DOCSLIB.ORG

Ex Parte Quirin", the Nazi Saboteur Case Andrew Kent

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ex Parte Quirin Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 66 | Issue 1 Article 3 1-2013 Judicial Review for Enemy Fighters: The ourC t's Fateful Turn in "Ex parte Quirin", the Nazi Saboteur Case Andrew Kent Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Andrew Kent, Judicial Review for Enemy Fighters: The ourC t's Fateful Turn in "Ex parte Quirin", the Nazi Saboteur Case, 66 Vanderbilt Law Review 150 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol66/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Judicial Review for Enemy Fighters: The Court's Fateful Turn in Exparte Quirin, the Nazi Saboteur Case Andrew Kent 66 Vand. L. Rev. 153 (2013) The last decade has seen intense disputes about whether alleged terrorists captured during the nontraditional post- 9/11 conflict with al Qaeda and affiliated groups may use habeas corpus to challenge their military detention or military trials. It is time to take a step back from 9/11 and begin to evaluate the enemy combatant legal regime on a broader, more systemic basis, and to understand its application to future conflicts. A leading precedent ripe for reconsideration is Ex parte Quirin, a World War II-era case in which the Supreme Court held that saboteurs admittedly employed by an enemy nation's military had a right to access civilian courts during wartime to challenge their trial before a military commission. Even though admitted members of an enemy nation's military had never before accessed the civilian justice system during wartime, the Court in Quirin declined to explain why it reversed course in such a significant fashion. Since and because of Quirin, it has become accepted that literally any individual present in the United States has a constitutional right to habeas corpus. This Article first shows that on the legal merits, the Quirin Court's ruling on court access was erroneous. The history of lack of court access for enemy fighters and nonresident enemy aliens is reviewed, starting with the English common law background on which the U.S. Constitution was written and continuing through the Founding period to the Civil War, World War I, and beyond. Second, the Article seeks to explain why the Court acted in such a surprising fashion in Quirin-ruling in favor of unsympathetic enemies during wartime, even though case law and other legal authorities provided solid reasons to reject their plea for court access. To do so, the Article draws on a diverse set of explanatory tools, including those of legal history and political science. Next, the Article shows that Quirin's rejection of the old framework governing court access for enemy fighters and nonresident enemy aliens has had profound but underappreciated doctrinal consequences-including helping lead to the result in Boumediene v. Bush. The Article then argues that, as a policy matter, admitted or otherwise undisputed combatants in an enemy nation's employ do not need and probably should not have a right to access U.S. courts during wartime. Quirin was thus wrong on the law and highly problematic as policy. Finally, the Conclusion highlights both current and potential future situations in which the Article's legal analysis could be important. $@ Judicial Review for Enemy Fighters: The Court's Fateful Turn in Exparte Quirin, the Nazi Saboteur Case Andrew Kent* I. INTRODUCTION .................................... 154 II. BACKGROUND AND LITIGATION IN QUIRIN..... ............. 160 A. The Saboteurs ............................ 160 B. The Decision for a Military Commission.... ..... 162 C. The President'sProclamations ........... ..... 163 D. The Court's Two Decisions ................... 165 III. HABEAS LAW PRIOR TO 1942 ........... ............. 169 A. The Allegiance and Protection Framework ................ 176 B. English Law ................................... 178 C. American Reception and Application of the Common Law Rules ................ ........ 188 1. Court Access for Civilian Alien Friends and Enemies .........................188 2. Prisoners of War .............................193 D. The Civil War .............................. 196 E. The Spanish-American War and Filipino Insurrection .............................. 205 F. World War I............................... 206 * Associate Professor, Fordham Law School; Faculty Advisor, Center on National Security, Fordham Law School. This Article benefitted from workshops at Columbia, Georgetown, and Fordham Law Schools, and a meeting of the American Society of International Law's Interest Group on International Law in Domestic Courts, held in 2011 at Brigham Young University Law School, as well as from the generous comments of many other readers. In particular, thanks are due to Marc Arkin, David Danelski, Laura Donohue, Martin Flaherty, Abner Greene, Aziz Huq, Robert Kaczorowski, Joseph Landau, Marty Lederman, Thomas Lee, Ethan Leib, Peter Margulies, Henry Monaghan, Trevor Morrison, Julian Mortenson, David Pozen, Mike Ramsey, David Sloss, Paul Stephan, David Stewart, Ed Swaine, Joseph Sweeney, Adam Thurschwell, Carlos Vazquez, Steve Vladeck, Matt Waxman, Ben Wittes, and Benjamin Zipursky. Thanks also to Paul Halliday for a helpful discussion. 153 154 VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW [Vol. 66:1:153 1. Trading With the Enemy Act ....... ...... 206 2. Case Law and Commentary ........ ......... 208 a. Cases ConcerningEnemy Civilians ................. ..... 208 b. Prisonersof War ........... ..... 209 IV. THE OTHER 1942 DECISIONS ABOUT ALIEN ENEMY ACCESS TO CIVILIAN COURTS ......................... 211 A. Ex parte Colonna ...................... ...... 211 B. Ex parte Kawato ............................. 212 V. THE CASE OF HAUPT, THE U.S. CITIZEN.......... ...... 213 VI. EXPLAINING THE QUIRIN DECISION ............... ..... 215 A. The Justices'Backgrounds ..........................217 B. The Broader Legal Context ................... 219 C. The Politically Acceptable Scope of Judicial Review ..................... ............. 221 1. The President ..................................221 2. Public Opinion ............................. 223 D. Fearsof PresidentialDomination ....... ....... 225 1. Ideological, Political, and Institutional Contexts ........................225 2. The Executive's Mishandling of the Court Access Issue Raised Fears of Executive Overreaching ................. 229 E. Court Processes and Internal Dynamics.... ..... 232 VII. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COURT'S REVERSAL .... ...... 242 A. Quirin as a Precedent ...............................242 B. Quirin as Policy ........................... 248 VIII. CONCLUSION ................................ ...... 250 I. INTRODUCTION In 1942, in the middle of World War II, the Supreme Court entertained a habeas corpus petition filed by German military saboteurs who had been caught by the FBI after slipping into the United States and ordered by President Roosevelt to be put on trial for their lives before a hastily conceived military commission sitting in Washington, DC. The administration argued to the Supreme Court as a threshold matter that admitted members of an enemy's military who invaded the United States during wartime lacked any right to access civilian courts. On the merits, the government contended that the saboteurs had no substantive constitutional or statutory rights to be 2013] EX PARTE QUIRIN 155 free from military detention and trial. The proceedings before the Supreme Court were extraordinary. The Court received briefs two days after announcing it would hear the case and held argument that day and the next. Immediately afterward, the Court issued an exceptionally terse per curiam opinion, captioned Ex parte Quirin, stating that military jurisdiction was lawful and the trial could continue.' The saboteurs were subsequently found guilty by the military commission-the outcome was never in doubt, largely because of detailed confessions-and they were promptly executed or sentenced to long prison terms. Then for three months, the Supreme Court wrangled internally about how to justify its decision. Ultimately the Court issued a much longer opinion that rejected the government's first argument on access, holding that the saboteurs did have a right to habeas corpus review but, as prefigured by the per curiam, agreed with the government on the merits. Although the decision was generally applauded when issued and later was successfully invoked in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld to justify holding an American citizen captured in Afghanistan after 9/11 in military detention,2 modern scholarly accounts of Quirin by historians and constitutional lawyers have been positively scathing.3 Leading articles call Quirin a "troubling" and even "putrid" precedent and an "institutional defeat" for the Court.4 The conventional account is that a Court beholden to President Roosevelt-he had appointed eight of the nine justices and had close relationships with several-deferred too much to the executive because of wartime pressure and dislike for the saboteurs, and with undue haste blessed an illegal military commission process that executed six men after a quick and 1. Exparte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1942). 2. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 519 (2004) (plurality opinion). 3. See, e.g., Bruce Ackerman, Terrorism and the Constitutional Order, 75 FORDHAM . REV.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Justice Jackson in the Jehovah's Witnesses' Cases
    FIU Law Review Volume 13 Number 4 Barnette at 75: The Past, Present, and Future of the Fixed Star in Our Constitutional Article 13 Constellation Spring 2019 Justice Jackson in The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Cases John Q. Barrett Professor of Law, St. John’s University School of Law, New York City Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Online ISSN: 2643-7759 Recommended Citation John Q. Barrett, Justice Jackson in The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Cases, 13 FIU L. Rev. 827 (2019). DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25148/lawrev.13.4.13 This Keynote Address is brought to you for free and open access by eCollections. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Law Review by an authorized editor of eCollections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 10 - BARRETT.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 5/9/19 6:03 PM JUSTICE JACKSON IN THE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES’ CASES John Q. Barrett* I. Robert H. Jackson Before He Became Justice Jackson ..................828 II. Barnette in Its Supreme Court Context: The Jehovah’s Witnesses Cases, 1938–1943 ...........................................................................831 A. The General Pattern of the Decisions: The Court Warming to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Constitutional Claims .......................831 1. The Pre-July 1941 Court ....................................................831 2. The July 1941–May 1943 Court ........................................833 3. The June 1943 Court ..........................................................834 B. Some Particulars of Supreme Court Personnel, Cases, and Decisions, From Gobitis (1940) to Barnette (1943) ................834 III. Justice Jackson on Jehovah’s Witnesses: The Author of Barnette Wrote First, and Significantly, in Douglas .....................................844 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Tribunals: the Quirin Precedent
    Order Code RL31340 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Military Tribunals: The Quirin Precedent March 26, 2002 Louis Fisher Senior Specialist in Separation of Powers Government and Finance Division Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress Military Tribunals: The Quirin Precedent Summary On November 13, 2001, President George W. Bush issued a military order to provide for the detention, treatment, and trial of those who assisted the terrorist attacks on the two World Trade Center buildings in New York City and the Pentagon on September 11. In creating a military commission (tribunal) to try the terrorists, President Bush modeled his tribunal in large part on a proclamation and military order issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942, after the capture of eight German saboteurs. This report describes the procedures used by the World War II military tribunal to try the eight Germans, the habeas corpus petition to the Supreme Court, and the resulting convictions and executions. Why was the tribunal created, and why were its deliberations kept secret? How have scholars evaluated the Court’s decision in Ex parte Quirin (1942)? The decision was unanimous, but archival records reveal division and disagreement among the Justices. Also covered in this report is a second effort by Germany two years later to send saboteurs to the United States. The two men captured in this operation were tried by a military tribunal, but under conditions and procedures that substantially reduced the roles of the President and the Attorney General. Those changes resulted from disputes within the Administration, especially between the War Department and the Justice Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Sarily Represent the Views of Either the Judge Advocate General"S School, U
    PRETRIAL RESTRAINTi A COMPARATIVE HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF AMERICAN, BRITISH, AND CANADIAN MILITARY LAW A Thesis Presented to The Judge Advocate General's School, U. S. Army The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the individual student author and do not neces- sarily represent the views of either The Judge Advocate General"s School, U. S. Army, or any other governmental agency. References to this study should include the foregoing statement. by Major Robert W. Letendre, OF102527 April, 1969 SCOPE A comparative historical study of American, British, and Canadian military law with respect to pretrial restraint or imprisonment, with particular emphasis accorded to the historical precedents of the imposition of time limitations for the serving of charges and the bringing to trial of an accused in confinement. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION I II. EVOLUTION OF MILITARY LAW PRIOR TO THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 3 A. Historical Development of Articles o f war 3 B. Limitation on Courts-Martial Juris diction . ■. •• • 6 C. British Articles of War 1689-1749... 12 D. Limitation on Military Pretrial Con finement , 16 III. AMERICAN ARTICLES OF WAR FROM 1775 TO 1875 18 A. American Articles of War 1775-1861. 19 B . Civil War Enactments 30 C. Articles of War 1874 37 IV. AMERICAN MILITARY LAW IN THE 20ch CENTURY.37 A. Articles of War 1916 - 1920 37 B. Articles of War 1921 - 1969 51 V. BRITISH MILITARY LAW 54 A. Military Law of England 1774 - 1969.. 54 B. Military Law of Canada 1867 - 1969... 62 VI. CONCLUSIONS 69 TABLE OF CASES AND STATUTES 76 BIBLIOGRAPHY 79 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Articles Recollections of West Virginia State Board of Education V. Barnette∗
    BARNETTE FINAL 9/25/2007 11:11:19 AM ARTICLES RECOLLECTIONS OF WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ∗ EDUCATION V. BARNETTE GREGORY L. PETERSON E. BARRETT PRETTYMAN, JR. SHAWN FRANCIS PETERS BENNETT BOSKEY GATHIE BARNETT EDMONDS MARIE BARNETT SNODGRASS JOHN Q. BARRETT WELCOMING REMARKS GREGORY L. PETERSON† Welcome. The Robert H. Jackson Center exists to preserve and advance the legacy of Justice Jackson through education, events, and exhibitry. Today’s special gathering, featuring the Barnett sisters and the attorney who served during 1943 as the senior law clerk to the Chief Justice of the United States, Harlan Fiske Stone, furthers that mission. During World War II, Gathie and Marie Barnett, along with their parents and other Jehovah’s Witnesses, challenged the constitutionality of compelling school children to pledge allegiance and salute the American flag. Their Supreme Court victory, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette,1 is now a constitutional law landmark. It is a case in which Justice ∗ These proceedings, cosponsored by the Robert H. Jackson Center and the Supreme Court Historical Society, occurred at the Jackson Center in Jamestown, New York, on April 28, 2006. The following remarks were edited for publication. † Partner, Phillips Lytle LLP and Chair of the Board of Directors, Robert H. Jackson Center, Inc. 1 319 U.S. 624 (1943). During the litigation, courts misspelled the Barnett family surname as “Barnette.” 755 BARNETTE FINAL 9/25/2007 11:11:19 AM 756 ST. JOHN’S LAW REVIEW [Vol. 81:755 Jackson wrote for the Court one of his most eloquent and important opinions during his thirteen years as a Justice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Common Law of War
    Cornell University Law School Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository Cornell Law Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 11-2016 The ommonC Law of War Jens D. Ohlin Cornell Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Jens David Ohlin, "The ommonC Law of War," 58 William & Mary Law Review (2016) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE COMMON LAW OF WAR JENS DAVID OHLIN* ABSTRACT In recent litigation before U.S. federal courts, the government has argued that military commissions have jurisdiction to prosecute offenses against the "common law of war," which the government defines as a body of domestic offenses, such as inchoate conspiracy, that violate the American law of war. This Article challenges that definition by arguing that stray references to the term "common law of war"in historicalmaterials meant something completely different. By examining the Lieber Code, the writings of early natural law theorists, and early American judicial decisions, this Article con- cludes that the "common law of war" referred to a branch of the law of nations that applied during internalarmed conflicts, such as civil wars with non-state actors. This body of law was called "common," not because it was extended or elaboratedby the common law method of judge-applied law, but rather because it was "common" to all mankind by virtue of naturallaw, and thus even applied to internal actors, such as rebel forces, who were not otherwise bound by in- ternational law as formal states were.
    [Show full text]
  • Stacking the Deck Against Suspected Terrorists
    Stacking the Deck against Suspected Terrorists: The Dwindling Procedural Limits on the Government's Power to Indefinitely Detain United States Citizens as Enemy Combatants Nickolas A. Kacprowski* I. INTRODUCTION Jose Padilla is an American citizen.' The United States govern- ment took Padilla into custody on American soil in May 2002, and it has classified him as an enemy combatant, asserting that it can detain him indefinitely without charging him with any crime.2 Yaser Hamdi is also an American citizen who has been detained since Fall 2001, has been classified as an enemy combatant, and has yet to be charged with a crime.3 In Padilla v. Bush4, the District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of New York, like the Hamdi court, decided that because of the present war on terrorism, the government had the authority to classify citizens as enemy combatants. However, unlike the Hamdi court, the Padilla court ruled that, despite the government's classification of Padilla as an enemy combatant, he should be given access to an attor- ney in the prosecution of his habeas corpus petition and that the court would then review the charges and evidence and decide whether the government properly classified Padilla as an enemy combatant.5 Both the Padilla6 and the Hamdi7 courts applied a Supreme Court case from J.D. Candidate 2004, Northwestern University; B.A. Northwestern University, 2001. The author would like to thank his parents, Greg and Diane Kacprowski for a lifetime of love and support. The author recognizes two colleagues and friends at Northwestern, Len Conapinski and David Johanson, for their help with this Note.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Brief by Quirin Historians
    No. 08-368 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, Petitioner, v. DANIEL SPAGONE, United States Navy Commander, Consolidated Naval Brig, Respondent. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- BRIEF OF HISTORIANS AND SCHOLARS OF EX PARTE QUIRIN AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- JONATHAN M. FREIMAN KENNETH D. HEATH Of Counsel ALISON M. WEIR NATIONAL LITIGATION PROJECT WIGGIN AND DANA LLP OF THE ALLARD K. One Century Tower LOWENSTEIN CLINIC P.O. Box 1832 YALE LAW SCHOOL New Haven, CT 06508-1832 127 Wall Street (203) 498-4400 New Haven, CT 06511 (203) 498-4584 ================================================================ COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ......................... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ....................... 4 ARGUMENT........................................................... 5 I. The Historical Circumstances Surrounding Quirin........................................................... 5 A. Background: the covert invasion, cap- ture and military commission trial....... 5 B. The Legal Challenge: habeas petitions,
    [Show full text]
  • The Civilianization of Military Law
    THE CIVILIANIZATION OF MILITARY LAW Edward F. Sherman* PART I I. INTRODUCTION Military law in the United States has always functioned as a system of jurisprudence independent of the civilian judiciary. It has its own body of substantive laws and procedures which has a different historical deri- vation than the civilian criminal law. The first American Articles of War, enacted by the Continental Congress in 1775,1 copied the British Arti- cles, a body of law which had evolved from the 17th century rules adopted by Gustavus Adolphus for the discipline of his army, rather than from the English common law.2 Despite subsequent alterations by Con- gress, the American military justice code still retains certain substantive and procedural aspects of the 18th century British code. Dissimilarity between military and civilian criminal law has been further encouraged by the isolation of the court-martial system. The federal courts have always been reluctant to interfere with the court-martial system, as ex- plained by the Supreme Court in 1953 in Burns v. Wilson:3 "Military law, like state law, is a jurisprudence which exists separate and apart from the law which governs in our federal judicial establishment. This Court has played no role in its development; we have exerted no super- visory power over the courts which enforce it .... As a result, the court-martial system still differs from the civilian court system in such aspects as terminology and structure, as well as procedural and sub- stantive law. The military has jealously guarded the distinctive aspects of its system of justice.
    [Show full text]
  • US Citizens As Enemy Combatants
    Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development Volume 18 Issue 2 Volume 18, Spring 2004, Issue 2 Article 14 U.S. Citizens as Enemy Combatants: Indication of a Roll-Back of Civil Liberties or a Sign of our Jurisprudential Evolution? Joseph Kubler Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. U.S. CITIZENS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS; INDICATION OF A ROLL-BACK OF CIVIL LIBERTIES OR A SIGN OF OUR JURISPRUDENTIAL EVOLUTION? JOSEPH KUBLER I. EXTRAORDINARY TIMES Exigent circumstances require our government to cross legal boundaries beyond those that are unacceptable during normal times. 1 Chief Justice Rehnquist has expressed the view that "[w]hen America is at war.., people have to get used to having less freedom."2 A tearful Justice Sandra Day O'Connor reinforced this view, a day after visiting Ground Zero, by saying that "we're likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country."3 However, extraordinary times can not eradicate our civil liberties despite their call for extraordinary measures. "Lawyers have a special duty to work to maintain the rule of law in the face of terrorism, Justice O'Connor said, adding in a quotation from Margaret 1 See Christopher Dunn & Donna Leiberman, Security v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Ex-Parte Quirin and Courts
    Copyright 2008 by Northwestern University School of Law Vol. 103 Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy THE INFLUENCE OF EX PARTE QUIRIN AND COURTS-MARTIAL ON MILITARY COMMISSIONS Morris D. Davis* Professor Greg McNeal was an academic consultant to the prosecution during my tenure as the Chief Prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. We had similar perspectives on many issues, and we still confer on detainee matters. I concur with the views expressed in his essay.1 I write to address two issues Professor McNeal identified and com- ment on how they affect the military commissions. First, I examine the case of the Nazi saboteurs—captured, tried, and executed in the span of seven weeks in 1942—and its influence on the decision in 2001 to resurrect military commissions. Second, I assess the conflicting statutory provisions in the Military Commissions Act and the impact on full, fair, and open tri- als. I. ATTEMPTING TO REPEAT HISTORY Professor McNeal argues that the administration chose military com- missions to protect information collected for intelligence (intel) purposes from disclosure. Safeguarding intel, particularly the sources and methods used to acquire information, was a key factor, but I believe the decision had a broader basis heavily influenced by a precedent-setting trial in 1942 that became the template for the President‘s Military Order of November 13, 2001.2 Shortly after midnight the morning of June 13, 1942, four men left a German submarine and came ashore at Amagansett Beach, New York.3 * Morris D. Davis served as Chief Prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, from September 2005 to October 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • A Festschrift in Honor of Seymour J. Rubin
    American University International Law Review Volume 10 | Issue 4 Article 3 1995 A Festschrift in onorH of Seymour J. Rubin Claudio Grossman Tom Farer Andreas J. Jacovides Herman Schwartz Bennett Boskey See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Grossman, Claudio, et al. "A Festschrift in onorH of Seymour J. Rubin." American University International Law Review 10, no. 4 (1995): 1215-1274. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Claudio Grossman, Tom Farer, Andreas J. Jacovides, Herman Schwartz, Bennett Boskey, William Diebold, and Christina M. Cerna This article is available in American University International Law Review: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr/vol10/ iss4/3 SEYMOUR J. RUBIN FESTSCHRIFT IN HONOR OF SEYMOUR J. RUBIN Opening Remarks Claudio Grossman Dean, Washington College of Law at The American University It is my honor and pleasure to open this issue of The American Uni- versity Journal of International Law and Policy dedicated to Emeritus Professor of Law, Seymour J. Rubin. Professor Rubin has been a distin- guished member of the faculty and long-time friend of the Washington College of Law. It is very difficult to summarize the tremendous contributions Profes- sor Rubin has made to the field of international law and the Washington College of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuing Civilianization of the Military Criminal Legal System Fredric I
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2017 From Rome to the Military Justice Acts of 2016 and beyond: Continuing Civilianization of the Military Criminal Legal System Fredric I. Lederer William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Lederer, Fredric I., "From Rome to the Military Justice Acts of 2016 and beyond: Continuing Civilianization of the Military Criminal Legal System" (2017). Faculty Publications. 1943. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1943 Copyright c 2017 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs 512 MILITARY LAw REVIEW [Vol. 225 FROM ROME TO THE MILITARY JUSTICE ACTS OF 2016 AND BEYOND: CONTINUING CIVILIANIZATION OF THE MILITARY CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM FREDRIC I. LEDERER* I. Introduction The recent, but unenacted, proposed Military Justice Act of 2016,' the very different and less ambitious, but enacted, Military Justice Act of 2016,2 and congressional actions and proposals to sharply modify the military criminal legal system to combat sexual assault and harassment3 provide both opportunity and necessity to reevaluate the fundamental need for and nature of the military criminal legal system. With the exception of the 1962 amendment to Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to enhance the commander's punishment authority,' the modem history of military criminal law largely is defined by its increasing civilianization. My thesis is that we are close to the point at which that process will no longer meet the disciplinary needs of the modem armed forces, if, indeed, it does today.
    [Show full text]