United States of America v Sisson

Date03 December 1968
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
United States, District Court, District of Massachusetts.
United States
and
Sisson.

War In general Enforcement of laws of war Punishment of war crimes and crimes against humanity Defence of superior orders Jurisdiction of municipal courts to consider legality of war in which State to which courts pertain is engaged The law of the United States of America.

The Facts.The defendant, Sisson, was prosecuted for wilful failure to report for induction into the armed forces in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. Sections 451 et seq. The defendant moved for dismissal of the indictment on the grounds that the Draft Act, as applied to him, violated the United States Constitution and that he was being ordered to fight in a genocidal war. The trial Court (Wyzanski, Chief Judge) denied the motion to dismiss the indictment.

Held: that the defendant's claim that he was being ordered to fight in a genocidal war raised a political question not within the jurisdiction of the Court.

The Court said (in part):

[294 F.Supp. 517] For argument's sake one may assume that a conscript has a standing to object to induction in a war declared contrary to a binding international obligation in the form of a treaty, in the form of membership in an international organization, or otherwise. One may even assume that a conscript may similarly object to being inducted to fight in a war the openly declared purpose of which is to wipe out a nation and drive its people into the sea. Conceivably, in the two situations just described, the conscript would have a standing to raise the issue and the court would be faced with a problem which was not purely a political question, but indeed fell within judicial competence.

The issue now tendered by this defendant is unlike either of the two cases just mentioned. At its strongest, the defendant's case is that a survey of the military operations in Vietnam would lead a disinterested tribunal to conclude that the laws of war have been violated and that, contrary to international obligations, express and implied, in treaty and in custom, the United States has resorted to barbaric methods of war, including genocide.

If the situation were as defendant contends, the facts would surely be difficult to ascertain so long as the conflict continues, so long as the United States Government has reasons not to disclose all its military operations, and so long as a court was primarily dependent upon compliance by American military and civilian officials with its judicial...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT