In Re Territo (1946)

United States court case on the issue of prisoner-ofwar status, which revolved around the capture of an American-born Italian who served in the Italian army during World War II. Gaetano Territo, an American-born Italian serving in the Italian army, was captured and taken prisoner by the U.S. Army. After his capture, he was transferred from a prison facility in Italy to a prisoner-of-war camp in California. At some point after his arrival in the United States, Territo filed a petition in which he claimed that, because he had been born in the United States, his imprisonment on American soil, without formal criminal charges, was contrary to law. He sought a writ of habeas corpus, charging that he was being held illegally as a prisoner of war.

Territo sought to have his case heard in a court in the United States. A U.S. appeals court ruled that “all persons who are active in opposing an army in war may be captured and except for spies and other non-uni-formed plotters and actors for the enemy are prisoners of war.” The U.S. government had, therefore, classified Territo as a prisoner of war, a category that took precedence over his American citizenship, and he could not seek legal redress in the manner of an American citizen. Territo was refused release and later deported.

In re Territo has taken on prominence in recent years, because it is one of the cases that the U.S. government has cited to allow it to jail, without trial, U.S. citizens allegedly connected with the Taliban or the terrorist network of al-Qaeda. Among these U.S. citizens was suspected terrorist Jose Padilla (Abdullah al-Mujahir), who was arrested in Chicago in May 2002 for his alleged role in a plot to detonate a so-called dirty bomb.

After his capture, the government classified Padilla as an enemy combatant and transferred his case to the Department of Defense from the Department of Justice. Some critics of U.S. actions have argued that American citizens, regardless of the situation, should be accorded the same rights as other citizens. They claim that detainees such as Padilla should at least be allowed an evidentiary hearing, as was Gaetano Territo, who was represented by counsel and allowed to testify on his own behalf.