Ex parte Quirin
Encyclopedia
Ex parte Quirin, , is a Supreme Court of the United States
case that upheld the jurisdiction of a United States
military tribunal over the trial of several Operation Pastorius
German saboteurs
in the United States. Quirin has been cited as a precedent
for the trial by military commission of any unlawful combatant
against the United States.
It was argued July 29 and July 30, 1942 and decided July 31, 1942 with an extended opinion filed October 29, 1942.
This decision states:
, Herbert Hans Haupt
, Heinrich Heinck, Edward Kerling, Herman Neubauer, Richard Quirin
and Werner Thiel. Haupt was a U.S. citizen. (317 U.S. 1)
All were born in Germany and all had lived in the United States. All returned to Germany between 1933 and 1941. After the declaration of war between the United States and the German Reich, they received training at a sabotage school near Berlin
, where they were instructed in the use of explosives and in methods of secret writing.
Burger, Dasch, Heinck and Quirin traveled from occupied France
by German submarine U-202
to Amagansett Beach
, Long Island
, New York
, landing in the hours of darkness, on or about June 13, 1942. The remaining four boarded German submarine U-584 which carried them from France to Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
. On or about June 17, 1942, they came ashore during the hours of darkness. All eight wore full or partial German uniforms, to ensure treatment as prisoners of war should they be captured on landing. The Long Island group was noticed by Coast Guard beach patrolman John C. Cullen, whom the saboteurs attempted to bribe with $260. Cullen returned to his station and sounded the alarm. The two groups promptly disposed of uniforms and proceeded in civilian dress to New York City
and Jacksonville, Florida
, respectively, and from there to other points in the United States. All had received instructions in Germany from an officer of the German High Command to destroy war industries and war facilities in the United States, for which they or their relatives in Germany were to receive salary payments from the German Government.
Upon landing, Dasch and Burger turned themselves in to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
with some difficulty, since the FBI did not believe them immediately. They convinced the FBI that they were telling the truth and the remaining six were taken into custody in New York and Chicago, Illinois by FBI agents. The FBI had no leads until Dasch gave his exaggerated and romanticized version in Washington DC.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
convened a secret military tribunal on July 2, 1942 which sentenced the eight men to death. The President later commuted the death sentence of Dasch to 30 years and the sentence of Burger to life in prison, as they had both confessed and assisted in capturing the others. Indeed, it was Dasch who approached the FBI, offering to turn the men in, which he then did. Burger was part of the plot to turn on the others and cooperated with the FBI extensively. Though all of the men confessed and gave full statements, the remaining six were executed by electrocution
on August 8, 1942 in Washington, D.C.
Dasch and Burger were released from prison in 1948 and deported to Germany. Dasch spent the remaining years of his life trying to return to the U.S. One time, a visa application was sent to J. Edgar Hoover by the State Department on Dasch's behalf. Hoover stated that the idea of giving Dasch a visa was "outrageous" and promptly denied it. Dasch died - still in Germany - in 1992.
wrote that it was unfortunate that the court agreed to take the case. He stated that “while it was easy to agree on the original per curiam, we almost fell apart when it came to write the views." Chief Justice Stone, for his part, was very concerned with the court’s reputation, specifically because he did not want the court to be perceived as just standing by while six men were executed. He pushed for a unanimous opinion. Despite Stone’s views, Justice Robert H. Jackson
wrote a concurring draft opinion, expressing his disagreement with portions of the Court’s opinion. Over time, his concurring draft got longer and longer and evolved into a typewritten memorandum. This memorandum was written two years before his dissent in Korematsu v. United States
and a decade before his famous concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
. It provides insight into Jackson’s views on the scope of the President's constitutional war powers.
The controversy has been revived, and has had legal implications during the War on Terror
of the 2000s.
Jackson stated, "I think the Court's decision of the question whether it complied with the Articles of War
is uncalled for. The history and the language of the Articles are to me a plain demonstration that they are clearly inapplicable to this case and it is abundantly clear to me that it is well within the war powers of the President to create a non-statutory military tribunal of the sort here in question." He further wrote "The right to convene such an advisory committee of his staff as a 'military commission' for the discharge of his duties toward prisoners of war is one that follows from his position as commander in chief." Nonetheless, Jackson maintained that the President's power should be "discharged, of course, in the light of any obligation undertaken by our country under treaties or conventions or under customs and usages so generally accepted as to constitute the laws of warfare."
More importantly, Jackson also questioned the Court's ability to review the President's actions. He concluded that dealing with enemy prisoners of war was a foreign policy issue that touched upon issues of national security and political questions that were wholly out of the province of the judiciary. Jackson also stated that granting enemy combatants individual rights against military authorities would not be reciprocated in other countries.
Jackson analyzed both the history and purposes of the Articles of War to conclude that the Articles are not applicable to enemy combatants — rather, they were meant to protect U.S. civilians in times of military government. Although it would seem that his draft opinion is at odds with his later views of the President's war powers, specifically in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
in which he interpreted Congress's ability to restrict the President's powers rather generously, there are substantive differences between the two cases. Youngstown concerned an exercise of presidential power in a domestic matter against civilians in an undeclared war. It was very different from the scenario present in Quirin, in which the President seized enemy combatants and did not address the internal functioning of the government.
In Quirin, Jackson ultimately believed it was a mistake for the Court to review military judgments in times of war and he solidified this position in his dissent in Korematsu v. United States
. In that case, he stated "in the very nature of things military decisions are not susceptible of intelligent judicial appraisal." His dissent in Korematsu makes clear his belief that that bringing military orders under the protection of the Constitution would be a dangerous precedent and that the court should not execute nor review military orders. He was afraid that the "emergency that justified the classification (in Korematsu) would eventually be forgotten, leaving the constitutionality of the classification as the lesson of the case." Jackson believed the court would never be able to perform its duty if it joined the executive in making constitutional shortcuts.
In the end, Justice Jackson withdrew his concurring opinion, perhaps in response to Justice Stone, or perhaps in response to Justice Felix Frankfurter
's Soliloquy. The Soliloquy was a bizarre memo addressed to the saboteurs in which Frankfurter urged the court to issue a single opinion. Regardless of why he chose to withdraw the opinion, his memorandum offers insight into an issue which divided the Court and remains divisive today.
Order was putatively modeled, which authorized military commissions to try the captives for, among other things, violations of the law of war, for providing the enemy with intelligence
and spying.
Quirin held extant legislation authorized the use of Military Commissions for the types of offenses in question. While in Quirin there was public law passed with the title "declaration of war
" and three Articles (15, 81 and 82) of the Articles of War, President Bush's claim relies on a congressional Joint Resolution
used as a formal declaration of war (which has no precise legal definition in the US) under the War Powers Resolution
, and two provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
, the successor to the Article of War.
The validity of this case as a basis for use of military tribunals in the War on Terrorism
as permitted by the Geneva Conventions
has been disputed. A report by the American Bar Association
commenting on this case, states:
Since the 1942 Quirin case, the U.S. signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions
, which were thus considered to be a part of U.S. municipal law, in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of the United States (the Supremacy Clause
). In addition the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated this premise, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
, by ruling that Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions applies to detainees in the War on Terror, and that the Military Tribunals
used to try these suspects were in violation of US and international law. In response to Hamdan, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006
, which President Bush signed into law on October 17, 2006. The Act's stated purpose was "To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes." The Act explicitly forbids the invocation of Geneva when executing the writ of habeas corpus or in other civil actions.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
case that upheld the jurisdiction of a United States
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
military tribunal over the trial of several Operation Pastorius
Operation Pastorius
Operation Pastorius was a failed plan for sabotage via a series of attacks by Nazi German agents inside the United States. The operation was staged in June 1942 and was to be directed against strategic U.S. economic targets...
German saboteurs
Sabotage
Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening another entity through subversion, obstruction, disruption, or destruction. In a workplace setting, sabotage is the conscious withdrawal of efficiency generally directed at causing some change in workplace conditions. One who engages in sabotage is...
in the United States. Quirin has been cited as a precedent
Precedent
In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a legal case that a court or other judicial body may apply when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts...
for the trial by military commission of any unlawful combatant
Unlawful combatant
An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war. An unlawful combatant may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.The Geneva Conventions apply in wars...
against the United States.
It was argued July 29 and July 30, 1942 and decided July 31, 1942 with an extended opinion filed October 29, 1942.
This decision states:
Background
The eight men involved in the case were Ernest Peter Burger, George John DaschGeorge John Dasch
George John Dasch was a German spy and saboteur who landed on American soil during World War II. He helped to destroy Nazi Germany’s espionage program in the United States by defecting to the American cause, but was tried and convicted of treason and espionage.-Early life:Georg Johann Dasch was...
, Herbert Hans Haupt
Herbert Hans Haupt
Herbert Hans Haupt was a German-American United States citizen with dual nationality who was executed as an enemy agent for Nazi Germany during World War II.-Early life:...
, Heinrich Heinck, Edward Kerling, Herman Neubauer, Richard Quirin
Richard Quirin
Richard Quirin was a German-American executed as an enemy agent for the Germans in World War II. He was one of eight agents involved in Operation Pastorius, and gave his name to the Supreme Court decision on the trial, Ex parte Quirin.-Early life:Born in Berlin, Germany in 1908, Quirin moved to...
and Werner Thiel. Haupt was a U.S. citizen. (317 U.S. 1)
All were born in Germany and all had lived in the United States. All returned to Germany between 1933 and 1941. After the declaration of war between the United States and the German Reich, they received training at a sabotage school near Berlin
Berlin
Berlin is the capital city of Germany and is one of the 16 states of Germany. With a population of 3.45 million people, Berlin is Germany's largest city. It is the second most populous city proper and the seventh most populous urban area in the European Union...
, where they were instructed in the use of explosives and in methods of secret writing.
Burger, Dasch, Heinck and Quirin traveled from occupied France
Vichy France
Vichy France, Vichy Regime, or Vichy Government, are common terms used to describe the government of France that collaborated with the Axis powers from July 1940 to August 1944. This government succeeded the Third Republic and preceded the Provisional Government of the French Republic...
by German submarine U-202
U-boat
U-boat is the anglicized version of the German word U-Boot , itself an abbreviation of Unterseeboot , and refers to military submarines operated by Germany, particularly in World War I and World War II...
to Amagansett Beach
Amagansett, New York
Amagansett is a census-designated place that roughly corresponds to the hamlet by the same name in the town of East Hampton in Suffolk County, New York on the South Shore of Long Island. As of the United States 2000 Census, the CDP population was 1,067. Amagansett hamlet was founded in 1680.The...
, Long Island
Long Island
Long Island is an island located in the southeast part of the U.S. state of New York, just east of Manhattan. Stretching northeast into the Atlantic Ocean, Long Island contains four counties, two of which are boroughs of New York City , and two of which are mainly suburban...
, New York
New York
New York is a state in the Northeastern region of the United States. It is the nation's third most populous state. New York is bordered by New Jersey and Pennsylvania to the south, and by Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont to the east...
, landing in the hours of darkness, on or about June 13, 1942. The remaining four boarded German submarine U-584 which carried them from France to Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
Ponte Vedra Beach is an unincorporated seaside community in St. Johns County, Florida, United States. Located eighteen miles southeast of downtown Jacksonville and north of St. Augustine, it is part of the Jacksonville Beaches area. It is an upmarket tourist resort area best known for its...
. On or about June 17, 1942, they came ashore during the hours of darkness. All eight wore full or partial German uniforms, to ensure treatment as prisoners of war should they be captured on landing. The Long Island group was noticed by Coast Guard beach patrolman John C. Cullen, whom the saboteurs attempted to bribe with $260. Cullen returned to his station and sounded the alarm. The two groups promptly disposed of uniforms and proceeded in civilian dress to New York City
New York City
New York is the most populous city in the United States and the center of the New York Metropolitan Area, one of the most populous metropolitan areas in the world. New York exerts a significant impact upon global commerce, finance, media, art, fashion, research, technology, education, and...
and Jacksonville, Florida
Jacksonville, Florida
Jacksonville is the largest city in the U.S. state of Florida in terms of both population and land area, and the largest city by area in the contiguous United States. It is the county seat of Duval County, with which the city government consolidated in 1968...
, respectively, and from there to other points in the United States. All had received instructions in Germany from an officer of the German High Command to destroy war industries and war facilities in the United States, for which they or their relatives in Germany were to receive salary payments from the German Government.
Upon landing, Dasch and Burger turned themselves in to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Bureau of Investigation
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is an agency of the United States Department of Justice that serves as both a federal criminal investigative body and an internal intelligence agency . The FBI has investigative jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal crime...
with some difficulty, since the FBI did not believe them immediately. They convinced the FBI that they were telling the truth and the remaining six were taken into custody in New York and Chicago, Illinois by FBI agents. The FBI had no leads until Dasch gave his exaggerated and romanticized version in Washington DC.
Military tribunal
PresidentPresident of the United States
The President of the United States of America is the head of state and head of government of the United States. The president leads the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces....
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Franklin Delano Roosevelt , also known by his initials, FDR, was the 32nd President of the United States and a central figure in world events during the mid-20th century, leading the United States during a time of worldwide economic crisis and world war...
convened a secret military tribunal on July 2, 1942 which sentenced the eight men to death. The President later commuted the death sentence of Dasch to 30 years and the sentence of Burger to life in prison, as they had both confessed and assisted in capturing the others. Indeed, it was Dasch who approached the FBI, offering to turn the men in, which he then did. Burger was part of the plot to turn on the others and cooperated with the FBI extensively. Though all of the men confessed and gave full statements, the remaining six were executed by electrocution
Electric chair
Execution by electrocution, usually performed using an electric chair, is an execution method originating in the United States in which the condemned person is strapped to a specially built wooden chair and electrocuted through electrodes placed on the body...
on August 8, 1942 in Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C., formally the District of Columbia and commonly referred to as Washington, "the District", or simply D.C., is the capital of the United States. On July 16, 1790, the United States Congress approved the creation of a permanent national capital as permitted by the U.S. Constitution....
Dasch and Burger were released from prison in 1948 and deported to Germany. Dasch spent the remaining years of his life trying to return to the U.S. One time, a visa application was sent to J. Edgar Hoover by the State Department on Dasch's behalf. Hoover stated that the idea of giving Dasch a visa was "outrageous" and promptly denied it. Dasch died - still in Germany - in 1992.
Supreme Court decision
The Supreme Court had issued its decision on July 31, 1942, but did not release a full opinion until October 29, 1942.Decision controversy
Although the court issued a unanimous opinion in Quirin, the road to the final decision was marked by disagreement. Justice DouglasWilliam O. Douglas
William Orville Douglas was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. With a term lasting 36 years and 209 days, he is the longest-serving justice in the history of the Supreme Court...
wrote that it was unfortunate that the court agreed to take the case. He stated that “while it was easy to agree on the original per curiam, we almost fell apart when it came to write the views." Chief Justice Stone, for his part, was very concerned with the court’s reputation, specifically because he did not want the court to be perceived as just standing by while six men were executed. He pushed for a unanimous opinion. Despite Stone’s views, Justice Robert H. Jackson
Robert H. Jackson
Robert Houghwout Jackson was United States Attorney General and an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court . He was also the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials...
wrote a concurring draft opinion, expressing his disagreement with portions of the Court’s opinion. Over time, his concurring draft got longer and longer and evolved into a typewritten memorandum. This memorandum was written two years before his dissent in Korematsu v. United States
Korematsu v. United States
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II....
and a decade before his famous concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, , also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article...
. It provides insight into Jackson’s views on the scope of the President's constitutional war powers.
The controversy has been revived, and has had legal implications during the War on Terror
War on Terror
The War on Terror is a term commonly applied to an international military campaign led by the United States and the United Kingdom with the support of other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as well as non-NATO countries...
of the 2000s.
Justice Jackson's draft opinion
In his draft opinion, Jackson attributed sweeping powers to the President. He concluded that (1) the President has the inherent authority to create military tribunals, (2) this authority could not be regulated by Congress, and (3) this power was by virtue of his power as Commander-in-Chief.Jackson stated, "I think the Court's decision of the question whether it complied with the Articles of War
Articles of War
The Articles of War are a set of regulations drawn up to govern the conduct of a country's military and naval forces. The phrase was first used in 1637 in Robert Monro's His expedition with the worthy Scots regiment called Mac-keyes regiment etc. and can be used to refer to military law in general...
is uncalled for. The history and the language of the Articles are to me a plain demonstration that they are clearly inapplicable to this case and it is abundantly clear to me that it is well within the war powers of the President to create a non-statutory military tribunal of the sort here in question." He further wrote "The right to convene such an advisory committee of his staff as a 'military commission' for the discharge of his duties toward prisoners of war is one that follows from his position as commander in chief." Nonetheless, Jackson maintained that the President's power should be "discharged, of course, in the light of any obligation undertaken by our country under treaties or conventions or under customs and usages so generally accepted as to constitute the laws of warfare."
More importantly, Jackson also questioned the Court's ability to review the President's actions. He concluded that dealing with enemy prisoners of war was a foreign policy issue that touched upon issues of national security and political questions that were wholly out of the province of the judiciary. Jackson also stated that granting enemy combatants individual rights against military authorities would not be reciprocated in other countries.
Jackson analyzed both the history and purposes of the Articles of War to conclude that the Articles are not applicable to enemy combatants — rather, they were meant to protect U.S. civilians in times of military government. Although it would seem that his draft opinion is at odds with his later views of the President's war powers, specifically in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, , also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article...
in which he interpreted Congress's ability to restrict the President's powers rather generously, there are substantive differences between the two cases. Youngstown concerned an exercise of presidential power in a domestic matter against civilians in an undeclared war. It was very different from the scenario present in Quirin, in which the President seized enemy combatants and did not address the internal functioning of the government.
In Quirin, Jackson ultimately believed it was a mistake for the Court to review military judgments in times of war and he solidified this position in his dissent in Korematsu v. United States
Korematsu v. United States
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II....
. In that case, he stated "in the very nature of things military decisions are not susceptible of intelligent judicial appraisal." His dissent in Korematsu makes clear his belief that that bringing military orders under the protection of the Constitution would be a dangerous precedent and that the court should not execute nor review military orders. He was afraid that the "emergency that justified the classification (in Korematsu) would eventually be forgotten, leaving the constitutionality of the classification as the lesson of the case." Jackson believed the court would never be able to perform its duty if it joined the executive in making constitutional shortcuts.
In the end, Justice Jackson withdrew his concurring opinion, perhaps in response to Justice Stone, or perhaps in response to Justice Felix Frankfurter
Felix Frankfurter
Felix Frankfurter was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.-Early life:Frankfurter was born into a Jewish family on November 15, 1882, in Vienna, Austria, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in Europe. He was the third of six children of Leopold and Emma Frankfurter...
's Soliloquy. The Soliloquy was a bizarre memo addressed to the saboteurs in which Frankfurter urged the court to issue a single opinion. Regardless of why he chose to withdraw the opinion, his memorandum offers insight into an issue which divided the Court and remains divisive today.
Guantanamo Bay cases
In the days after the Military Order on November 13, 2001 to try suspected terrorists, and particularly those detained at Guantanamo Bay, in Military Commissions, Ex Parte Quirin was frequently cited as the legal basis for the Order. Upon the capture of the Quirin saboteurs, President Roosevelt issued an Executive Order, upon which the BushGeorge W. Bush
George Walker Bush is an American politician who served as the 43rd President of the United States, from 2001 to 2009. Before that, he was the 46th Governor of Texas, having served from 1995 to 2000....
Order was putatively modeled, which authorized military commissions to try the captives for, among other things, violations of the law of war, for providing the enemy with intelligence
Intelligence
Intelligence has been defined in different ways, including the abilities for abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, planning, emotional intelligence and problem solving....
and spying.
Quirin held extant legislation authorized the use of Military Commissions for the types of offenses in question. While in Quirin there was public law passed with the title "declaration of war
Declaration of war
A declaration of war is a formal act by which one nation goes to war against another. The declaration is a performative speech act by an authorized party of a national government in order to create a state of war between two or more states.The legality of who is competent to declare war varies...
" and three Articles (15, 81 and 82) of the Articles of War, President Bush's claim relies on a congressional Joint Resolution
Joint resolution
In the United States Congress, a joint resolution is a legislative measure that requires approval by the Senate and the House and is presented to the President for his/her approval or disapproval, in exactly the same case as a bill....
used as a formal declaration of war (which has no precise legal definition in the US) under the War Powers Resolution
War Powers Resolution
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the...
, and two provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
Uniform Code of Military Justice
The Uniform Code of Military Justice , is the foundation of military law in the United States. It is was established by the United States Congress in accordance with the authority given by the United States Constitution in Article I, Section 8, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power . ....
, the successor to the Article of War.
The validity of this case as a basis for use of military tribunals in the War on Terrorism
War on Terrorism
The War on Terror is a term commonly applied to an international military campaign led by the United States and the United Kingdom with the support of other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as well as non-NATO countries...
as permitted by the Geneva Conventions
Geneva Conventions
The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of the victims of war...
has been disputed. A report by the American Bar Association
American Bar Association
The American Bar Association , founded August 21, 1878, is a voluntary bar association of lawyers and law students, which is not specific to any jurisdiction in the United States. The ABA's most important stated activities are the setting of academic standards for law schools, and the formulation...
commenting on this case, states:
- The Quirin case, however, does not stand for the proposition that detainees may be held incommunicado and denied access to counsel; the defendants in Quirin were able to seek review and they were represented by counsel. In Quirin, "The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners for trial by Military Commission ... is in conformity with the laws and Constitution of the United States." Quirin, 317 U.S. at 18. Since the Supreme Court has decided that even enemy aliens not lawfully within the United States are entitled to review under the circumstances of Quirin, that right could hardly be denied to U.S. citizens and other persons lawfully present in the United States, especially when held without any charges at all.
Since the 1942 Quirin case, the U.S. signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions
Geneva Conventions
The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of the victims of war...
, which were thus considered to be a part of U.S. municipal law, in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of the United States (the Supremacy Clause
Supremacy Clause
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S...
). In addition the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated this premise, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military...
, by ruling that Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions applies to detainees in the War on Terror, and that the Military Tribunals
Guantanamo military commission
The Guantanamo military commissions are military tribunals created by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 for prosecuting detainees held in the United States Guantanamo Bay detainment camps.- History :...
used to try these suspects were in violation of US and international law. In response to Hamdan, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006
Military Commissions Act of 2006
The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, also known as HR-6166, was an Act of Congress signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. Drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v...
, which President Bush signed into law on October 17, 2006. The Act's stated purpose was "To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes." The Act explicitly forbids the invocation of Geneva when executing the writ of habeas corpus or in other civil actions.
See also
- Ex parte MilliganEx parte MilliganEx parte Milligan, , was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that the application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional. It was also controversial because it was one of the first cases after the end of the American Civil...
- Hamdi v. RumsfeldHamdi v. RumsfeldHamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 was a U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant." The Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy...
- Hamdan v. RumsfeldHamdan v. RumsfeldHamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military...
- George John DaschGeorge John DaschGeorge John Dasch was a German spy and saboteur who landed on American soil during World War II. He helped to destroy Nazi Germany’s espionage program in the United States by defecting to the American cause, but was tried and convicted of treason and espionage.-Early life:Georg Johann Dasch was...
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 317
External links
- Ex parte Quirin, U.S. Supreme Court Decision (1942)
- Story of Herbert Haupt
- The Facts Don't Matter An hour-long This American Life radio episode (original air date 3/12/2004) about the events leading up to Ex parte Quirin
- Homefront Confrontational: How the War on Terror Affects Access to Information and the Publics Right to Know a report issued by the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press
- Fisher, Louis. Nazi Saboteurs on Trial: A Military Tribunal and American Law. 2nd ed. University Press of Kansas (2005)
- Nazi Saboteur Tribunal Transcript
- Abella, AlexAlex AbellaAlex Abella is an American author and journalist best known for his non-fiction works Soldiers of Reason: The RAND Corporation and the Rise of the American Empire and Shadow Enemies: Hitler's Secret Terrorist Plot Against the United States .-Early life:Abella was born in Cuba in 1950...
& Gordon, Scott, Shadow Enemies: Hitler's Secret Terrorist Plot Against the United States, Guilford, CT: Lyons Press, 2002. ISBN 1-58574-722-X - Rachlis, Eugene, They Came to Kill: The Story of Eight Nazi Saboteurs in America, New York: Random House, 1961.