| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| US court rejects Guantanamo detainee’s appeal |
| 2017-10-18 |
| [DAWN] The US Supreme Court on Monday paved the way for a Guantanamo Bay detainee accused of being the criminal mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the guided-missile destroyer USS Cole in a Yemeni port to go on trial before an American war crimes military tribunal. The justices declined to hear an appeal by Saudi defendant Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who argues that the tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to conduct the trial. His lawyers said that because the United States was not engaged in "hostilities" with Al Qaeda, which carried out the bombing, at the time of the attack, his acts were not crimes of war. A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against him on a 2-1 vote in August 2016. His trial is due to be held at the Guantanamo Bay where he has been held since 2006. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #1 Yamashita vs Styer [No. L-129. December 19, 1945]TOMOYUKI YAMASHITA, petitioner, vs. WILHELM D. STYER, Commanding General,United States Army Forces, Western Pacific, respondent 1.HABEAS CORPUS; PRISONER OF WAR; IMPROPER WHEN RELEASE OFPETITIONER is NOT SOUGHT; DEGREE OF CONFINEMENT A MATTER OF MILITARY MEASURE. — A petition for habeas corpus is untenable when it seeks no discharge of petitioner from confinement but merely a restoration to his former status as a prisoner of war, to be interned, not confined. The relative difference as to the degree of confinement in such case is a matter of military measure, disciplinary in character, beyond the jurisdiction of civil courts. 2.PROHIBITION; CANNOT ISSUE AGAINST ONE NOT MADE PARTY RESPONDENT. — As the military commission is not made party respondent, although it may be acting,as alleged, without jurisdiction, no order may be issued requiring it to refrain from trying the petitioner. 3.ID.; JURISDICTION OF ClVIL COURTS OVER UNITED STATES ARMY DURINGSTATE OF WAR. — The civil courts have no jurisdiction over the United States Army before the state of war expires, and any attempt to exercise such jurisdiction would be considered as a violation of this country's faith, which this court should not bethe last to keep and uphold. 4.ID.; ID.; TERMINATION OF WAR. — War is not ended simply because hostilities have ceased. After cessation of armed hostilities, incidents of war may remain pending which should be disposed of as in time of war. "An important incident to aconduct of war is the adoption of measures by the military command not only to repel and defeat the enemies but to seize and subject to disciplinary measures those enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort have violated the law of war." |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2017-10-18 09:07 |