S. armed forces. 339 U.S. 763, 782 (1950). The Court examined the issue of whether the military authorities had jurisdiction to try the offenders. It reasoned that military authorities have had a historical right, during and after hostilities, to punish those who have violated the laws of war, and this history predates the existence of the United States, and therefore, the existence of the Constitution. Respondents' convictions were the result of a military commission exercising this historic right, and it was the military commission's sole ability to determine whether the laws of war applied to Respondents and whether Respondents had violated those laws. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Court appellate jurisdiction over these types of military commission trials.

In fact, the Court went so far as to look into the Geneva Convention and whether it would bar this type of military commission, though the Court did not have to do so. Having already determined that the federal judiciary did not have jurisdiction over the issue, the Court was free to ignore the Geneva Convention issues. However, the Court determined that the requirement that notice of trial of prisoners of war be given to the protecting power was inapplicable to trial for war crimes committed before capture, as was the provision that prisoners of war be tried by the same courts as persons belonging to the armed forces of the detaining power. In other...

The Court held that a nonresident enemy alien has no access to U.S. courts during a time of war. The Court held that the Executive Branch has power over enemy aliens, which is not to be hampered or delayed by litigation. The Court held that nonresident enemy aliens, who were captured and imprisoned abroad, had no right to a writ of habeas corpus in a court of the United States. The Court held that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or immunity from military trial and punishment upon any alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States. The Court held that Respondents' petition did not allege any facts showing a lack of jurisdiction in the military authorities to accuse, try, or condemn Respondents. The Court determined that nothing in the Geneva Convention prohibited prosecution of Respondents by a military tribunal. The Court held that there was no basis for invoking federal judicial power and refused to decide were the petition should have been filed if there had been a basis for invoking such power.
References

Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950). Retrieved October 5, 2011 from…