Johnson V. Eisentrager Pros And Cons

In the Supreme Court case of 1950, Johnson v. Eisentrager, the United States Army captured nonresident enemy aliens in China; furthermore, they were tried and convicted by a military commission for violating the laws of war executed in China prior to their capture. The Court held that aliens do not have the right to petition U.S. courts for writs of habeas corpus that was granted by the Fifth Amendment. According to the Court:
If the Fifth Amendment confers its rights on all the world except Americans engaged in defending it, the same must be true of the companion civil-rights Amendments, for none of them is limited by its express terms, territorially or as to persons. Such a construction would mean that during military occupation irreconcilable enemy elements, guerilla fighters, and ‘were-wolves’ could require the American Judiciary to assure them freedoms of speech, press, and assembly as in the First Amendment, right to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments … No decision of this Court supports such a view. None of the learned commentators on our Constitution has ever hinted at it [,] [and] [t]he practices of every modern government is opposed to it.
At that time, Americans were not accustomed to the term military commission, so they did not understand the structure or purpose of one. According to Beverly, they are utilized in several circumstances: “(i) to try individuals (usually members of enemy forces) for violations of the laws of war, (ii) as a general court administering justice in occupied territory, and (iii) as a general court in an area where martial law has been declared and the civil courts are closed.” The government approves high ranking military officers, many being those who have a base rank of a lieutenant. Experts in the combat field decide the decisions made during these