Case brief #1
HLSC520_D02_201940 - 201940 FALL 2019 HLSC 520-D02 LUO
Case Brief 1 Tamika Bouldin on Sun, Nov 03 2019, 3:06 PM
80% highest match Submission ID: 1ed5cae8-d8e0-49dc-8817-615614c8f018
Citations (4/4)
Running head: 1 EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 2 1 (1942) 1
1 EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)
Word Count: 749
Attachment ID: 2296535519
ExParteQuirin317U.S.11942.doc
80%
1 Another student's paper
2 ProQuest Document
3 https://www.business- humanrights.org/fr/r%C3%A9sum%C3%A9-du- proc%C3%A8s-shell-nigeria-kiobel-wiwa
4 Another student's paper
11/10/19, 10:15 AM Page 1 of 5
5
1 EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)
Tamika S. Bouldin
Liberty University
Facts
During World War II, a group of eight German military professionals tried to interrupt with the American government by covertly landing German submarines on American shores. They intended to threaten the United States government by organizing sabotage mission. 1 UNDER THE ORDERS OF THE GERMAN HIGH COMMAND, THEY WERE COMMANDED TO ENTER THE U.S. AND TRY TO INTERFERE WITH THE U.S. WAR FACILITIES/ INDUSTRIES WITH THE POTENTIAL MONETARY GAIN BEING GIVEN UPON COMPLETION (1942). THESE MEN ENTER THE U.S. BORDERS THROUGH THE SUBMARINES AT NIGHTFALL AND LANDED ON THE COUNTRY’S SHORELINE. Upon successfully passing the United States bounders, they buried their uniform to hide their identity. These men had training on sabotage, explosive handling and secret writing, the training of a spy.
1 PROCEDURAL HISTORY THE DEFENDANTS, IN THIS CASE, FILED FOR HABEAS CORPUS WITH THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, AND THE COURT INITIALLY DENIED THAT PETITION. THE DEFENDANTS LATER FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE WITH THE CASE.
11/10/19, 10:15 AM Page 2 of 5
3 THE U.S. 1 COURT OF APPEALS RENDERS ITS DECISION ON THE CASE, THE DEFENDANTS ASKED FOR A HEARING WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, AND THE REQUEST WAS GRANTED. 4 THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT GAVE THEIR DECISION, AND IT WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS AUTHORIZED TO ORDER TRIED BEFORE A MILITARY COMMISSION. As such, the lower court was not involved in this case.
Issue
1 THE CONTENTIOUS QUESTION ASKED BY DEFENDANTS, IN THIS CASE, WAS THE DECISION OF THE PRESIDENT AND HIS RULING AUTHORITY TO HAVE THEIR CASE HEARD BY THE CREATED MILITARY TRIBUNAL INSTEAD OF HAVING THE CASE HEARD IN CIVIL COURT. The defendants, in this case, assumed that it was unconstitutional and violated their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights because they felt their case was not correctly handled. They wanted to argue that they were civilians and should not be held to a military tribunal. They also tried to argue they were US citizens.
Rule of Law The first rule by the court was to determine if the defendants committed offenses that were against the legal law of the United States. Also, the ruling was to assess if the military tribunal had the authority to act in case of the defendants if they were guilty, and if the trial violated the Constitution of the state while making its ruling. 1 THE SUPREME COURT WAS TASKED WITH UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS ARE DETAINED AND ARE PROSECUTED BY THE MILITARY COURTS BECAUSE OF ILLEGAL AND ILLEGAL BEHAVIORS (1942). CONVERSELY, LAWFUL COMBATANTS ARE CONSIDERED DETAINED PRISONERS OF WAR WHO ARE HELD BY
11/10/19, 10:15 AM Page 3 of 5
THE OPPOSING MILITARY COUNTRY. THEREFORE, THE DEFENDANTS WERE JUSTLY CATEGORIZED AS UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS. THE FINDINGS WERE THAT UNDER THE LAW, ENEMIES OF THE STATE WERE NOT GRANTED A COURT PRECEDING THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE MILITARY TRIBUNAL IF THEY AREN'T CITIZENS OF THAT COUNTRY.
APPLICATION ACCORDING TO THE ARTICLE OF WAR, IT WAS RESOLUTE THAT THE EIGHT GERMAN MEN WERE CHARGED BECAUSE THEY DID NOT FULFIL THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE TRIED UNDER THE CIVIL COURT. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS DETERMINATION IMPLIES THAT THESE MEN WERE NOT UNLAWFULLY CHARGED BY THE COURT OF TRIAL. HOWEVER, THESE MEN CLAIM THAT THEIR FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS WERE VIOLATED. BUT THIS DECISION WAS UPHELD BASED ON THE PROVISION TO THE ARTICLES OF WAR (1942). AS WELL, THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT PRESIDENT F. ROOSEVELT DID HAVE THE POWER OF AUTHORITY UNDER THE RULE OF LAW TO HAVE THE MEN TRIED IN A MILITARY COURT.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIVELY, THE COURT'S RULED THAT THE ACT OF THE PRESIDENT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL AND HE HAD THE RIGHT TO ORDER A TRIAL BY THE MILITARY'S TRIBUNAL. THE ORDER WAS DEEMED LAWFUL, AND THE ACTION WAS FOUNDED TO BE LEGAL. AS A RESULT, THE COURTS DENIED THE DEFENDANTS PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THIS CASE. I agree with this ruling because these unlawful combatants were from a military whom meant harm to the US and they should be held accountable. The training
11/10/19, 10:15 AM Page 4 of 5
they received meant that they were very capable of causing the US damage and that was their plan from the beginning. They may have lived in the US at some point but they agreed to work for the enemy, which was a conscious decision they made, therefore their clam to citizenship is irrelevant.
Reference:
2 EXPARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)
11/10/19, 10:15 AM Page 5 of 5