Civilians are not subject to it except in very very rare circumstances
I wonder why Lady Linsey questioned Kavanaugh about this case during confirmation ?
Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950)
"We hold that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States."
"...It is not for us to say whether these prisoners were or were not guilty of a war crime, or whether if we were to retry the case we would agree to the findings of fact or the application of the laws of war made by the Military Commission. The petition shows that these prisoners were formally accused of violating the laws of war and fully informed of particulars of these charges."
"We hold that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States
This was not a case involving civilians. So this doesn't apply.
Also, do you understand how RARE a circumstance Johnson v. Eisentrager was?
They were openly engaged in war.
They weren't even Americans.
They were never under civilian jurisdiction and never in the United States.
So I don't see how this applies.
Here's the facts of Johnson v. Eisentrager
The prisoners had been convicted in China by an American military commission of violating the laws of war, by engaging in, permitting, or ordering continued military activity against the United States after surrender of Germany and before surrender of Japan. They were transported to the American-occupied part of Germany and imprisoned there in the custody of the US Army.
Graham brought this up in the context of enemy combatants which is also super rare circumstances.
I wonder why Lady Linsey questioned Kavanaugh about this case during confirmation ?
Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950)
"We hold that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States."
"...It is not for us to say whether these prisoners were or were not guilty of a war crime, or whether if we were to retry the case we would agree to the findings of fact or the application of the laws of war made by the Military Commission. The petition shows that these prisoners were formally accused of violating the laws of war and fully informed of particulars of these charges."
This was not a case involving civilians. So this doesn't apply.
Also, do you understand how RARE a circumstance Johnson v. Eisentrager was?
They were openly engaged in war.
They weren't even Americans.
They were never under civilian jurisdiction and never in the United States.
So I don't see how this applies.
Here's the facts of Johnson v. Eisentrager
Graham brought this up in the context of enemy combatants which is also super rare circumstances.
If we are "terrorists" they are our "enemy combatants"
‘Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive,’
But I asked why he brought it up ?