Search for: "In re Yamashita"
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
10 Apr 2022, 3:50 pm
Admittedly, not everyone agrees that the conviction of Yamashita was just. [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… [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]
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]
14 Jun 2015, 2:20 pm
At their simplest, both Judge Henderson's 85-page dissent from the D.C. [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]
14 Jul 2014, 4:45 pm
This morning, the full D.C. [read post]
24 May 2014, 8:22 am
Yamashita Lola M. [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]
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]
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]
23 Sep 2011, 10:29 am
"Now they’re trying to get it down to .05. [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]
13 May 2010, 12:15 pm
Rutledge is best known, however, for his towering dissent in In re Yamashita. [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]
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]
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]
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]
