
	Where results make sense

Topic: Ex parte Quirin

	EX PARTE QUIRIN ET AL
		The law of war includes that part of the law of nations which prescribes for the conduct of war the status, rights and duties of enemy nations and of enemy individuals.
		Presentment by a grand jury and trial by a jury of the vicinage where the crime was committed were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution familiar parts of the machinery for criminal trials in the civil courts.
		From them the Court concluded that Milligan, not being a part of or associated with the armed forces of the enemy, was a non-belligerent, not subject to the law of war save as -- in circumstances found not there to be present, and not involved here -- martial law might be constitutionally established.
	www.uwosh.edu /greatideas/harris/QUIRIN.htm (12179 words)

	TAP: Web Feature: The Military Tribunal Debate:. by George P. Fletcher, Cass Sunstein, Laurence Tribe. March 5, 2002. (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-05)
		The key decision is Ex parte Quirin (1942), in which the Supreme Court upheld President Roosevelt's decision to use military commissions to try German saboteurs who had landed on Long Island.
		In arguing the contrary, Fletcher suggests that the Quirin Court allowed the defendants to be convicted for spying, not for violations of the laws of war.
		But trying terrorists by commission falls within Quirin's logic not because their crimes are "worse than spying" but because they similarly aim to kill by stealth in what is effectively a time of war.
	www.prospect.org /webfeatures/2002/03/fletcher-g-03-05.html (1764 words)

	Ex Parte Quirin (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-05)
		Similarly the Espionage Act of 1917, which authorizes trial in the district courts of certain offenses that tend to interfere with the prosecution of war, provides that nothing contained in the act 'shall be deemed to limit the jurisdiction of the general courts-martial, military commissions, or naval courts-martial'.
		Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 302, 304 S., 9 S.Ct. 77, 79; Savin, Petitioner, 131 U.S. 267, 277, 9 S.Ct. 699, 701; In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 594-59, 15 S.Ct. 900, 910, 911; United States v.
		The cases mentioned in the exception are not restricted to those involving offenses against the law of war alone, but extend to trial of all offenses, including crimes which were of the class traditionally triable by jury at common law.
	www.agh-attorneys.com /4_ex_parte_quirin.htm (7492 words)

	U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican - ALABAMA (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-05)
		Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. After World War II, President Truman agreed to use an International Military Tribunal to try major Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg.
		Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. Before we criticize the Department of Defenseâs procedures, we should wait until all the procedures are drafted and we have had an opportunity to review them.
		In Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the military commission without any reference to a consultation with Congress requirement.
	sessions.senate.gov /pressapp/record.cfm?id=179836 (2356 words)

	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
		Ex parte Quirin, the Supreme Court upheld the trial during World War II — a declared war — by military commission for war crimes of a person presumed to be a U.S. citizen.
		Quirin Court opined that Milligan, as a non-belligerent, was not subject to the law of war, and therefore not amenable to trial by a military commission.
		Quirin defendants were combatants, that is, members of the German armed forces, who sneaked behind enemy lines and shed their uniforms with the intent to commit sabotage against U.S. defense facilities.
	www.darleenclick.com /aba_task_force.htm (6465 words)

	Ex parte Quirin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 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.
		Justice Jackson wrote and circulated a dissent in Ex Parte Quirin, but it was not published, perhaps because it was deemed necessary for the Court to appear unanimous since the appellants had already been executed.
		Upon the capture of the Quirin saboteurs, President Roosevelt issued an Executive Order, upon which the Bush Order was putatively modeled, which authorized military commissions to try the captives for inter alia, violations of the law of war, for providing the enemy with intelligence and spying.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin (965 words)

	Christopher M. Evans, Terrorism on Trial: The President's Constitutional Authority to Order the Prosecution of ... (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-05)
		Quirin involved a petition for habeas corpus, filed by suspected German saboteurs captured within the United States during the Second World War, to challenge the constitutionality of their trial by military commission when the federal district courts were open and available.
		This statement, as applied to the facts in Quirin, meant that once the saboteurs had passed surreptitiously and in civilian clothing into the United States with the intent to commit hostile and warlike acts, they acquired the status of unlawful belligerents, even though they were apprehended before they could execute their scheme.
		Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 45-46 (1942) ("We hold only that those particular acts constitute an offense against the law of war which the Constitution authorizes to be tried by military commission.") (emphasis added).
	www.law.duke.edu /journals/dlj/articles/dlj51p1831.htm (9274 words)

	HLS Federalist Society \| Ex Parte - Panel 4: Freedom and Security (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-05)
		Ex Parte is a group weblog managed by the Harvard Federalist Society, a student organization of
		Ex Parte is written by its student members.
		A reading of the facts behind Quirin and Milligan hardly support the claim that one case was about a combatant and one was not, especially as applicable to the war on terrorism context.
	exparte.powerblogs.com /posts/1109442647.shtml (2980 words)

	[No title]
		COMMENTS ON EX PARTE QUIRIN Ex Parte Quirin was a very bad decision at the time it was handed down.
		The reason that I believe Quirin was a bad decision is that it represents a clear breech of the two most fundamental principles embodied in the Constitution: 1) the universality of rights, and 2) the separation of powers.
		To wit: 1) The decision in Ex Parte Quirin states: "It is unnecessary for present purposes to determine to what extent the President as Commander in Chief has constitutional power to create military commissions without the support of Congressional legislation.
	www.pegc.us /letters/quirin_analysis.txt (1174 words)

	05.03.10: Precedents for the Usa Patriot Act: Military Tribunals
		The second part of this statement is the justification for neglecting laws in wartime.
		The decision in Ex parte Quirin has been used by the George W. Bush administration to justify the imprisonment of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo naval base and in other jails on the United States mainland.
		The parts of his trial that included testimony on classified matters were held in camera, a practice that shows that civil courts as well as military tribunals can protect legitimate government interests for secrecy concerning matters of national security.
	www.yale.edu /ynhti/nationalcurriculum/units/2005/3/05.03.10.x.html (8737 words)

	EXPARTEQUIRIN (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-05)
		After the declaration of war between the United States and the German Reich, petitioners received training at a sabotage school near Berlin, Germany, where they were instructed in the use of explosives and in methods of secret writing.
		But this, as Article 12 provides, does not exclude from that class 'any other person who by the law of war is subject to trial by military tribunals' and who under Article 12 may be tried by court martial or under Article 15 by military commission....
		From the very beginning of its history this Court has recognized and applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for the conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals.
	www.homestead.com /prosites-prs/EXPARTEQUIRIN.html (3029 words)

	American Politics Journal -- A Rush to Judgment
		What is odd about this decision is that the court had previously addressed this manner, in another Ex Parte decision in 1866, when it maintained that enemy nationals could not be tried in military court if civilian courts were available.
		Ex Parte Quirin led to the conviction of the would-be saboteurs, and the hanging of six of them.
		One element that Rush left unstated in Ex Parte Quirin was that it specified that only foreign nationals invading our shore from countries with whom we were at war could be covered.
	www.americanpolitics.com /20011201Zepp.html (1036 words)

	Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2005)
		Among other things, the court held that Hamdan could not be tried by a military commission unless a competent tribunal determined that he was not a [*6] prisoner of war under the 1949 Geneva Convention governing the treatment of prisoners.
		Cox (1942), in which captured German saboteurs challenged the lawfulness of the military commission before which they were to be tried, provides a compelling historical precedent for the power of civilian courts to entertain challenges that seek to interrupt the processes of military commissions.
		He attempts to distinguish Quirin and Yamashita on the ground that the military commissions there were in "war zones" while Guantanamo is far removed from the battlefield.
	faculty.maxwell.syr.edu /tmkeck/Cases/HamdanvRumsfeld2005.htm (3858 words)

	NAZI SABOTEURS ON TRIAL: A MILITARY TRIBUNAL AND AMERICAN LAW
		(1942) upheld the chief executive's authority to create the military tribunal and distinguished the circumstances of the case from that of EX PARTE MILLIGAN (1866), where the Court determined that President Lincoln's use of a military tribunal to prosecute a U.S. citizen during the Civil War was unconstitutional.
		Fisher contends that the creation of the military tribunal by President Roosevelt in the German saboteurs incident was "deeply flawed" (p.172) and that the United States seems to be duplicating the mistakes that led to the expedient execution of most of the aforementioned participants.
		He clearly regards EX PARTE QUIRIN as a precedent not worth repeating, but one that must "be understood within the context of American constitutional law, the relations between Congress and the President, and the tradition of an independent judiciary" (p.175).
	www.bsos.umd.edu /gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/fisher-louis2.htm (1283 words)

	FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article II: Annotations pg. 9 of 18
		Such was the holding in Ex parte Grossman, 243 where Chief Justice Taft, speaking for the Court, resorted once more to English conceptions as being authoritative in construing this clause of the Constitution.
		In Ex parte Vallandigham, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 243 (1864), the Court had held while war was still flagrant that it had no power to review by certiorari the proceedings of a military commission ordered by a general officer of the Army, commanding a military department.
		[Footnote 238] Ex parte United States, 242 U.S. Amendment of sentence, however, within the same term of court, by shortening the term of imprisonment, although defendant had already been committed, is a judicial act and no infringement of the pardoning power.
	caselaw.lp.findlaw.com /data/constitution/article02/09.html (4189 words)

	Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties in Wartime
		Ex parte Quirin has since become the foundation of President George W. Bush's claim that the government has the right to hold "enemy combatants"--even Americans--indefinitely, without evidence, charge or trial.
		The Supreme Court, in Ex parte Quirin, distinguishes Milligan by saying the defendants in Quirin were in the German military but Milligan was a civilian.
		Terrorists are not members of an organized command structure with someone responsible for their actions; they do not wear a military uniform so that the other side can spare civilians without fear of counterattacks by disguised fighters; they do not carry arms openly; and there is no respect for the laws of war.
	www.heritage.org /Research/NationalSecurity/hl834.cfm (4599 words)

	USA Patriot Act - Interview: Louis Fisher
		And when the Supreme Court wrote the Ex Parte Quirin case they had some nice language there that says that the courts are there to protect individual rights in time of war, in time of peace.
		In the case of Ex Parte Quirin in 1942 right in the middle of the war the Supreme Court was not going to challenge a judgement by President Roosevelt even though the justices knew that President Roosevelt had violated a number of what are called the articles of war.
		Well part of the US constitution that has always been distinctive is to rely not on power concentrated in the executive or the king but rather in the deliberative process and a very sophisticated system of checks and balances the separation of powers so that power is not placed in the hands of one person.
	www.duncanentertainment.com /interview_fisher.php (7163 words)

	Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs: The dark history of a military tribunal
		The origins of Quirin can be traced to a 1941 plan called Operation Pastorius, which called for two teams of saboteurs to be put ashore by submarine to wreak havoc within the United States.
		Even if the court treats the war on terrorism as it would a war against a nation state, the court in Quirin expressly stated that it was not ruling on the question of whether the president could create tribunals without the authority of Congress.
		Quirin was previously viewed as a type of period piece of the Second World War, of more interest historically than legally.
	www.muhajabah.com /islamicblog/archives/the_clipboard/002131.php (2547 words)

	JURIST - Paust: Military Commissions - Some Perhaps Legal, But Most Unwise
		Additionally, the Court in Ex parte Quirin recognized that military commission decisions can be “set aside by the courts” when there is “clear conviction that they are in conflict with the Constitution or laws of Congress constitutionally enacted.”
		From his opinion, it appears that presidential power is tied to a war circumstance and law of war competencies such as the competence of an occupying power to set up a military commission to try violations of the laws of war.
		However, Ex parte Quirin involved a military commission set up within the United States, within the convening authority’s field of command, in that case, the President.
	jurist.law.pitt.edu /forum/forumnew38.htm (1135 words)

	EX PARTE QUIRIN
		By the Articles of War, and especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try offenders or offenses against the law of war in appropriate cases.
		Before the Amendments, §2 of Article III, the Judiciary Article, had provided: ‘The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury’, and had directed that ‘such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed’.
		From them the Court concluded that Milligan, not being a part of or associated with the armed forces of the enemy, was a non-belligerent, not subject to the law of war save as-in circumstances found not there to be present and not involved here-martial law might be constitutionally established.
	web.utk.edu /~scheb/Quirin.htm (4729 words)

	Surratt House Museum: Regarding the Case for Dr. Mudd
		The issue considered was whether a military tribunal had jurisdiction over Dr. Mudd in spite of the fact that he was a citizen of a non-secessionist state and not a member of either army, and that the civilian courts were open.
		Ex Parte Quirin speaks to law of war jurisdiction; "a military commission may try unlawful belligerents for law of war violations committed during a time of war even though they are citizens of the United States."
		The Court concluded that Dr. Samuel Mudd was charged with a law of war violation and that it was permissible for him to be tried before a military commission even though he was a United States and a Maryland citizen and the civilian courts were open at the time of his trial.
	www.surratt.org /mudd/muddverdicts.html (501 words)

	[No title]
		U.S. Supreme Court EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 87 L.Ed.
		Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 302, 304 S., 9 S.Ct. 77, 79; Savin, Petitioner, 131 U.S. 9 S.Ct. 699, 701; In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 594-596, 15 S.Ct. 900, 910, 911; United States v.
		Ex parte Mason, 105 U.S. 696; Kahn v.
	www.constitution.org /ussc/317-001a.txt (7442 words)

	EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
		Page 317 U.S. After the declaration of war between the United States and the German Reich, petitioners received training at a sabotage school near Berlin, Germany, where they were instructed in the use of explosives and in methods of secret writing.
		Page 317 U.S. III, the Judiciary Article, had provided: 'The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury', and had directed that 'such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed'.
		Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S., 304 S., 9 S.Ct. 77, 79; Savin, Petitioner, 131 U.S., 9 S.Ct. 699, 701; In re Debs, 158 U.S., 594-596, 15 S.Ct. 900, 910, 911; United States v.
	supreme.justia.com /us/317/1/index.html (7982 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)