In
my darker moments, I sometimes ponder what the contours of the civilian court-access
right extending to citizens supported by Justice Scalia in Hamdi and, perhaps also by Professor XXX, might look like. In
World War II, the United States detained hundreds of thousands of Axis
prisoners of war. A great many were guilty of war crimes and a fair number were
tried for such crimes. During the war, these prisoners were duty bound to
escape and to tie up the resources of the United States and its allies. Would
such prisoners have hesitated to assert—even entirely falsely—that they were
each and all United States citizens by birth, transported to Axis nations as
children by their parents before the war, drafted without their consent, and
forced to commit crimes against their will? Would not their affidavits in
support of one another support such claims? And where purported claims to
United States citizenship are supported, based merely on oath and affirmation,
should such prisoners get a free ticket to the civilian courthouse door? What
kept Axis prisoners from making such false claims was not a sense of martial
honor common to warring nations, but the belief that their enemies were hard
men, that their opponents were serious about victory and understood the
consequences of defeat, and that the legal system incarcerating them was not
run by madmen in judicial garb. Whatever else Ex parte Quirin was, it was a victory for common sense—during war time.
Seth Barrett Tillman, In My Darker Moments . . ., New Reform Club (Oct. 8, 2018, 3:47 AM), https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2018/10/in-my-darker-moments.html.
1 comment:
Would such prisoners have hesitated to assert—even entirely falsely—that they were each and all United States citizens by birth, transported to Axis nations as children by their parents before the war, drafted without their consent, and forced to commit crimes against their will?
I dunno, Seth. If US citizens, they're at least triable for treason. And "forced to commit crimes" is no defense.
Post a Comment