Search for: "In re Yamashita" Results 1 - 20 of 22
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Feb 2010, 8:10 pm by Lawrence Solum
MacArthur, and In re Yamashita - opponents have argued that these decisions have been rejected by the “lessons of history.” [read post]
26 Feb 2012, 8:48 am by John C. Dehn
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 by Peter Margulies
  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]
25 Jan 2016, 8:20 am by Helen Klein
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]
30 Jul 2013, 12:07 pm by Steve Vladeck
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 Aug 2014, 4:34 pm by Jane Chong
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]
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]
13 May 2010, 12:15 pm by Erin Miller
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]
19 Aug 2011, 7:36 am by John Dehn
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]
22 Apr 2010, 2:32 pm by Deborah Pearlstein
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]
7 Nov 2013, 11:56 pm by William S. Dodge
Smith, 18 U.S. 153 (1820) (upholding statute that punished piracy “as defined by the law of nations”), and the Supreme Court has looked to treaties to define violations of the laws of war that may be punished by military commission, see Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942); In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946). [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 Apr 2010, 4:42 am by Deborah Pearlstein
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 Apr 2010, 12:37 pm by Erin Miller
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 Oct 2016, 6:39 am by Helen Klein Murillo, Alex Loomis
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]