Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/339/763/case.html
Timestamp: 2017-02-27 02:31:33
Document Index: 275031931

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2243', '§ 903', '§ 21', '§ 241', '§ 8', '§ 2', '§ 126']

Johnson v. Eisentrager (full text) :: 339 U.S. 763 (1950) :: Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center Log In
› Johnson v. Eisentrager
Johnson v. Eisentrager 339 U.S. 763 (1950)
U.S. Supreme CourtJohnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950)Johnson v. EisentragerNo. 306Argued April 17, 1950Decided June 5, 1950339 U.S. 763CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
(f) Article 63 of the Geneva Convention, requiring trial of prisoners of war "by the same courts and according to the same Page 339 U. S. 765 procedure as in the case of persons belonging to the armed forces of the detaining Power," is likewise inapplicable to trials for war crimes committed before capture. P. 339 U. S. 790.
Twenty-one German nationals petitioned the District Court of the District of Columbia for writs of habeas corpus. They alleged that, prior to May 8, 1945, they were in service of German armed forces in China. They amended to allege that their employment there was by civilian agencies of the German Government. Their exact affiliation is disputed, and, for our purposes, immaterial. On May 8, 1945, the German High Command Page 339 U. S. 766 executed an act of unconditional surrender, expressly obligating all forces under German control at once to cease active hostilities. These prisoners have been convicted of violating laws of war by engaging in, permitting, or ordering continued military activity against the United States after surrender of Germany and before surrender of Japan. Their hostile operations consisted principally of collecting and furnishing intelligence concerning American forces and their movements to the Japanese armed forces. They, with six others who were acquitted, were taken into custody by the United States Army after the Japanese surrender, and were tried and convicted by a Military Commission constituted by our Commanding General at Nanking by delegation from the Commanding General, United States Forces, China Theater, pursuant to authority specifically granted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States. The Commission sat in China, with express consent of the Chinese Government. The proceeding was conducted wholly under American auspices, and involved no international participation. After conviction, the sentences were duly reviewed and, with immaterial modification, approved by military reviewing authority.
The petition alleges, and respondents denied, that the jailer is subject to their direction. The Court of Appeals assumed, and we do likewise, that, while prisoners are Page 339 U. S. 767 in immediate physical custody of an officer or officers not parties to the proceeding, respondents named in the petition have lawful authority to effect that release.
The obvious importance of these holdings to both judicial administration and military operations impelled us to grant certiorari. 338 U.S. 877. The case is before us only on issues of law. The writ of habeas corpus must be granted "unless it appears from the application" that the applicants are not entitled to it. 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Page 339 U. S. 768
Modern American law has come a long way since the time when outbreak of war made every enemy national Page 339 U. S. 769 an outlaw, subject to both public and private slaughter, cruelty, and plunder. But even by the most magnanimous view, our law does not abolish inherent distinctions recognized throughout the civilized world between citizens and aliens, nor between aliens of friendly and of enemy allegiance, [Footnote 2] nor between resident enemy aliens who have submitted themselves to our laws and nonresident enemy aliens who at all times have remained with, and adhered to, enemy governments.
With the citizen we are now little concerned, except to set his case apart as untouched by this decision and to take measure of the difference between his status and that of all categories of aliens. Citizenship as a head of jurisdiction and a ground of protection was old when Paul invoked it in his appeal to Caesar. The years have not destroyed nor diminished the importance of citizenship, nor have they sapped the vitality of a citizen's claims upon his government for protection. If a person's claim to United States citizenship is denied by any official, Congress has directed our courts to entertain his action to declare him to be a citizen "regardless of whether he is within the United States or abroad." 54 Stat. 1171, 8 U.S.C. § 903. This Court long ago extended habeas corpus to one seeking admission to the country to assure fair hearing of his claims to citizenship, Chin Yow v. Page 339 U. S. 770 United States, 208 U. S. 8, and has secured citizenship against forfeiture by involuntary formal acts, Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325. [Footnote 3] Because the Government's obligation of protection is correlative with the duty of loyal support inherent in the citizen's allegiance, Congress has directed the President to exert the full diplomatic and political power of the United States on behalf of any citizen, but of no other, in jeopardy abroad. When any citizen is deprived of his liberty by any foreign government, it is made the duty of the President to demand the reasons and, if the detention appears wrongful, to use means not amounting to acts of war to effectuate his release. [Footnote 4] It is neither sentimentality nor chauvinism to repeat that "Citizenship is a high privilege." United States v. Manzi, 276 U. S. 463, 276 U. S. 467.
The alien, to whom the United States has been traditionally hospitable, has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society. Mere lawful presence in the country creates an implied assurance of safe conduct and gives him certain rights; they become more extensive and secure when he makes preliminary declaration of intention to become a citizen, and they expand to those of full citizenship upon naturalization. During his probationary residence, Page 339 U. S. 771 this Court has steadily enlarged his right against Executive deportation except upon full and fair hearing. The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86; Low Wah Suey v. Backus, 225 U. S. 460; Tisi v. Tod, 264 U. S. 131; United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Comm'r, 273 U. S. 103; Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U. S. 135; Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33. And, at least since 1886, we have extended to the person and property of resident aliens important constitutional guaranties -- such as the due process of law of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356.
It is war that exposes the relative vulnerability of the alien's status. The security and protection enjoyed while the nation of his allegiance remains in amity with the United States are greatly impaired when his nation takes up arms against us. While his lot is far more humane Page 339 U. S. 772 and endurable than the experience of our citizens in some enemy lands, it is still not a happy one. But disabilities this country lays upon the alien who becomes also an enemy are imposed temporarily as an incident of war, and not as an incident of alienage. Judge Cardozo commented concerning this distinction: "Much of the obscurity which surrounds the rights of aliens has its origin in this confusion of diverse subjects." Techt v. Hughes, 229 N.Y. 222, 237, 128 N.E. 185, 189.
The Rapid, 8 Cranch 155, 12 U. S. 161. See also White v. Burnley, 20 How. 235, 61 U. S. 249. Lamar v. Browne, 92 U. S. 187, 92 U. S. 194. And this without regard to his individual sentiments or disposition. The Benito Estenger, 176 U. S. 568, 176 U. S. 571. The alien enemy is bound by an allegiance which commits him to lose no opportunity to forward the cause of our enemy; hence the United States, assuming him to be faithful to his allegiance, Page 339 U. S. 773 regards him as part of the enemy resources. It therefore takes measures to disable him from commission of hostile acts imputed as his intention because they are a duty to his sovereign.
The essential pattern for seasonable Executive constraint of enemy aliens, not on the basis of individual prepossessions for their native land, but on the basis of political and legal relations to the enemy government, was laid down in the very earliest days of the Republic and has endured to this day. It was established by the Alien Enemy Act of 1798. 1 Stat. 577, as amended, 50 U.S.C. § 21. And it is to be noted that, while the Alien and Sedition Acts of that year provoked a reaction which helped sweep the party of Mr. Jefferson into power in 1800, and though his party proceeded to undo what was regarded as the mischievous legislation of the Federalists, Page 339 U. S. 774 this enactment was never repealed. [Footnote 6] Executive power over enemy aliens, undelayed and unhampered by litigation, has been deemed, throughout our history, essential to war-time security. This is in keeping with the practices of the most enlightened of nations, and has resulted in treatment of alien enemies more considerate than that Page 339 U. S. 775 which has prevailed among any of our enemies and some of our allies. This statute was enacted or suffered to continue by men who helped found the Republic and formulate the Bill of Rights, and although it obviously denies enemy aliens the constitutional immunities of citizens, it seems not then to have been supposed that a nation's obligations to its foes could ever be put on a parity with those to its defenders.
The resident enemy alien is constitutionally subject to summary arrest, internment, and deportation whenever a "declared war" exists. Courts will entertain his plea for freedom from Executive custody only to ascertain the existence of a state of war and whether he is an alien enemy and so subject to the Alien Enemy Act. Once these jurisdictional elements have been determined, courts will not inquire into any other issue as to his internment. Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160. [Footnote 7] Page 339 U. S. 776
But the nonresident enemy alien, especially one who has remained in the service of the enemy, does not have been this qualified access to our courts, for he neither has comparable claims upon our institutions nor could his use of them fail to be helpful to the enemy. Our law on this subject first emerged about 1813, when the Supreme Court of the New York had occasion, in a series of cases, to examine the foremost authorities of the Continent and of England. It concluded the rule of the common law and the law of nations to be that alien enemies resident in the country of the enemy could not maintain an action in its courts during the period of hostilities. Bell v. Chapman, 10 Johns. 183; Jackson ex dem. Johnston v. Decker, 11 Page 339 U. S. 777 Johns. 418; Clarke v. Morey, 10 Johns. 69, 70, 74-75. This Court has recognized that rule, Caperton v. Bowyer, 14 Wall. 216, 81 U. S. 236; Masterson v. Howard, 18 Wall. 99, 85 U. S. 105, and followed it, Ex parte Colonna, 314 U. S. 510, and it continues to be the law throughout this country and in England. [Footnote 8]
We have pointed out that the privilege of litigation has been extended to aliens, whether friendly or enemy, only because permitting their presence in the country implied Page 339 U. S. 778 protection. No such basis can be invoked here, for these prisoners at no relevant time were within any territory over which the United States is sovereign, and the scenes of their offense, their capture, their trial and their punishment were all beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any court of the United States.
A basic consideration in habeas corpus practice is that the prisoner will be produced before the court. This is the crux of the statutory scheme established by the Congress; [Footnote 9] indeed, it is inherent in the very term "habeas corpus." [Footnote 10] And though production of the prisoner may be dispensed with where it appears on the face of the application that no cause for granting the writ exists, Walker v. Johnston, 312 U. S. 275, 312 U. S. 284, we have consistently adhered to and recognized the general rule. Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U. S. 188, 335 U. S. 190-191. To grant the Page 339 U. S. 779 writ to these prisoners might mean that our army must transport them across the seas for hearing. This would require allocation of shipping space, guarding personnel, billeting, and rations. It might also require transportation for whatever witnesses the prisoners desired to call, as well as transportation for those necessary to defend legality of the sentence. The writ, since it is held to be a matter of right, would be equally available to enemies during active hostilities as in the present twilight between war and peace. Such trials would hamper the war effort, and bring aid and comfort to the enemy. They would diminish the prestige of our commanders not only with enemies, but with wavering neutrals. It would be difficult to devise more effective fettering of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his own civil courts and divert his efforts and attention from the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home. Nor is it unlikely that the result of such enemy litigiousness would be a conflict between judicial and military opinion highly comforting to enemies of the United States.
The prisoners rely, however, upon two decisions of this Court to get them over the threshold -- Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, and In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1. Reliance on the Quirin case is clearly mistaken. Those prisoners were in custody in the District of Columbia. One was, or Page 339 U. S. 780 claimed to be, a citizen. They were tried by a Military Commission sitting in the District of Columbia at a time when civil courts were open and functioning normally. They were arrested by civil authorities, and the prosecution was personally directed by the Attorney General, a civilian prosecutor, for acts committed in the United States. They waived arraignment before a civil court, and it was contended that the civil courts thereby acquired jurisdiction, and could not be ousted by the Military. None of the places where they were acting, arrested, tried, or imprisoned was, it was contended, in a zone of active military operations, was not under martial law or any other military control, and no circumstances justified transferring them from civil to military jurisdiction. None of these grave grounds for challenging military jurisdiction can be urged in the case now before us.
Despite this, the doors of our courts have not been summarily closed upon these prisoners. Three courts have considered their application and have provided their counsel opportunity to advance every argument in their Page 339 U. S. 781 support and to show some reason in the petition why they should not be subject to the usual disabilities of nonresident enemy aliens. This is the same preliminary hearing as to sufficiency of application that was extended in Quirin, supra, Yamashita, supra, and Hirota v. MacArthur, 338 U. S. 197. After hearing all contentions they have seen fit to advance and considering every contention we can base on their application and the holdings below, we arrive at the same conclusion the Court reached in each of those cases, viz.: that no right to the writ of habeas corpus appears.
"First. The Fifth Amendment, by its terms, applies to 'any person.' Second. Action of Government officials in violation of the Constitution is void. This is the ultimate essence of the present controversy. Third. A basic and inherent function of the judicial branch of a government built upon a constitution is to set aside void action by government officials, and so to restrict executive action to the confines of the constitution. In our jurisprudence, no Government action which is void under the Constitution is exempt from judicial power. Fourth. The writ Page 339 U. S. 782 of habeas corpus is the established, time-honored process in our law for testing the authority of one who deprives another of his liberty -- 'the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom.' . . ."
And if the Fifth be held to embrace these prisoners because it uses the inclusive term "no person," the Sixth must, for it applies to all "accused." No suggestion is advanced by the court below or by prisoners of any constitutional Page 339 U. S. 783 method by which any violations of the laws of war endangering the United States forces could be reached or punished, if it were not by a Military Commission in the theater where the offense was committed.
If this Amendment invests enemy aliens in unlawful hostile action against us with immunity from military trial, it puts them in a more protected position than our own soldiers. American citizens conscripted into the military service are thereby stripped of their Fifth Amendment rights, and, as members of the military establishment, are subject to its discipline, including military trials for offenses against aliens or Americans. Cf. Humphrey v. Smith, 336 U. S. 695; Wade v. Hunter, 336 U. S. 684. Can there be any doubt that our foes would also have been excepted but for the assumption "any person" would never be read to include those in arms against us? It would be a paradox indeed if what the Amendment denied to Americans it guaranteed to enemies. And, of course, it cannot be claimed that such shelter is due them as a matter of comity for any reciprocal rights conferred by enemy governments on American soldiers. [Footnote 11] Page 339 U. S. 784
Such extraterritorial application of organic law would have been so significant an innovation in the practice of governments that, if intended or apprehended, it could scarcely have failed to excite contemporary comment. Not one word can be cited. No decision of this Court supports such a view. Cf. 182 U. S. Bidwell, 182 U.S. Page 339 U. S. 785 244. None of the learned commentators on our Constitution has ever hinted at it. The practice of every modern government is opposed to it.
"(b) In the absence of hostilities, martial law, or American military occupation of China, and in view of treaties between the United States and China Page 339 U. S. 786 dated February 4, 1943, and May 4, 1943, and between Germany and China, dated May 18, 1921, the Military Commission was without jurisdiction."
"If the military tribunals have lawful authority to hear, decide, and condemn, their action is not subject to judicial review merely because they have made a wrong decision on disputed Page 339 U. S. 787 facts. Correction of their errors of decision is not for the courts, but for the military authorities which are alone authorized to review their decisions."
Law of Nations, Page 339 U. S. 788 Book III, c. XVI, § 241. And so too, Lawrence, who says,
We can only read "(b)" to mean either that the presence of the military forces of the United States in China at the times in question was unconstitutional, or, if lawfully there, that they had no right under the Constitution to set up a Military Commission on Chinese territory. But it can hardly be meant that it was unconstitutional for the Government of the United States to wage a war in foreign parts. Among powers granted to Congress by the Constitution is power to provide for the common defense, to declare war, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, Art. I, § 8, Const. It also gives power to make rules concerning captures on land and water, ibid., which this Court has construed as an independent substantive power. Brown v. United States, 8 Cranch 110, 12 U. S. 126. Indeed, out of seventeen specific paragraphs of congressional power, eight of them are devoted in whole or in part to specification of powers connected with warfare. The first of the enumerated powers of the President is that he shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. Art. II, § 2, Const. And, of course, grant of war power includes all that is necessary and proper for carrying these powers into execution. Page 339 U. S. 789
The petition, however, makes two claims in the nature of procedural irregularities said to deprive the Military Commission of jurisdiction. One is that the United States was obliged to give the protecting power of Germany Page 339 U. S. 790 notice of the trial as specified in Article 60 of the Convention. This claim the Court has twice considered and twice rejected, holding that such notice is required only of proceedings for disciplinary offenses committed during captivity, and not in case of war crimes committed before capture. Ex parte Quirin, supra; Ex parte Yamashita, supra.
Since, in the present application, we find no basis for invoking federal judicial power in any district, we need Page 339 U. S. 791 not debate as to where, if the case were otherwise, the petition should be filed.
". . . In the primary meaning of the words, an alien friend is the subject of a foreign state at peace with the United States; an alien enemy is the subject of a foreign state at war with the United States. 1 Kent, Comm. p. 55; 2 Halleck, Int.L. (Rev.1908) p. 1; Hall, Int.Law (7th Ed.) p. 403, § 126; Baty & Morgan, 'War: Its Conduct and Legal Results,' p. 247; 1 Halsbury, Laws of England, p. 310; Sylvester's Case, 7 Mod. 150; The Roumanian, 1915, Prob.Div. 26; aff'd, 1916, 1 A.C. 124; Griswold v. Waddington, 16 Johns. 437 [438,] 448; White v. Burnley, 20 How. 235, 61 U. S. 249; The Benito Estenger, 176 U. S. 568, 176 U. S. 571; Kershaw v. Kelsey, 100 Mass. 561; so all the lexicographers, as, e.g., Webster, Murray, Abbott, Black, Bouvier. . . ."
". . . In 1798, the 5th Congress passed three acts in rapid succession, "An Act concerning Aliens," approved June 25, 1798 (1 Stat. 570), "An Act respecting Alien Enemies," approved July 6, 1798 (1 Stat. 577), and "An Act in addition to the act, entitled An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,'" approved July 14, 1798. [1 Stat. 596.] The first and last were the Alien and Sedition Acts, vigorously attacked in Congress and by the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions as unconstitutional. But the members of Congress who vigorously fought the Alien Act saw no objection to the Alien Enemy Act. [8 Annals of Cong. 2035 (5th Cong., 1798).] In fact, Albert Gallatin, who led that opposition, was emphatic in distinguishing between the two bills and in affirming the constitutional power of Congress over alien enemies as part of the power to declare war. [Id. at 1980.] James Madison was the author of the Virginia Resolutions, and, in his report to the Virginia House of Delegates the ensuing year after the deluge of controversy, he carefully and with some tartness asserted a distinction between alien members of a hostile nation and alien members of a friendly nation, disavowed any relation of the Resolutions to alien enemies, and declared," "With respect to alien enemies, no doubt has been intimated as to the federal authority over them; the Constitution having expressly delegated to Congress the power to declare war against any nation, and, of course, to treat it and all its members as enemies."
"The courts, in an unbroken line of cases from Fries' Case [Case of Fries, C.C.D.Pa.1799, 9 Fed.Cas. at pages 826, 830 et seq., No. 5,126], in 1799 to Schwarzkopf's case [United States ex rel. Schwarzkopf v. Uhl, 1943, 137 F.2d 898] in 1943, have asserted or assumed the validity of the Act and based numerous decisions upon the assumption. [Brown v. United States, 1814, 8 Cranch 110; De Lacey v. United States, 1918, 249 F. 625, L.R.A.1918E, 1011; Grahl v. United States, 1919, 261 F. 487; Lockington's Case, 1813, Brightly, N.P., Pa. 269, 283; Lockington v. Smith, C.C.D.Pa. 1817, 15 Fed.Cas. page 758, No. 8,448; Ex parte Graber, D.C.N.D.Ala.1918, 247 F. 882; Minotto v. Bradley, D.C.N.D.Ill.1918, 252 F. 600; Ex parte Fronklin, D.C.Miss.1918, 253 F. 984; Ex parte Risse, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1919, 257 F. 102; Ex parte Gilroy, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1919, 257 F. 110.] The judicial view has been without dissent."
This case tests the power of courts to exercise habeas corpus jurisdiction on behalf of aliens, imprisoned in Germany, under sentences imposed by the executive through military tribunals. The trial court held that, because the persons involved are imprisoned overseas, it had no territorial jurisdiction even to consider their petitions. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's dismissal on the ground that the judicial, rather than the executive, branch of government is vested with final authority to determine the legality of imprisonment for crime. 84 U.S.App.D.C. 396, 174 F.2d 961. This Court now affirms the District Court's dismissal. I agree with the Court of Appeals, and need add little to the Page 339 U. S. 792 cogent reasons given for its decision. The board reach of today's opinion, however, requires discussion.
First. In 339 U. S. the Court apparently bases its holding that the District Court was without jurisdiction on its own conclusion that the petition for habeas corpus failed to show facts authorizing the relief prayed for. But jurisdiction of a federal district court does not depend on whether the initial pleading sufficiently states a cause of action; if a court has jurisdiction of subject matter and parties, it should proceed to try the case, beginning with consideration of the pleadings. Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678, 327 U. S. 682-683; Ex parte Kawato, 317 U. S. 69, 317 U. S. 71. [Footnote 2/2] Therefore, 339 U. S. and lends no support whatever to the Court's holding that the District Court was without jurisdiction.
Moreover, the question of whether the petition showed on its face that these prisoners had violated the laws of war, even if it were relevant, is not properly before this Court. The trial court did not reach that question, because it concluded that their imprisonment outside its district barred it even from considering the petition; its doors were "summarily closed." And, in reversing, the Court of Appeals specifically rejected requests that it consider the sufficiency of the petition, properly remanding the cause to the District Court for that determination -- just as this Court did in the Hood and Kawato cases, supra. The Government's petition for certiorari here presented no question except that of jurisdiction, and neither party has argued, orally or in briefs, that this Court should pass on the sufficiency of the petition. Page 339 U. S. 793 To decide this unargued question under these circumstances seems an unwarranted and highly improper deviation from ordinary judicial procedure. At the very least, fairness requires that the Court hear argument on this point.
Despite these objections, the Court now proceeds to find a "war crime" in the fact that, after Germany had surrendered these prisoners gave certain information to Japanese military forces. I am not convinced that this unargued question is correctly decided. The petition alleges that, when the information was given, the accused were "under the control of the armed forces of the Japanese Empire," in Japanese-occupied territory. Whether obedience to commands of their Japanese superiors would, in itself, constitute "unlawful" belligerency in violation of the laws of war is not so simple a question as the Court assumes. The alleged circumstances, if proven, would place these Germans in much the same position as patriotic French, Dutch, or Norwegian soldiers who fought on with the British after their homelands officially surrendered to Nazi Germany. There is not the slightest intimation that the accused were spies, or engaged in cruelty, torture, or any conduct other than that which soldiers or civilians might properly perform when entangled in their country's war. It must be remembered that legitimate "acts of warfare," however murderous, do not justify criminal conviction. In Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 317 U. S. 30-31, we cautioned that military tribunals can punish only "unlawful" combatants; it is no "crime" to be a soldier. See also Dow v. Johnson, 100 U. S. 158, 100 U. S. 169; Ford v. Surget, 97 U. S. 594, 97 U. S. 605-606. Certainly decisions by the trial court and the Court of Appeals concerning applicability of that principle to these facts would be helpful, as would briefs and arguments by the adversary parties. It should not be decided by this Court now without that assistance, particularly since Page 339 U. S. 794 failure to remand deprives these petitioners of any right to meet alleged deficiencies by amending their petitions.
"[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 Page 339 U. S. 795 make such inquiry into the authority of the commission as may be made by habeas corpus."
If the opinion thus means, and it apparently does, that these petitioners are deprived of the privilege of habeas corpus solely because they were convicted and imprisoned overseas, the Court is adopting a broad and dangerous principle. The range of that principle is underlined by the argument of the Government brief that habeas corpus is not even available for American citizens convicted and imprisoned in Germany by American military tribunals. While the Court wisely disclaims any such necessary effect for its holding, rejection of the Government's argument is certainly made difficult by the logic of today's Page 339 U. S. 796 opinion. Conceivably, a majority may hereafter find citizenship a sufficient substitute for territorial jurisdiction, and thus permit courts to protect Americans from illegal sentences. But the Court's opinion inescapably denies courts power to afford the least bit of protection for any alien who is subject to our occupation government abroad, even if he is neither enemy nor belligerent, and even after peace is officially declared. [Footnote 2/3]
When a foreign enemy surrenders, the situation changes markedly. If our country decides to occupy conquered territory either temporarily or permanently, it assumes the problem of deciding how the subjugated people will be ruled, what laws will govern, who will promulgate them, and what governmental agency of ours will see that they are properly administered. This responsibility immediately raises questions concerning the extent to which our domestic laws, constitutional and statutory, are transplanted abroad. Probably no one would suggest, and certainly I would not, that this nation either must or should attempt to apply every constitutional Page 339 U. S. 797 provision of the Bill of Rights in controlling temporarily occupied countries. But that does not mean that the Constitution is wholly inapplicable in foreign territories that we occupy and govern. See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244.
Though the scope of habeas corpus review of military tribunal sentences is narrow, I think it should not be denied to these petitioners and others like them. We control that part of Germany we occupy. These prisoners were convicted by our own military tribunals under our own Articles of War, years after hostilities had ceased. However illegal their sentences might be, they can expect no relief from German courts or any other branch of the German Government we permit to function. Only our own courts can inquire into the legality of their imprisonment. Perhaps, as some nations believe, there is merit in leaving the administration of criminal laws Page 339 U. S. 798 to executive and military agencies completely free from judicial scrutiny. Our Constitution has emphatically expressed a contrary policy.
The Court indicates that not even today can a nonresident German or Japanese bring even a civil suit in American courts. With this restrictive philosophy compare Ex parte Kawato, 317 U. S. 69; See also McKenna v. Fisk, 1 How. 241, 42 U. S. 249.