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]
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]
23 Sep 2011, 10:29 am
"Now they’re trying to get it down to .05. [read post]
