![]() Its analysis? Why? What danger is the government worried about when it detains Hamdi? What is the administrative cost argument? What balance does the Court find? Does this mean right when the person is detained? What sort of evidence might have to be admitted? Is this unusual in an administrative hearing? Could the statute create a presumption in favor of the government'sĮvidence? What does this parallel in administrative law? When does the court say that the some evidence standard is appropriate? Is this predicate present in Hamdi? Does the court rule out using a military tribunal as the independent Did the court agree? What standard did the government urge the court to use to review theįactual basis of Hamdi's detention? What test did the court use? How does that work? What is Hamdi’s ‘‘private interest"? What does the court assume about the legality of detention as a basis for 507 (2004) What is the narrow issue before the court? Does the court find that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi’s detention? What question does this save the court from having to answer? Did the Court find that citizens could be held as foreign combatant? Did the court approve indefinite detention? What did the court set as an indicator of when the right to detain mightĮnd in this case? The government says it caught Hamdi in Afghanistan, that alone is proof he Tribunals in the wake of Hamdan? Hamdi v. What problems does this pose inįiguring out what Quirin means in the war on terror? What did Congress add to the traditional law allowing trials by military Imperfect war ends and who is a combatant. 1 (1942) Who are lawful combatants? Who are unlawful combatants? What is the classic example of an unlawful combatant? How does the legal treatment differ for lawful and unlawful combatants? Where did the court find the legal authority for the military tribunals? What courts are used for offenses by military personnel? What if the unlawful combatant is a US citizen? How did the court distinguish ex parte Milligan? Think about our discussions about the problems of deciding when an Statutory authority to detain was ended and the person must be released. Japanese migration.'" The court found in Endo that once the government had decided that aĭetained individual was a loyal citizen and eligible for release, their Primarily to the fact that the interior states would not accept an uncontrolled Ultimately developed into one of complete Federal supervision, was due That the evacuation program necessarily and Raids along the coast, or in advance thereof as preparation for a full scaleĪttack, would be eliminated. The interior, where the danger of action in concert during any attempted enemy ![]() That the Japanese population be removed from the coastal area and dispersed in Report to the Chief of Staff: 'Essentially, military necessity required only Kept under constant military surveillance.' As stated by General De Witt in his Maintenance of law and order unless evacuees brought into their States were Unsupervised relocation and some of the Governors refused to be responsible for 'Strong opposition was expressed to any type of OnĪpril 7, 1942, the Director of the Authority held a conference in Salt LakeĬity with various state and federal officials including the Governors of the Plans for taking care of the evacuees after their detention in the AssemblyĬenters, to which they were initially removed, remained to be determined. Internment camps and the system for granting leave to detained persons: "When compulsory evacuation from the West Coast was decided upon, ![]() 283 (1944) Endo is a fascinating case that explains the basis for the use of 214 (1944) Who was detained? Where were they detained? What if they were on the East Coast? What was the rationale for why they posed a danger to the US? Did subsequently declassified data support this claim? Can you think of other reasons the detention was important? What happened to the detainee's property? Did the United States Supreme Court say the detention was unconstitutional? Was it a unanimous opinion? Has it subsequently been overruled by the United States Supreme Court? Do you think it could happen again? Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. Chapter 26 - Military Detention Korematsu v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |