Just when everyone was watching the middle East and wondering what was going to happen with the war of 2006. All of a sudden we had the huge thing in London, supposedly involving ten plane flying from England to America where they had devised an explosive that was non-detectable—either a liquid or gel.
I guess they had been working on it for quite a while, so they had picked up a whole gang of British citizens of Pakistani extract, third generation, who have been taught in Mosques their hateful diatribe!
Notice how the news has shifted from 'radical' Muslims to Muslims in general. What they are finding is what we have understood, that it's in the nature of the people, and the people have a religion suited to their nature. That's quite an interesting way to look at it, and quite a thing that is happening.
Let's examine that today! I want to focus in on three or four of the descendants of Esau. Let's see the enemy that we are up against. Not only the Jews, but also us. Isn't it interesting that it is happening to the white 'Christian'—so called—western civilization?
Psalm 83:1: "Keep not silent, O God; do not be quiet, and do not be still, O God, for lo, Your enemies are in an uproar; and those who hate You have lifted up their head" (vs 1-2). It's all involved in hatred!
Verse 3: "They take crafty counsel against Your people, and plot together against Your hidden ones. They have said, 'Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation…'"
Doesn't that sound like Ahmadinejad of Iran? I wonder if he is Persian or not, because the Iranians descended from Persia, but I don't' think all in Iran are Persians. He doesn't look like some of the other people.
"'…so that the name Israel may be remembered no more.' For with one heart they have plotted together; they have made a covenant against You" (vs 4-5).
Notice the ones named first, v 6: The tabernacles of Edom… [we're going to examine some of the descendants of Edom] …and the Ishmaelites…"—the Arabs.
Let's understand that Edom, who is Esau, had 12 dukes, so they ended up with 12 tribes or nations, but not nations in the sense that we know, because of what God did to them. We will see that some of their descendants, especially the meanest ones, are scattered throughout what we would call the Muslim world.
"…of Moab, and the Hagrites; Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek…" (vs 6-7). It's very interesting that Amalek is one of the descendants of Edom. So, we have two from Edom.
"…the Philistines…" (v 7). The Jews today say that the Palestinians are the Philistines. So, we are looking at enemies that are absolutely implacable.
Why have we fallen into such a situation that that's the way that it is?
Why is the world so impotent in trying to handle it and do it?
"…with the people of Tyre" (v 7). It's interesting, we've heard about the city of Tyre and how the Jews have bombed it.
Verse 8: "And Assyria…" Not the Germans, but the Assyrians who live up in the north-northwestern part of what is Iraq to day. They are some of the fiercest fighters.
"…has joined with them; they have helped the children of Lot. Selah" (v 8). The children of Lot are Moab and Ammon, which is basically today Jordan and Kuwait.
The Ishmaelites are all the tribes of the Arabs, and they are basically in the area of Saudi Arabia and then the United Arab Emirates and so forth, probably includes Yemen and so on.
Another thing that's important that you're going to notice with this sermon. We are not going to cover one single New Testament Scripture, unless I add it in later. Think about that for a minute.
Since we're dealing with the Old Testament and we have to know where these nations are today, if you belong to a Protestant church or Catholic church and they tell you that the Old Testament is no relevant, which means that you won't be able to understand what's going on. You won't be able to understand the people that we're dealing with that are causing all the problems in the world.
This is review of Ishmael; Genesis 16:11: "And the angel of the LORD said to her, 'Behold, you are with child, and shall bear a son. And you shall call his name Ishmael because the LORD has heard your affliction. And he will be a wild man. His hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him. And he shall live in the presence of all his brothers'" (vs 11-12). That shows the nature of it.
Jacob and Esau are twins but two different nations! You can look at the pattern in the Bible.
When did all of this family strife and killing begin? When Cain killed Abel!
What did that result in? Until the Flood you had the line of Cain against the line of Seth!
They had warring continuously, and finally the line of Cain and the way of Cain overcame the descendants of Seth. So, this family feud between them ended up with the destruction of the human race. When we get to the end, we find it again, another family feud, only this time grown great into nations. What did Jesus say? If He didn't cut short the time, there would be no flesh left!
Genesis 25:23: "And the LORD said to her, 'Two nations are in your womb, and two kinds of people shall be separated from your belly….'" It's in the genes! That's why assuming that all people are freedom-loving and just give them freedom and they'll be 'nice little patty-cake' children is not so!
"…And the one people shall be stronger than the other people, the older shall serve the younger" (v 23). That always, always gripes them! Then Esau sold his birthright to Jacob.
What about Gen. 25:1-6? That is the other children of Abraham, so there is from Keturah he had, v 2: "…Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And Jokshan begat Sheba and Dedan…." (vs 2-3).
Then it lists the rest of offspring. These are not described as enemies, but these are described as descendants from Abraham, not counted in the blessing. These are the ones who have been left out of the national greatness that was promised to the descendants of Jacob.
So, you also have some jealousy with them, but you don't have the perpetual hatred and hostility. They took their possessions and moved on into the east, and I think a lot of them are like Azervaijan, Kazajastan, Uzbekistan, etc.; those nations, though they're Muslim, don't have the hostility and hatred that you see from the descendants of Esau and, as we'll see later, Amalek.
Genesis 27:38: "And Esau said to his father, 'Have you but one blessing, my father?….' [v 39]: And Isaac his father answered and said to him, 'Behold, your dwelling shall be far from the fatness of the earth and far from the dew of heaven from above. And you shall live by your sword…'" (vs 38-40). 'Every hand against his neighbor'; very, very bloody people.
Then it talks about that in the end they will 'break the yoke' and so forth. This is what the descendants of Esau are trying to do now.
Let's see where some of the descendants of Esau are. Gen. 36 gives the genealogy and the tables of the generations of Esau.
Genesis 36:1: "And these are the generations of Esau, that is Edom." You will notice that they're all intermixed with the Canaanites.
Let's see where one of the descendants of Esau/Edom is particularly singled out. Then we'll follow this through.
Verse 12: "And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz, Esau's son. And she bore to Eliphaz, Amalek…"
We're going to see that Amalek is listed in the Bible as one that God would have war with in every generation. We're also going to see that Amalek is no longer a nation, but scattered in the different Muslim populations of the world, especially in the Middle East.
What we are dealing with, with Amalek, is one of the cruelest, bloodiest of the descendants of Esau. If we know them by their fruits, then we can probably understand where these extreme hateful militants come from. Probably some of the descendants of Amalek are scattered within the rest of Esau, Edom and the Ishmaelites.
Exodus 17:8: "Then Amalek came and made war against Israel in Rephidim. And Moses said to Joshua, 'Choose men for us, and go out to fight against Amalek. Tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand.'" (vs 8-9).
As long as Moses' hands were up in the air, Israel prevailed and Joshua and Aaron held up his hands so that the children of Israel won the battle.
Verse 14: "And the LORD said to Moses, 'Write this as a memorial in a book… [the book of Exodus] …and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly wipe out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.'" That's not going to be accomplished until Christ returns.
Verse 15: "And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it The LORD My Banner. And he said, 'Because the LORD has sworn that the LORD will have war against Amalek from generation to generation'" (vs 15-16).
So here we have a warring people against the children of Israel, against the ten tribes and the Jews that would be in every generation! That's what's so hard for people to grasp today. If you go back and look at the history of these people and what has happened, it is just drenched in blood from one end to the other! That's not to say that the other nations haven't gotten involved in warring and killing, they certainly have.
Why would God do this? God uses Amalek, because of its nature, as rod of correction against the children of Israel when they sin! What we are going to see is that most people don't understand the cause of war that goes on in the Middle East, and all of the terrorist activities that are going on, and why they are so dedicated against the Jews and America and Britain.
Isn't it interesting where some of the most devastating things that have happened have been in England and America, and then the things in France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden. Not too much in Germany, because the Germans won't put up with too much, they'll put a cap on it.
Numbers 14:34: "According to the number of the days in which you searched the land…"
Verse 40: "And they… [the people] …rose up early in the morning and went up to the top of the mountain, saying, 'Behold we are here, and will go up to the place which the LORD has promised, for we have sinned.'"
After God has already executed His judgment, it's too late for repentance!
Verse 41: "And Moses said, 'Why do you now go beyond the command of the LORD, when it shall not succeed?…. [you're not going up] …Do not go up, for the LORD is not among you. And shall you not be struck down by your enemies? For the Amalekites and the Canaanites are there before you, and you shall fall by the sword. Because you have turned away from the LORD, therefore, the LORD will not be with you.'" (vs 41-43).
This is important for us to understand. We'll confirm it when we get to the account of Solomon. Whenever the descendants of Israel sin, God raises up Edom, Esau and the Philistines. Not that there aren't other enemies, but these are three most vicious primary ones that want to kill, destroy and behead.
Is it because God is hateful? No!
It's because the people don't realize—and they've had plenty of warnings—that when you reject God and leave Him, these things are bound to happen! If you never read the Old Testament, and you never read the examples here… Remember what Paul said, 'All these things happened as examples for us so that we don't do like they did' (1-Cor. 10).
So, when you don't read the Old Testament, and you don't understand who these people have descended from, you don't know what's going on. What I want you to do is just watch the news and keep this in mind and see how things work out.
Verse 44: "But they presumed to go up to the hilltop. However, the Ark of the Covenant of the LORD and Moses did not leave the camp. And the Amalekites and the Canaanites who were living in that mountain came down, and struck them down… [slaughtered them] …and beat them back to Hormah" (vs 44-45).
Let's see how Edom treated the children of Israel; Numbers 20:14: "And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom, 'Thus says your brother Israel, "You know all the trouble that has happened to us, How our fathers went down into Egypt, and we have lived in Egypt a long time. And the Egyptians dealt harshly with us and our fathers"'" (vs 14-15).
Verse 17: "'Let us pass, I pray you, through your country….'" [v 18]: And Edom said to him, 'You shall not pass by me, lest I come out against you with the sword.'"
Their first solution is killing, even when peace would be preferable. Isn't that a little bit like what's happening today? Yes! Then God said to remember that.
Now, here's part of a parable given by Balaam, hired by Balak; Numbers 24:20: "And when he looked on Amalek, he took up his parable and said, 'Amalek was the first of the nations. But his latter end is to destruction.'" That's all in God's hands to handle in the ways that He's going to handle.
Let's look at why God said that He would have 'war with Amalek in every generation.' It might be interesting if you can get Langer's Encyclopedia of World History and follow along with the nations in the Middle East and see how they behaved. We have the same kind of mentality today, and that is kill the children and the weak ones! Isn't that what they do with terrorist bombings and so forth. You throw in the Philistines in there and the Palestinians. They're both in there because we're going to see that the Philistines, Edom and Amalek.
Deuteronomy 25:17: "Remember what Amalek did to you by the way when you came forth out of Egypt, how he met you by the way and struck those of you who lagged behind… [the back of the column] …and all the feeble behind you when you were faint and weary. And he did not fear God. And it shall be when the LORD your God has given you rest from all your enemies all around in the land which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance to possess it, you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. You shall not forget" (vs 17-19).
Quite an indictment—isn't it? Let's see how this was carried out. When He says to 'blot them out as a nation' that doesn't mean to get rid of all of the Amalekites, because He said in the prophecy in Exo. 17 that He would have 'war with Amalek from generation to generation.' I want you to notice the enemies that Saul—as the first king of Israel—fought against.
Remember where we began in Psa. 83, because what we're going to see is that these people have been perpetual enemies of the children of Israel and the Jews.
1-Samuel 14:47: "And Saul took over the kingdom of Israel and fought against all his enemies on every side, with Moab, and with the sons of Ammon, and with Edom, and with the kings of Zobah, and with the Philistines. And wherever he turned himself, he troubled them." In other words they were all around him all the time.
Read Judges and you will find that God used the Amalekites, the Edomites, the Philistines, and the Canaanites as hands of punishment against Israel for going against God. That's what we're really dealing with in today's world.
Verse 48: "And he gathered an army and struck the Amalekites, and delivered Israel out of the hands of those who spoiled them." Then it lists all the sons and so forth.
Verse 52: "And the war was heavy against the Philistines all the days of Saul. And when Saul saw any strong man, or any brave man, he took him to himself"—drafted him into the army!
1-Sam. 15 becomes a very key portion of the Bible to understand what is going on.
1-Samuel 15:1: "And Samuel said to Saul, 'The LORD sent me to anoint you to be king over His people, over Israel. And now listen to the voice of the words of the LORD.'"
We're also going to learn another lesson here: Israel did not listen to God. They want all the blessings of God… And there's another thing we need to consider in it: the modern day descendants of Abraham, especially the sons of Joseph—Ephraim and Manasseh, Britain and America—have received the things that were prophesied that they would receive. Not because they were righteous, but when their sins reach a certain level then God uses these people to correct them.
God gives them a chance here in this particular case to rid the world of most of them!
Verse 2: "Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for that which he did to Israel, how he set against him in the way when he came up from Egypt. Now, go and strike Amalek, and completely destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey'" (vs 2-3).
The children grow up! This is God, the One Who became Jesus Christ, so He's not that sweet-looking long-haired sycophant that you see on most pictures of Jesus. God is going to execute His correction!
He uses them to correct Israel, and when He's done correcting Israel, He uses Israel to correct them! We will see this going back and forth down through the history of the Old Testament. You know what happened, they went down there and they didn't do as God said.
Verse 6: "And Saul said to the Kenites, 'Go! Depart! Get down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them, for you showed kindness to all the children of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.' So, the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. And Saul struck the Amalekites from Havilah, as you come to Shur, which is over across from Egypt. And he took Agag… [note that name] …the king of the Amalekites alive. And he completely destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fatlings and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not completely destroy them. But everything that was vile and feeble they completely destroyed. And the Word of the LORD came to Samuel saying, 'It repents Me that I have set up Saul to be king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not performed My commandments.'…." (vs 6-11).
Verse 15: "And Saul said, 'They… [the people] …have brought them from the Amalekites, for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen to sacrifice to the LORD your God. And the rest we have completely destroyed.'"
Verse 17: "And Samuel said, 'When you were little in your own sight…'"—you were doing find and were anointed king.
Verse 18: "And the LORD sent you on the way and said, 'Go and completely destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until you destroy them.' Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD?…." (vs 18-19).
In every case that we've examined here, what happens? They didn't obey the voice of the Lord! They didn't obey the words of God!
Verse 20: "And Saul said to Samuel, 'Yes, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD… [v 21]: But the people took from the spoil… [v 22]: And Samuel said, 'Does the LORD have as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice! To hearken is better than the fat of rams, for rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the Word of the LORD, He has also rejected you from being king!'" (vs 20-23).
Verse 32: "And Samuel said, 'Bring here to me Agag the king of the Amalekites.' And Agag came to him cautiously. And Agag said, 'Surely the bitterness of death is at hand.' And Samuel said, 'As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.' And Samuel… [a priests of God, prophet of God] …cut Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal" (vs 32-33)—viciousness against viciousness!
1-Samuel 22:9: "And answered Doeg the Edomite, who was set over the servants of Saul, and said, 'I saw the son of Jesse coming to Nob, to Ahimelech the son of Ahitub.'…. [Ahimelech at that time was the priest.] …And he asked of the LORD for him and gave him food and gave him the sword of Goliath the Philistine. And the king sent to call Ahimelech the priest, the son of Ahitub, and all his father's house, the priests in Nob. And they came, all of them, to the king. And Saul said, 'Hear now, you son of Ahitub.' And he answered, 'Here I am, my lord.' And Saul said to him, 'Why have you conspired against me, you and the son of Jesse, in that you have given him bread and a sword, and have asked of God for him, that he should rise against me to lie in wait, as at this day?'" (vs 9-13).
Verse 17: "And the king said to the guards that stood around him, 'Turn and kill the priests of the LORD because their hand also is with David, and because they knew when he fled and did not reveal it to me.' But the servants of the king would not put forth their hand to fall upon the priests of the LORD. And the king said to Doeg, 'You turn and fall upon the priests.' And Doeg the Edomite turned and fell upon the priests. And on that day he killed eighty-five persons who wore a linen ephod" (vs 17-18). Willing to do the dirty work!
1-Kings 11 is very instructive. This is after Solomon built the temple. It was dedicated, everything was all set. He was doing well, God was blessing him and he had rest from all of his enemies round about. So, who were some of the enemies round about? Edomites, Amalekites, Moab, Ammon and the Philistines!
Not only did Solomon sin, but all the children of Israel sinned. They said that if the king does it 'we can do it.' If he worships all these other gods, 'it's okay for us to do it.' So then, God sent a warning to Solomon and told him that He was going to split the nation after his death.
1-Kings 11:14: "And it came to pass the LORD stirred up an adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite. He was of the king's seed in Edom."
Then it tells what happened, that Hadad fled to Egypt and when he heard that David had died he came back and joined himself with the Syrians.
Verse 23: "And God stirred up another adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah, who fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah. And he gathered men to himself and became head over a marauding band…" (vs 23-24).
What we have here is the same thing we see today: groups of men coming against the children of Israel when they sin and leave God. So, God raises them up. While we say today that what we need to do is 'have better intelligence and infiltrate the mosques and find out what these people are doing and nail them and kill them.' That's not the solution! It won't work because the problem is not the attacks; the attacks are the effects of sin!
Verse 31—Ahijah the prophet was talking to Jeroboam and described what they were doing: "And he said to Jeroboam, 'Take ten pieces for yourself. For thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, "Behold, I will tear the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon and will give ten tribes to you.'"'"
Verse 33: "Because they… [the children of Israel] …have forsaken Me, and have worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the goddess of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in My ways, to do what is right in My eyes, and to keep My statutes and My judgments, as David his father did."
That's the cause! Sin is the cause!
Now let's see another prophecy concerning Edom, which has to do with our day today. God remembers this a long time.
Ezekiel 25:12: "Thus says the Lord GOD, 'Because Edom has dealt against the house of Judah…" How did they do it? When Nebuchadnezzar came to conquer the city, the Edomites assisted them and stood by and cheered that they were being killed. They also joint he forces of Nebuchadnezzar to do it; Nebuchadnezzar was the one God had chosen to do it.
"…by taking vengeance, and has greatly offended and revenged himself on them.' Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, 'I will also stretch out My hand on Edom, and will cut man and beast off from it…'" (vs 12-13). That's why wars in the Middle East are so vicious!
"'…and I will make it a waste from Teman, even to Dedan they shall fall by the sword. And I will lay My vengeance on Edom by the hand of My people Israel. And they shall do in Edom according to My anger and according to My fury. And they shall know My vengeance,' says the Lord GOD. Thus says the Lord GOD, 'Because the Philistines have taken vengeance; yes, have taken vengeance with spite in their heart…" (vs 13-15).
If that doesn't describe the Palestinians and Hamas today, I don't know what does. You can't deal with them, you can't negotiate with them; they don't want peace. They want blood, extinction and the Jews removed from the face of the Middle East completely!
"'…to destroy it with never ending hatred.' Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, 'Behold, I will stretch out My hand on the Philistines, and I will cut off the Cherethites, and will destroy the rest of the sea coast'" (vs 15-16).
Where are the Palestinians today in relationship to Israel? They're right on the coast in Gaza!
Verse 17: "And I will execute great vengeance on them with rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay My vengeance upon them."
So, we have it going back and forth. God uses Amalek, Esau and the Philistines to correct the children of Judah. Then when the correction has gone too far, then He raises up the Jews to come back on them again. This tells you that they will never build the temple where the Mosque of Omar is, because that's not the place where the temple should be. That's very important to understand!
Ezekiel 35:1: "And the Word of the LORD came to me, saying, 'Son of man, set your face against Mount Seir… [the territory that God gave to Edom and Esau] …and prophesy against it. And say unto it, "Thus says the Lord GOD, 'Behold, O Mount Seir, I am against you, and I will stretch out My hand against you, and I will make you a desolation and a waste. I will raze your cities, and you shall be desolate, and you shall know that I am the LORD'" (vs 1-4).
Because of all of these battles, the Edomites, Esauites and Amalek were scattered into the other nations. I believe that what we're looking at today, when we see all of this viciousness and these small groups of just ultra hateful people, we're dealing with the Amalekites, the Edomites and the Philistines. She had this back and forth going on.
Verse 5: "Because you have had a perpetual hatred…" That's what we're dealing with! That's why those people believe in a culture of death and glorify suicide bombings!
"…and have delivered the children of Israel unto the power of the sword at the time of their calamity, at the time of their final punishment" (v 5). In other words, when God was ready to forgive them, they came in and did it.
Verse 6: "'Therefore, as I live,' says the Lord GOD… [if this doesn't describe what's going on in M East today, I don't know what else it would be] …'I will prepare you for blood, and blood shall pursue you. Since you have not hated blood, even blood shall pursue you.'"
Just think about what is described in the news as 'the radical extremist terrorists' that do beheading, that kill people—women and children.
Verse 7: "Thus I will make Mount Seir most desolate, and cut off from it the one passing through, and the one returning. And I will fill his mountains with his slain. In your hills, and your valleys, and all your rivers, those slain with the sword shall fall in them. I will make you a perpetual desolation forever, and your cities shall not be inhabited. And you shall know that I am the LORD. Because you have said, 'These two nations and these two lands shall be mine…'" (vs 7-10)—Judah and Israel, and that's what they want to do.
"'"…and we shall possess it." Yet, the LORD was there; therefore, as I live,' says the Lord GOD, 'I will even do according to your anger and according to your envy, which you have shown out of your hatred against them. And I will make Myself known among them when I have judged you. And you shall know that I am the LORD. I have heard all your blasphemies which you have spoken against the mountains of Israel, saying, 'Because they are laid desolate… [during God's correction] …they are given to us to consume. So, with your mouth you have boasted yourself against Me, and have multiplied your words against Me. I have heard them'"'" (vs 10-13).
It's interesting that when God punishes His people, woe to those who He uses to punish them if they go beyond what God intended. So, that's what's going to happen!
Obadiah 1 is a prophecy against Esau: "The vision of Obadiah. Thus says the Lord GOD concerning Edom…"
When you go through the Old Testament, there's an awful lot against Edom and Esau.
"…for we have heard a message from the LORD, and a messenger is sent among the nations saying, 'Rise up, even let us rise up against her for battle.' 'Behold, I have given you to be small among the nations; you are greatly despised. The pride of your heart has deceived you—you who dwell in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is up high, who says in his heart, "Who shall bring me down to the ground?"'" (vs 1-3).
Verse 4: "'Though you rise high like the eagle, and though you set your nest among the stars, I will bring you down from there,' says the LORD. 'If thieves came to you, if robbers by night (how you have been cut off!), would they not have stolen until they had enough? If the grape-gatherers came to you, would they not leave gleanings? How are the things of Esau searched out! His hidden things are sought out! All the men of your confederacy went with you only to the border… [surrounding Israel] …the men who were at peace with you have deceived you…'" (vs 4-7).
The agreement that they're going to try to come by, that they are working out in the United Nations today, they're going to be deceived and prevail against them.
"'…and have defeated you. They are setting your bread as a snare under you; there is no understanding in them. Shall I not in that day even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau,' says the LORD? 'And your mighty ones, O Teman, shall be afraid, so that each man from the mount of Esau may be cut off by slaughter'" (vs 7-9).
Why? Verse 10: "Shame shall cover you for the violence against your brother Jacob, and you shall be cut off forever."
What's happening here is that even though God uses Edom and Esau for punishment, when they get in there and just try an absolute destruction of Israel, because of their perpetual hatred, then God raises up the children of Israel and the Jews to go after them.
Then God told them, leading up to v 17, when the Babylonians came, you should never have sided with them to bring about a great slaughter. They should never have done that! It goes back to war in every generation.
Verse 17: "'But upon Mount Zion shall be deliverance; and there shall be Holiness. And the house of Jacob shall possess their own possessions. And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame. And the house of Esau shall be for stubble. And they shall kindle in them and burn them up. And no survivor shall be of the house of Esau,' for the LORD has spoken it." (vs 17-18).
Good ole Mike Wallace interviewed Ahmadinejad and he was kind, nice and said, 'Oh, we shouldn't have these differences, we need to learn to love each other.' So, Wallace comes back and says that this man is intelligent and reasonable man. Just exactly what Ahmadinejad wanted him to believe, and knew the Wallace would fall for it 'hook, line and sinker,' just like Israelites do. They try and think the best, just like we are trying to do today. Just give them freedom and everything will be wonderful.
No! They live by the sword, 'every man's hand against his neighbor.' Who are the ones killing whom most of all?
We're going to see where Agag's descendant Haman the Agagite raised his hand against the Jews. The book of Esther is very interesting in how that Esther became the queen of Ahasuerus, the king of Persia. Persia today is modern Iran. Here we have a repeat of what happened in the book of Ester repeated again.
Ahmadinejad says that 'we need to destroy the Jews from off the face of the earth.' And they think they're serving Allah! But God has heard it, and He's not going to allow the Jews to be exterminated, even a sinful as they have been. The battle is not against the Jews, but against God!
Mordecai had saved the king from an assassination attempt. The king didn't know about. The one behind it were the allies of the Agagite Haman.
"…and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes who were with him" (v 1). If we could just look at it this way: Let's substitute the name Ahmadinejad and then we can look and see what's probably going to happen to Iran. God is going to do something: use the Jews maybe even the sons of Joseph—America and Britain—to do something about it.
Verse 2: "And all the king's servants in the king's gate knelt down and paid honor to Haman, for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai did not bow down nor prostrate himself before him"—nor did he reverence him, because a Jew is not going to bow and reverence a man anyway.
Verse 3: "And the king's servants in the king's gate said to Mordecai, 'Why do you transgress the king's command?' Now it came to pass when they spoke daily to him, and he did not hearken to them, they told Haman, to see if Mordecai's words would stand. For he had told them that he was a Jew. And when Haman saw that Mordecai did not kneel down nor pay honor to him, then Haman was full of wrath. But it seemed contemptible to lay hands only on Mordecai, for they had revealed to him the people of Mordecai" (vs 3-6).
That is, he understood that the Jews in captivity in Persia were the people of Mordecai; now he's going out after all of them.
Verse 7: "So, Haman sought to destroy all the Jews throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus—the people of Mordecai."
So, what they did was cast lots, set a date, Haman got the king to sign an order for the execution of the Jews. It went out into all the kingdom.
Verse 12: "Then the king's scribes were called on the thirteenth day of the first month, and there was written according to all that Haman had commanded to the king's lieutenants, and to the governors who were over every province, and to the rulers of every people of every province, according to the writing of it, and to every people according to their language. It was written in the name of King Ahasuerus and sealed with the king's ring. And the letters were sent by postal riders into all the king's provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to plunder their goods" (vs 12-13). So, this went out everywhere!
The moral of the story is that when the enemies of God—the Amalekites, the Agagites, the Edomites, the Esauites and the Philistines—come to the point that they want to destroy all the Jews, it's no longer a matter of God using them as a hand of correction against His people to try and bring them to repentance. Then God turns the tables on the them!
What happened? Esther 6:1: "On that night the king could not sleep…" It shows you how God will intervene when He's going to do something.
The point that I want to make here is that IF the people of America and Britain especially, led by the leaders, would all repent and turn to God with heartfelt prayer and repentance, and do like they did during the days of Josiah, the king of Judah, God will hold back His hand of correction upon them, and He would confound the enemy! 'Every man's sword is against his neighbor.' God could just let them fight each other.
No! Israel won't do it!
No! We've got to have better intelligence!
No! We've go to hunt them down!
No! We've got to kill them!
No repentance! The book of Esther shows how God can work.
Verse 1: "On that night the king could not sleep and he commanded to bring the book of records of the chronicles. And they were read before the king. And it was found written that Mordecai had told of Bigthana and Teresh, two of the king's officers, the guards of the door who sought to lay hands on King Ahasuerus" (vs 1-2)—to kill him! Assassinate him!
Of course, that was stopped. Now, the king didn't know how this came about until he read the chronicle.
Verse 3: "And the king said, 'What honor and dignity has been done to Mordecai for this?' And the king's servants who served him said, 'Nothing has been done for him.' And the king said, 'Who is in the court?' And Haman had come into the outer court of the king's palace to speak to the king to hang Mordecai on the gallows which he had prepared for him…." (vs 3-5)—and to kill all the Jews throughout the whole empire.
This also tells us that God will rescue and redeem at the last minute, too!
"…And the king's servants said to him, 'Behold, Haman stands in the court.' And the king said, 'Let him come in.' So, Haman came in…. [the Agagite; Amalek] …And the king said to him, 'What shall be done to the man whom the king delights to honor?'" (vs 5-6). Remember: your heart will deceive you!
"…And Haman thought in his heart, 'To whom would the king delight to do honor more than to myself?'" (v 6).
In all this treachery, God also has a sense of humor and He metes out justice in a time and way that most people wouldn't think of.
Verse 7: "And Haman answered the king, 'For the man whom the king delights to honor, let the royal clothing be brought, which the king wears, and the horse that the king rides upon, and the royal crown, which is set upon his head. And let this clothing and horse be delivered to the hand of one of the king's most noble princes so that they may dress the man whom the king delights to honor, and bring him on horseback through the streets of the city, and proclaim before him, "This is what shall be done to the man whom the king delights to honor."' And the king said to Haman, 'Make haste! Take the clothing and the horse, as you have said, and do so even to Mordecai the Jew, who sits at the king's gate. Do not fail to do any of all the things you have spoken'" (vs 7-10).
A lot of things here! Out of your own mouth you're going to be judged! Your own heart is going to deceive you. So, God can take care of these enemies. Just imagine of the George Bush and Tony Blair would have called a day of fasting and national prayer and repentance, and determined to have the people of God keep the commandments of God, cease their murders, adulteries, worshipping of a false gods and all this sort of thing, you would see the Middle East fall into such chaos and killing each other. All they would have to do is just go in and pick up the pieces. But they're not willing to do it.
This is almost like having Margaret Schmele of the NOW gang stand with a poster and proclaim: I abhor all abortions; all abortions are murder; I repent to God.' If she said that, imagine what would happen.
Haman had to do this, v 11: "And Haman took the clothing and the horse and dressed Mordecai, and brought him on horseback through the street of the city, and proclaimed before him, 'This is what shall be done to the man whom the king delights to honor!'" I don't think he was shouting very loudly!
Then Mordecai came back and was spared, and all the Jews were spared. Here is a little more true justice.
Esther 7:5: "And King Ahasuerus answered and said to Esther the queen, 'Who is he, and where is the one who dares presume in his heart to do so?'" That is having the authority to kill all these people.
Verse 6: "And Esther said, 'The man who is our adversary and enemy is this wicked Haman.' And Haman was terrified before the king and the queen…. [he wouldn't come in] …And the king, arising from the banquet of wine in his wrath, went into the palace garden. But Haman stood up to beg for his life from Esther the queen, for he saw that evil was determined against him by the king" (vs 6-7)—here's God's judgment!
Verse 8: "And the king returned out of the palace garden into the place of the banquet of wine. And Haman had fallen on the couch on which Esther was. And the king said, 'Will he also force the queen before me in the house?' As the word went out of the king's mouth, they covered Haman's face. And Harbonah, one of the officers, said before the king, 'Also look! The gallows fifty cubits high, which Haman made for Mordecai, who had spoken good for the king, stands at the house of Haman.' Then the king said, 'Hang him on it!' And they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. And the king's wrath was assuaged" (vs 8-10). They got the order reversed!
Who is one whom they would love to get, two of the distinct enemies of the Jews that they would love to get more than anyone else today? Ahmadinejad the prime minister of Iran and Nazarali the head of Hezbollah.
Just think of how much money they would spend going to war to try and get them, when repentance—costing nothing—would solve the same thing! This is a problem we're confronted with today with all these wars and goings on in the Middle East.
Even though God uses them as a hand of correction against His people, He will not allow them to have the power or force to exterminate them!
Let's look what happen to Hitler in exterminating as many Jews as he did. What happened to him and all the German people?
I actually fear for Iran at this time and for Nazarali, that if the Jews, Americans and Brits all conduct themselves even in a semi-repentant manner, that God would take care of them. What could happen?
Could the people of Iran raise up and get rid of this man? Of course they could!
Could God cause it to be done? Of course He could!
Same way with Nazarali; God could work it out where there could be a squad of commandos that could sneak in and get him and take care of him.
Also in this mix that you can see in other prophecies is that Syria is always kind of like the fulcrum between Iran and dealing with the children of Israel that way. I want you to watch the news and look at what is happening, and understand the ones who are involved.
Realize that we are seeing family feud that began with Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau, now grow great with not just families but nations. Scattered among them are the worst of the Edomites, the Amalekites. They are the most vicious and ruthless.
Let's see what happens, because you know for sure, that unless there is repentance, they will succeed with their plans that they want to do. Sooner or later they are going to succeed. Think about the borders in America. They know that there are 'sleeper cells' of Al Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah in America. They don't know arms are in the various mosques.
Unless there's repentance, it is bound to happen! There's no way to turn it back. Look at Britain! What did they do when they had the British Empire? They allowed free passage of these people to come into their country and become citizens! Could they become citizens and become like Brits? No! They do not have the nature! It's in the genes. They have a different nature. So, they're just bewildered.
Those that tried to blow the ten planes simultaneously over the Atlantic Ocean, flying from the United Kingdom to America, were third-generation Pakistanis. Why were they not like the Brits? 'We're good and kind people.' No, because it's in the genes and it's in the religion, and it is in the hand of God to use them to correct us!
Maybe they stopped this one thing, but remember that the Edomites and the Philistines were always against Solomon and Israel at that time, because of their sins!
If you see the sins that are going on, you'll understand why it's happening the way that it is. There are many other factors to it, but this is the heart and core of the most vicious and hateful and terrorist aspect of what is happening against America and Britain today.


Granite Crushing Plant in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is one of the most important Asia marketing,every year there are many customers from Sri Lanka.
Stone crushing plant Rock Crusher Equipment,price international price of stone crushers hkvac. international price of stone crushers.
What's the 20-50 tph stone crushing line cost price? Competition With multiple stone crushing plant manufacturers in the What is the price of stone crusher?
Price of stone crushing plant is mainly determined by the product configuration.


text:
Жах на вулиці В'язів () — культовий багатосерійний фільм жахів 1980-х років, складається з 9 фільмів, включаючи рімейк оригінальної картини, а також телесеріал, серію художніх романів і коміксів. Творцем концепції і першого фільмів є американський режисер і сценарист Уес Крейвен. Головний герой фільмів - Фредді Крюгер — надприродний серійний вбивця у виконанні Роберта Інглунда. Крюгер містичним чином вторгається у сни підлітків, що живуть у вигаданому містечку Спрінгвуд, намагаючись таким чином їх убити. Мотивом маніяка є помста батькам цих дітей, які спалили його багато років тому. Творець першого фільму був також співавтором сценарію третьої частини «Жах на вулиці В'язів 3: Воїни сну», а також режисером сьомої частину «Новий ко», де возз'єднав зірок картини - актрису Хізер Ландженкамп і акторів Роберта Інглунда і Джон Сексон. У загальній складності касові збори усіх фільмів склали близько $455 млн по всьому світу.

Перший фільм вийшов у 1984 році, після чого пішла серія сиквелів, знятих тією ж незалежною компанією «New Line Cinema» - боси студії вважають, що саме успіх першого фільму врятував компанію від банкрутства і допоміг вибитися в провідні кінокомпанії Голлівуду Стрічки отримували суперечливі відгуки, але були комерційно успішними. «Кошмар на вулиці В'язів» є другою за обсягом загальних касових зборів у всьому світі хоррор-франшизою  . htm  Починаючи з 1988 року був створений телесеріал «Кошмари Фредді», в якому Крюгер виконував функції ведучого за винятком пілотного епізоду, в якому глядачі нарешті побачили ту ніч, коли був убитий Крюгер.

Потім вийшло 12 окремих художніх романів - не рахуючи новелізації фільмів - кілька серій коміксів від видавництв «Marvel Comics», «Innovation», «Avatar Press» і «WildStorm», а також фільм-кросовер «Фредді проти Джейсона», де відбулася битва Крюгера з Джейсон Вурхіз з іншою хоррор-франшизою 'П'ятниця 13'.

Фільми і касові збори
У першому фільмі - «Кошмар на вулиці В'язів» (1984) - молоді люди, що живуть на вулиці В'язів в невеликому містечку Спрінгвуд, раптово починають бачити один і той самий кошмар, в якому людина в брудному червоно-зеленому смугастому светрі зі спотвореним обличчям з гострими лезами на пальцях намагається вбити їх. Закохані Ненсі Томпсон і Глен Ланц стають свідками жорстокого вбивства їх подруги Тіни, причому підозра падає на їх приятеля - Рода, її хлопця, який знаходився в одній кімнаті з нею у момент вбивства. Він ховається з місця злочину, але незабаром його ловлять. Однак юнак стверджує, що не винен, і що в кімнаті був хтось ще

Друга частина «Кошмар на вулиці В'язів 2: Помста Фредді» вийшла на екрани в 1985 році. Батьки Джессі купують будинок № 1428, в якому кілька років тому зійшла з розуму дівчина, коли у неї на очах маніяк по-звірячому вбив її хлопця. У першу ж ніч йому приснився кошмар, і тепер Джессі може забути про міцний сон, тому що Фредді повернувся. Скориставшись безпорадністю підлітка, Крюгер починає творити свою чорну справу, вбиваючи вчителів і однокласників Джессі. Щоб відволікти юнака від поганих думок, його подруга Ліза влаштовує розкішну вечірку. Але Джессі відчуває, що з ним щось не так, і незабаром Фредді опиняється на волі. Тепер Ліза розуміє, що вона - єдина людина, здатна допомогти Джессі

Події третього фільму «Кошмар на вулиці В'язів 3: Воїни сну» (1987) відбуваються через шість років після першої появи Фредді Крюгера. Він став набагато сильнішим, підживлюючись душами дітей з вулиці В'язів. Тепер він звернув увагу на сімох діточок, що поміщені в психіатричну лікарню. Становище ускладнюється численними «самогубствами», які, зрозуміло, є витівками Фредді. Розв'язати ситуацію і пояснити що відбувається може лише Ненсі Томпсон, яка повернулася в рідне місто як лікар-практикант ...

У четвертій картині «Кошмар на вулиці В'язів 4: Повелитель сну» (1988) Крістін гине від рук Фредді, але встигає передати свою таємницю подрузі. Еліс стає сильним воїном, здатним протистояти Фредді. Друзі дівчини стають наступними жертвами вбивці, і ось вже її брат гине уві сні

У «Кошмар на вулиці В'язів: Дитя сну» Еліс, знайома нам по попередній частині фільму, знову бачить дивні сни. В одному з них вона побачила воскресіння зловісного вбивці з лезами на руці. Після смерті її хлопця, Дена, Еліс дізнається, що в неї буде дитина. Зловісний план Фредді полягає в тому, щоб перетворити дитя в подобу себе, підсилюючи його душами вбитих друзів і подруг Еліс. На неї чекає складна боротьба не тільки за своє життя, але і за життя свого сина

У шостій стрічці «Фредді мертвий: Останній кошмар »(1991) Місія Крюгера майже закінчена. У живих залишився тільки один підліток, на якого у нього особливі надії, адже йому потрібні нові душі. Багато душ. Потрапивши в притулок для бездомних, хлопчик Джон знаходить однодумців в боротьбі з пазуристим монстром, що господарює в чужих снах. Чиста сторінка відкрита. Психіатр Меггі, що працює з хлопцями, виявляється дочкою Фредді. І тепер вона повинна зупинити свого батька, зрозумівши, що ж перетворило його в бездушного монстра

У «Новому кошмарі Уеса Крейвена» (1994) Фредді Крюгер зійшов прямо зі сторінок кіносценарію в реальне життя. Під час зйомок продовження культових пригод знаменитого маніяка, повелителя сновидінь, починають відбуватися дивні речі. Нещасні випадки слідують один за іншим. Гине майстер зі спецефектів Чейз Портер - чоловік виконавиці головної ролі в першому і третьому фільмах Хізер Ленгенкамп. А потім Фредді викрадає сина Хізер, Ділана. Але ніщо не здатне зупинити люблячу матір - не зволікаючи, Хізер спускається в царство Сну, приймаючи виклик диявола-вбивці

У 2003 році виходить фільм «Фредді проти Джейсона»: Крюгер доведений до відчаю: він більше не може вбивати. Лише використовуючи незграбного серійного вбивцю Джейсона Вурхиса, Фредді вдається винищувати дітей з вулиці В'язів. Але коли Джейсон починає розуміти, що ним просто маніпулюють, плани Фреді ледь не руйнуються. Тепер справа за тінейджерами Уіллом, Лорі і Кіей. Якимось чином їм треба змусити Джейсона раз і назавжди вбити Фредді Крюгера

Фільм 2010 року - «Кошмар на вулиці В'язів» - є рімейком оригінальної картини Уеса Крейвена. Над цим фільмом працював режисер Семюел Байер. Це його перша велика робота. У ролі Фредді знявся Джекі Ерл Хейлі

Ще під час зйомок першого ремейка, продюсери проговорилися, що вони розраховують зняти як мінімум трилогію, а кілька місяців потому в Інтернеті з'явилася офіційна інформація про те, що з виконавцем ролі Крюгера підписаний контракт на три фільми, Однак на даний момент ніякої інформації навіть про роботу над сценарієм сиквела немає.

Лічилочка
Один-два

Старий Фреді прийде до тебе

Три-чотири

Замкни двері

П'ять-шість

Візьми в руки розп'яття

Сім-вісім

Не лягай у ліжко

Дев'ять-десять

Ніколи більше не спи

Телесеріал

Комікси

Книги

Відеоігри

Пародії
Сімпсони

Див. також
Гіпнофобія

Примітки

Фільми жаху
Кіносерії
Жахи

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Military authorities charged respondent, a native Nigerian serving in the U. S. Navy, with violating of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). With counsel's assistance, respondent agreed to plead guilty to reduced charges. The special court-martial accepted the plea and convicted and sentenced respondent; the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) affirmed; and he was discharged from the Navy in 2000. In 2006, the Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings against respondent based on the conviction. To avoid deportation, he filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis under the authority of the All Writs Act, asking the NMCCA to vacate the conviction it had earlier affirmed on the ground that his guilty plea resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel, who had assured him his plea bargain carried no risk of deportation. Though rejecting the Government's contention that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the writ, the NMCCA denied relief for lack of merit. Agreeing that the NMCCA has jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) remanded for further proceedings on the merits.
1. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §1259(4), which permits it to review CAAF decisions in cases "in which [that court] granted relief." Respondent's parsimonious view that the CAAF did not " 'gran[t] relief' " in this case, but simply remanded to the NMCCA, is rejected. Though §1259 does not define "relief," the word's familiar meaning encompasses any redress or benefit provided by a court. The CAAF's judgment reversing the NMCCA satisfies that definition. Pp. 4–5.
2. Article I military courts have jurisdiction to entertain coram nobis petitions to consider allegations that an earlier judgment of conviction was flawed in a fundamental respect. Pp. 5–13.
(a) Military courts' power to issue extraordinary writs under the All Writs Act, see Noyd v. Bond, 395 U. S. 683, 695, n. 7, does not determine the anterior question whether those courts have jurisdiction to entertain a coram nobis petition. As recognized by the All Writs Act—which permits "courts established by Act of Congress" to issue "all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions," 28 U. S. C. §1651(a)—a court's power to issue any form of relief, extraordinary or otherwise, is contingent on its subject-matter jurisdiction over the case or controversy. Such jurisdiction is determined by Congress. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U. S. 205, 212. Thus, to issue respondent a writ of coram nobis on remand, the NMCCA must have had statutory subject-matter jurisdiction over respondent's original judgment of conviction. Pp. 5–8.
(b) Pursuant to the UCMJ, the NMCCA and the CAAF have subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. The NMCCA has jurisdiction to entertain respondent's coram nobis request under UCMJ Article 66, which provides: "For the purpose of reviewing court-martial cases, the [NMCCA] may sit … ." 10 U. S. C. §866(a). Because respondent's coram nobis request is simply a further "step in [his] criminal" appeal, United States v. Morgan, 346 U. S. 502, 505 n. 4, the NMCCA's jurisdiction to issue the writ derives from the earlier jurisdiction it exercised under §866(a) to hear and determine the conviction's validity on direct review. Respondent's coram nobis request is not barred by the requirement that the NMCCA "act only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority." §866(c). An alleged error in the original judgment predicated on ineffective-assistance-of-counsel challenges the conviction's validity, see Knowles v. Mirzayance, ante, at ___, so respondent's Sixth Amendment claim is "with respect to" the special-court-martial's "findings" of guilty. Because the NMCCA has jurisdiction, the CAAF has jurisdiction to review the NMCCA's denial of respondent's petition challenging the validity of his original conviction. That the CAAF's authority is confined "to matters of law" connected to "the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority and as affirmed or set aside by the Court of Criminal Appeals," §867(c), poses no obstacle to respondent's requested review. His Sixth Amendment claim presents a "matte[r] of law" "with respect to the [guilty] findings … as approved by the [special court-martial] and as affirmed … by" the NMCCA. Pp. 8–10.
(c) The Government's argument that UCMJ Article 76 affirmatively prohibits the type of collateral review respondent seeks errs in "conflating the jurisdictional question with the merits" of respondent's petition, Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, ante, at ___. Article 76 provides for the finality of judgments in military cases. Just as the finality principle did not jurisdictionally bar the court in Morgan, supra, from examining its earlier judgment, neither does it bar the NMCCA from doing so here. The Government's contention that coram nobis permits a court to correct its own errors, not those of an inferior court, is disposed of on similar grounds. Pp. 10–12.
66 M. J. 114, affirmed and remanded.
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Roberts, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined.
The case before us presents a single issue: whether an Article I military appellate court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for a writ of error coram nobis to challenge its earlier, and final, decision affirming a criminal conviction. The military court which had affirmed the conviction and where the writ of coram nobis was sought is the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA). Its ruling that it had jurisdiction to grant the writ, but then denying its issuance for lack of merit, was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). After the CAAF agreed that the NMCCA has jurisdiction to issue the writ, it remanded for further proceedings on the merits. The Government of the United States, contending that a writ of coram nobis directed to a final judgment of conviction is beyond the jurisdiction of the military courts, now brings the case to us.
Respondent Jacob Denedo came to the United States in 1984 from his native Nigeria. He enlisted in the Navy in 1989 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1990. In 1998, military authorities charged him with conspiracy, larceny, and forgery—in contravention of Articles 81, 121, and 123 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §§881, 921, 923—all for his role in a scheme to defraud a community college. With the assistance of both military and civilian counsel, respondent made a plea bargain to plead guilty to reduced charges. In exchange for his plea the convening authority referred respondent's case to a special court-martial, §819, which, at that time, could not impose a sentence greater than six months' confinement.
The special court-martial, consisting of a single military judge, accepted respondent's guilty plea after determining that it was both knowing and voluntary. The court convicted respondent of conspiracy and larceny. It sentenced him to three months' confinement, a bad-conduct discharge, and a reduction to the lowest enlisted pay grade. Respondent appealed on the ground that his sentence was unduly severe. The NMCCA affirmed. App. to Pet. for Cert. 64a–67a. Respondent did not seek further review in the CAAF, and he was discharged from the Navy on May 30, 2000.
In 2006, the Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings against respondent based upon his special court-martial conviction. To avoid deportation, respondent decided to challenge his conviction once more, though at this point it had been final for eight years. He maintained, in a petition for a writ of coram nobis filed with the NMCCA, that the conviction it had earlier affirmed must be deemed void because his guilty plea was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. Respondent alleged that he informed his civilian attorney during plea negotiations that " 'his primary concern and objective' " was to avoid deportation and that he was willing to " 'risk … going to jail' " to avert separation from his family. 66 M. J. 114, 118 (C. A. Armed Forces 2008). On respondent's account, his attorney—an alcoholic who was not sober during the course of the special court-martial proceeding—erroneously assured him that " 'if he agreed to plead guilty at a special-court-martial he would avoid any risk of deportation.' " Ibid. Petitioner argued that the NMCCA could set aside its earlier decision by issuing a writ of coram nobis under the authority of the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. §1651(a).
The Government filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. It contended that the NMCCA had no authority to conduct postconviction proceedings. In a terse, four-sentence order, the NMCCA summarily denied both the Government's motion and respondent's petition for a writ of coram nobis. App. to Pet. for Cert. 63a. Respondent appealed and the CAAF, dividing 3 to 2, affirmed in part and reversed in part. The CAAF agreed with the NMCCA that standing military courts have jurisdiction to conduct "collateral review under the All Writs Act." 66 M. J., at 119. This is so, the CAAF explained, because "when a petitioner seeks collateral relief to modify an action that was taken within the subject matter jurisdiction of the military justice system … a writ that is necessary or appropriate may be issued under the All Writs Act 'in aid of' the court's existing jurisdiction." Id., at 120 (citing 28 U. S. C. §1651(a)).
Satisfied that it had jurisdiction, the CAAF next turned to whether the writ of coram nobis should issue. It held that a nondefaulted, ineffective-assistance claim that was yet to receive a full and fair review "within the military justice system" could justify issuance of the writ. 66 M. J., at 125. Finding that respondent's ineffective-assistance claim satisfied "the threshold criteria for coram nobis review," the CAAF remanded to the NMCCA so it could ascertain in the first instance "whether the merits of [respondent's] petition can be resolved on the basis of the written submissions, or whether a factfinding hearing is required." Id., at 126, 130.
Judge Stucky filed a dissenting opinion. Assuming that the majority had correctly determined its jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, he concluded that respondent's ineffective-assistance claim lacked merit. Id., at 131. Judge Ryan also dissented. Reasoning that the majority had misapplied this Court's holding in Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U. S. 529 (1999), she concluded that the UCMJ does not confer jurisdiction upon military tribunals to conduct "post-finality collateral review." 66 M. J., at 136. We granted certiorari, 555 U. S. ___ (2008), and now affirm.
Before we address another court's subject-matter jurisdiction we must first determine our own. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ante, at 6 ("Subject-matter jurisdiction … should be considered when fairly in doubt"). The Government, upon which the burden to demonstrate subject-matter jurisdiction lies, DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 342 (2006), claims that our power to hear this appeal rests on 28 U. S. C. §1259(4). That jurisdictional provision permits us to review CAAF decisions in " 'cases … in which the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces … granted relief.' " Respondent maintains that we lack jurisdiction because the CAAF did not " 'grant relief ' "; "all it did was remand" to the NMCCA. Brief for Respondent 6–7 (brackets omitted).
Respondent's parsimonious construction of the word "relief" need not detain us long. Though §1259 does not define the term, its familiar meaning encompasses any "redress or benefit" provided by a court. Black's Law Dictionary 1317 (8th ed. 2004). The CAAF's judgment reversing the NMCCA satisfies that definition. The NMCCA denied respondent's petition for a writ of coram nobis, while the CAAF's decision reversed and remanded so that the NMCCA could determine anew if the writ should issue. That decision conferred a palpable benefit on respondent; for a chance of success on the merits, however slight, is superior to no possibility at all.
To be sure, respondent would have preferred the CAAF to issue a writ of coram nobis or to direct the NMCCA to do so rather than remanding for the NMCCA to conduct further proceedings. We have jurisdiction, however, to review any decision granting "relief," not just those providing "ultimate relief" or "complete relief." Indeed, appellate courts reverse and remand lower court judgments—rather than issuing complete relief—with regularity. See, e.g., Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, ante, at ___; FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., ante, at ___. There is no merit to the view that a decision granting partial relief should be construed as granting no relief at all.
Because the CAAF "granted relief" to respondent, the text of §1259 is satisfied here. We have jurisdiction to determine whether the CAAF was correct in ruling that the NMCCA had authority to entertain the petition for a writ of coram nobis.
The writ of coram nobis is an ancient common-law remedy designed "to correct errors of fact." United States v. Morgan, 346 U. S. 502, 507 (1954). In American jurisprudence the precise contours of coram nobis have not been "well defined," Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U. S. 410, 416 (1882), but the writ traces its origins to the King's Bench and the Court of Common Pleas. United States v. Plumer, 27 F. Cas. 561, 573 (No. 16,056) (CC Mass. 1859) (opinion for the court by Clifford, Circuit Justice); see also Morgan, supra, at 507, n. 9 (citing 2 W. Tidd, Practice of Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas *1136–*1137). In English practice the office of the writ was to foster respect for judicial rulings by enabling the same court "where the action was commenced and where the judgment was rendered" to avoid the rigid strictures of judgment finality by correcting technical errors "such as happened through the fault of the clerk in the record of the proceedings prior to the judgment." Plumer, supra, at 572–573.
Any rationale confining the writ to technical errors, however, has been superseded; for in its modern iteration coram nobis is broader than its common-law predecessor. This is confirmed by our opinion in Morgan. In that case we found that a writ of coram nobis can issue to redress a fundamental error, there a deprivation of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment, as opposed to mere technical errors. 346 U. S., at 513. The potential universe of cases that range from technical errors to fundamental ones perhaps illustrates, in the case of coram nobis, the "tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic." B. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 51 (1921). To confine the use of coram nobis so that finality is not at risk in a great number of cases, we were careful in Morgan to limit the availability of the writ to "extraordinary" cases presenting circumstances compelling its use "to achieve justice." 346 U. S., at 511. Another limit, of course, is that an extraordinary remedy may not issue when alternative remedies, such as habeas corpus, are available. See id., at 510–511.
In federal courts the authority to grant a writ of coram nobis is conferred by the All Writs Act, which permits "courts established by Act of Congress" to issue "all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions." 28 U. S. C. §1651(a). Though military courts, like Article III tribunals, are empowered to issue extraordinary writs under the All Writs Act, Noyd v. Bond, 395 U. S. 683, 695, n. 7 (1969), that authority does not determine the anterior question whether military courts have jurisdiction to entertain a petition for coram nobis. As the text of the All Writs Act recognizes, a court's power to issue any form of relief—extraordinary or otherwise—is contingent on that court's subject-matter jurisdiction over the case or controversy.
Assuming no constraints or limitations grounded in the Constitution are implicated, it is for Congress to determine the subject-matter jurisdiction of federal courts. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U. S. 205, 212 (2007) ("Within constitutional bounds, Congress decides what cases the federal courts have jurisdiction to consider"). This rule applies with added force to Article I tribunals, such as the NMCCA and CAAF, which owe their existence to Congress' authority to enact legislation pursuant to Art. I, §8 of the Constitution. Goldsmith, 526 U. S., at 533–534.
Our decision in Goldsmith demonstrates these teachings. There an Air Force officer, James Goldsmith, was convicted of various crimes by general court-martial and sentenced to six years' confinement. Id., at 531. Following his conviction, Congress enacted a statute authorizing the President to drop convicted officers from the rolls of the Armed Forces. When the Air Force notified Goldsmith that he would be dropped from the rolls, he lodged a petition before the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) claiming that the proposed action contravened the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution. Id., at 532–533. Goldsmith sought extraordinary relief as authorized by the All Writs Act to enjoin the President from removing him from the rolls. The AFCCA denied relief, but the CAAF granted it.
Concluding that the UCMJ does not authorize military courts to review executive action—including a decision to drop an officer from the rolls—we held that the AFCCA and the CAAF lacked jurisdiction over Goldsmith's case. Id., at 535. This was so, we unequivocally found, irrespective of the military court's authority to issue extraordinary relief pursuant to the All Writs Act and its previous jurisdiction over Goldsmith's criminal proceeding. The power to issue relief depends upon, rather than enlarges, a court's jurisdiction. Id., at 536–537.
That principle does not control the question before us. Because coram nobis is but an extraordinary tool to correct a legal or factual error, an application for the writ is properly viewed as a belated extension of the original proceeding during which the error allegedly transpired. See Morgan, supra, at 505, n. 4 (coram nobis is "a step in the criminal case and not, like habeas corpus where relief is sought in a separate case and record, the beginning of a separate civil proceeding"); see also United States v. Beggerly, 524 U. S. 38, 46 (1998) (citing Pacific R. Co. of Mo. v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 111 U. S. 505, 522 (1884) (noting that an "independent action"—which, like coram nobis, is an equitable means to obtain relief from a judgment—" 'may be regarded as ancillary to the prior suit, so that the relief asked may be granted by the court which made the decree in that suit … . The bill, though an original bill in the chancery sense of the word, is a continuation of the former suit, on the question of the jurisdiction of the [court]' "). It follows that to issue respondent a writ of coram nobis on remand, the NMCCA must have had statutory subject-matter jurisdiction over respondent's original judgment of conviction.
In the critical part of its opinion discussing the jurisdiction and authority of the NMCCA to issue a writ of coram nobis in an appropriate case, the CAAF describes respondent's request for review as one "under the All Writs Act." 66 M. J., at 119. This is correct, of course, if it simply confirms that the Act authorizes federal courts to issue writs "in aid of" their jurisdiction; but it does not advance the inquiry into whether jurisdiction exists.
And there are limits to the use of coram nobis to alter or interpret earlier judgments. As Goldsmith makes plain, the All Writs Act and the extraordinary relief the statute authorizes are not a source of subject-matter jurisdiction. 526 U. S., at 534–535. Statutes which address the power of a court to use certain writs or remedies or to decree certain forms of relief, for instance to award damages in some specified measure, in some circumstances might be construed also as a grant of jurisdiction to hear and determine the underlying cause of action. Cf. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803). We have long held, however, that the All Writs Act should not be interpreted in this way. Goldsmith, supra, at 536; Plumer, 27 F. Cas., at 574 (jurisdiction cannot be acquired "by means of the writ to be issued"). The authority to issue a writ under the All Writs Act is not a font of jurisdiction. See Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U. S. 28, 31 (2002).
Quite apart from the All Writs Act, we conclude that the NMCCA has jurisdiction to entertain respondent's request for a writ of coram nobis. Article 66 of the UCMJ provides: "For the purpose of reviewing court-martial cases, the [Court of Criminal Appeals] may sit … ." 10 U. S. C. §866(a). Because respondent's request for coram nobis is simply a further "step in [his] criminal" appeal, Morgan, 346 U. S., at 505, n. 4, the NMCCA's jurisdiction to issue the writ derives from the earlier jurisdiction it exercised to hear and determine the validity of the conviction on direct review. As even the Government concedes, the textual authority under the UCMJ to " 'revie[w] court-martial cases' " provided the NMCCA with jurisdiction to hear an appeal of respondent's judgment of conviction. See Brief for United States 17–18. That jurisdiction is sufficient to permit the NMCCA to entertain respondent's petition for coram nobis. See also Courts of Criminal Appeals Rule of Practice and Procedure 2(b) (recognizing NMCCA discretionary authority to entertain petitions for extraordinary writs).
It is true that when exercising its jurisdiction under §866(a), the NMCCA "may act only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority." §866(c). That limitation does not bar respondent's request for a writ of coram nobis. An alleged error in the original judgment predicated on ineffective-assistance-of-counsel challenges the validity of a conviction, see Knowles v. Mirzayance, ante, at 3, so respondent's Sixth Amendment claim is "with respect to" the special-court-martial's "findings of guilty," 10 U. S. C. §866(c). Pursuant to the UCMJ, the NMCCA has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear respondent's request for extraordinary relief.
Because the NMCCA had jurisdiction over respondent's petition for coram nobis, the CAAF had jurisdiction to entertain respondent's appeal from the NMCCA's judgment. When exercising its jurisdiction, the CAAF's authority is confined "to matters of law" connected to "the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority and as affirmed or set aside … by the Court of Criminal Appeals," §867(c), but these limitations pose no obstacle to respondent's requested review of the NMCCA's decision. Respondent's Sixth Amendment claim presents a "matte[r] of law" "with respect to the [guilty] findings … as approved by the [special court-martial] and as affirmed … by the Court of Criminal Appeals." Ibid. The CAAF had subject-matter jurisdiction to review the NMCCA's denial of respondent's petition challenging the validity of his original conviction.
"The appellate review of records of trial provided by this chapter, the proceedings, findings, and sentences of courts-martial as approved, reviewed, or affirmed as required by this chapter, and all dismissals and discharges carried into execution under sentences by courts-martial following approval, review, or affirmation as required by this chapter, are final and conclusive. Orders publishing the proceedings of courts-martial and all action taken pursuant to those proceedings are binding upon all departments, courts, agencies, and officers of the United States … ." 10 U. S. C. §876.
Article 76 codifies the common-law rule that respects the finality of judgments. Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, 749 (1975). Just as the rules of finality did not jurisdictionally bar the court in Morgan from examining its earlier judgment, neither does the principle of finality bar the NMCCA from doing so here.
The Government may ultimately be correct that the facts of respondent's case are insufficient to set aside the final judgment that Article 76 makes binding. No doubt, judgment finality is not to be lightly cast aside; and courts must be cautious so that the extraordinary remedy of coram nobis issues only in extreme cases. But the long-recognized authority of a court to protect the integrity of its earlier judgments impels the conclusion that the finality rule is not so inflexible that it trumps each and every competing consideration. Our holding allows military courts to protect the integrity of their dispositions and processes by granting relief from final judgments in extraordinary cases when it is shown that there were fundamental flaws in the proceedings leading to their issuance. The Government remains free to argue that respondent's is a merely ordinary case that is not entitled to extraordinary relief. But respondent's entitlement to relief is a merits question outside the scope of the jurisdictional question presented.
The Government's contention that coram nobis permits a court "to correct its own errors, not … those of an inferior court," Brief for United States 36, can be disposed of on similar grounds. Just as respondent's request for coram nobis does not confer subject-matter jurisdiction, the Government's argument that the relief should not issue "in light of the writ's traditional scope" does not undermine it, ibid. (emphasis deleted). In sum, the Government's argument speaks to the scope of the writ, not the NMCCA's jurisdiction to issue it. The CAAF rejected the former argument. Only the latter one is before us.
We hold that Article I military courts have jurisdiction to entertain coram nobis petitions to consider allegations that an earlier judgment of conviction was flawed in a fundamental respect. That conclusion is consistent with our holding that Article III courts have a like authority. Morgan, 346 U. S., at 508. The result we reach today is of central importance for military courts. The military justice system relies upon courts that must take all appropriate means, consistent with their statutory jurisdiction, to ensure the neutrality and integrity of their judgments. Under the premises and statutes we have relied upon here, the jurisdiction and the responsibility of military courts to reexamine judgments in rare cases where a fundamental flaw is alleged and other judicial processes for correction are unavailable are consistent with the powers Congress has granted those courts under Article I and with the system Congress has designed.
We do not prejudge the merits of respondent's petition. To be sure, the writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary writ; and "an extraordinary remedy … should not be granted in the ordinary case." Nken v. Holder, ante, at 1 (Kennedy, J., concurring). The relative strength of respondent's ineffective-assistance claim, his delay in lodging his petition, when he learned or should have learned of his counsel's alleged deficiencies, and the effect of the rule of judgment finality expressed in Article 76 are all factors the NMCCA can explore on remand. We hold only that the military appellate courts had jurisdiction to hear respondent's request for a writ of coram nobis. The judgment of the CAAF is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
OPINION OF ROBERTS, C. J.
Chief Justice Roberts, with whom Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The Court's approach is simple: Jurisdiction to issue writs of coram nobis is a "belated extension" of a court's original, statutory jurisdiction. Ante, at 8. The military courts here had original jurisdiction over Denedo's case. Those courts therefore have implicit "extended" jurisdiction to consider Denedo's coram nobis petition.
The flaw in this syllogism is at the first step: The only arguable authority for the proposition that coram nobis jurisdiction marches hand in hand with original jurisdiction is a footnote in United States v. Morgan, 346 U. S. 502 (1954), and that case concerned Article III courts. The military courts are markedly different. They are Article I courts whose jurisdiction is precisely limited at every turn. Those careful limits cannot be overridden by judicial "extension" of statutory jurisdiction, or the addition of a "further step" to the ones marked out by Congress. Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted).
I agree with the majority that this Court has jurisdiction to review the decision below, but respectfully dissent from its holding that military courts have jurisdiction to issue writs of coram nobis.
"Traditionally, military justice has been a rough form of justice emphasizing summary procedures, speedy convictions and stern penalties with a view to maintaining obedience and fighting fitness in the ranks." Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 35–36 (1957) (plurality opinion). Courts-martial are composed of active service members who sit only to hear the particular case before them. Once a court-martial reaches a judgment and imposes a sentence, it is dissolved, and its members return to their regular duties.
Prior to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), military courts of appeals did not exist. If a service member wanted to challenge a court-martial conviction, he pursued a collateral attack in an Article III court. There, review was limited to whether the conviction was void "because of lack of jurisdiction or some other equally fundamental defect," Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, 747 (1975); beyond that, Article III courts adhered to "the general rule that the acts of a court martial, within the scope of its jurisdiction and duty, cannot be controlled or reviewed in the civil courts," Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 177 (1886).
The UCMJ established a "complete system of [military] review," Burns v. Wilson, 346 U. S. 137, 140 (1953) (plurality opinion), including direct review in what are now the Courts of Criminal Appeals (CCAs) and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). But in keeping with the historical backdrop against which these courts were created, Congress did not grant military courts of appeals "broad responsibility with respect to administration of military justice"; on the contrary, their jurisdiction is "narrowly circumscribed" by the governing statutes. Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U. S. 529, 534, 535 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The CCAs provide direct, record-based review of court-martial judgments, but they may only review cases referred by the judge advocate general, who in turn refers only those cases in which specific sentences are imposed. 10 U. S. C. §§866(b), (c). When reviewing that subset of court-martial judgments, a CCA "may act only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority." §866(c). If a case is reviewed by the CCA, the CCA's decision may then be reviewed by the CAAF. §867(a). But that court, too, conducts limited direct review: It "may act only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority and as affirmed or set aside as incorrect in law by the [CCA]." §867(c). Once direct review in the CCA and the CAAF is complete, and review in this Court is exhausted or waived, a judgment as to the legality of the court-martial proceedings is final, and the sentence imposed may be executed. §871(c)(1).
The UCMJ provides only one avenue for reconsideration of a final court-martial conviction: a petition for a new trial under Article 73. See §873. An Article 73 petition may be brought "within two years after approval by the convening authority of a court-martial sentence," meaning it may be brought before or after a conviction becomes final. Ibid. If direct review is still pending before a CCA or the CAAF when the petition is filed, the judge advocate general (to whom the petition must be directed) will refer the petition to that court. Ibid. But once the conviction is final, only the judge advocate general may act on an Article 73 petition. Ibid.
Federal courts are authorized to issue extraordinary writs such as coram nobis only as "necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions." 28 U. S. C. §1651(a). The All Writs Act "confine[s] the power of the CAAF to issuing process 'in aid of' its existing statutory jurisdiction" and "does not enlarge that jurisdiction." Goldsmith, supra, at 534–535; see also Noyd v. Bond, 395 U. S. 683, 695, n. 7 (1969) (although military courts can issue extraordinary writs in aid of their direct review jurisdiction, "[a] different question would, of course, arise in a case which the [courts are] not authorized to review under the governing statutes"). The UCMJ grants military courts of appeals no jurisdiction over final court-martial judgments, so there is no jurisdiction for a postconviction extraordinary writ to "aid." A petition for coram nobis by its nature seeks postconviction review; it is therefore beyond the scope of these courts' "narrowly circumscribed" statutory jurisdiction. Goldsmith, supra, at 535.
The majority overrides these careful limits on military court jurisdiction by maintaining that later jurisdiction to issue coram nobis is a "belated extension" of the statutory jurisdiction, that "jurisdiction to issue [coram nobis] derives from the earlier jurisdiction." Ante, at 8, 9. The authority the Court cites for this key jurisdictional analysis is—a footnote. See ante, at 8 (citing Morgan, 346 U. S., at 505, n. 4); ante, at 9 (same). Now, footnotes are part of an opinion, too, even if not the most likely place to look for a key jurisdictional ruling. But since footnote 4 plays such an indispensable role in the majority's analysis, it must be read with care.
The first thing you notice in doing so is that the footnote does not mention the word "jurisdiction" at all. That is because it has nothing to do with jurisdiction. The issue addressed in the paragraph to which the footnote was appended was "choice of remedy." 346 U. S., at 505. The Court concluded that coram nobis was the appropriate one. The footnote simply addressed the concern that the remedy might not be available because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure had abolished coram nobis as a remedy; the concern was dismissed because the Court concluded the criminal rules, not the civil rules, applied. Id., at 505, n. 4; see also United States v. Keogh, 391 F. 2d 138, 140 (CA2 1968) (Friendly, J.) ("The problem to which the footnote was addressed was that F. R. Civ. P. 60(b) had abolished writs of error coram nobis").
The point is further confirmed by the text in the body of the opinion: The Court's conclusion in the paragraph in which the footnote appears is that since the remedy sought was "in the nature of … coram nobis," the trial court could "properly exercise its jurisdiction." 346 U. S., at 505 (emphasis added). The issue was not the existence of jurisdiction, but whether the court had the authority to exercise it. The Court in the present case recognizes the distinction. See ante, at 10 ("When exercising its jurisdiction, the CAAF's authority is confined to matters of law" (internal quotation marks omitted)); ante, at 9 ("The authority to issue a writ under the All Writs Act is not a font of jurisdiction").
Even accepting the majority's reading of Morgan's hitherto obscure footnote, that reading would only establish the "belated jurisdiction" theory for Article III courts. The military courts are Article I courts. The distinction has direct pertinence to the point at issue in this case.
Legal doctrines "must be placed in their historical setting. They cannot be wrenched from it and mechanically transplanted into an alien, unrelated context without suffering mutilation or distortion." Reid, 354 U. S., at 50 (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result). The Article III courts have been given broad jurisdiction. I can understand, if not necessarily agree with, the notion that they might enjoy some implicit "long-recognized authority" to correct their earlier judgments. See ante, at 11. But not so for Article I courts. The principle that Congress defines the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts "applies with added force to Article I tribunals." Ante, at 7. That is especially true with respect to military courts. The military justice system is the last place courts should go about finding "extensions" of jurisdiction beyond that conferred by statute.
Even if the majority's reading of Morgan's footnote could be transplanted to the military context, the majority's conclusion would still not follow. " '[T]he All Writs Act is a residual source of authority to issue writs that are not otherwise covered by statute. Where a statute specifically addresses the particular issue at hand, it is that authority, and not the All Writs Act, that is controlling.' " Carlisle v. United States, 517 U. S. 416, 429 (1996) (quoting Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction v. United States Marshals Service, 474 U. S. 34, 43 (1985)).
The UCMJ contains not one, but two provisions specifically limiting the circumstances under which postconviction relief (other than action by the appropriate Secretary or the President) may be obtained within the court-martial system. First, Article 73 provides that, "within two years after approval by the convening authority of a court-martial sentence, the accused may petition the Judge Advocate General for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence or fraud on the court." 10 U. S. C. §873. The only relief available under this "special post-conviction remedy" is a new trial, Burns, 346 U. S., at 141 (plurality opinion), and even that may be granted only in an expressly circumscribed timeframe (two years) and set of circumstances (newly discovered evidence or fraud on the court). Article 73 stands in stark contrast to coram nobis, which the majority characterizes as a writ infinitely available "to redress a[ny] fundamental error." Ante, at 6; see Morgan, supra, at 512 ("fundamental error" not limited to jurisdictional defects or errors on the face of the record).
To be sure, the limited nature of relief available under Article 73 might lead one to question whether that is truly the only postconviction relief the UCMJ permits. "You're in the Army now" is a sufficient answer to such concerns; the relief available looks positively extravagant in light of the prior history and tradition of military justice. In any event, as the majority recognizes, see ante, at 11, Article 76 makes clear that all court-martial judgments "carried into execution" after completion of direct review are "final and conclusive," 10 U. S. C. §876. Contrary to the majority's assertion, that language does not simply "codif[y] the common-law rule that respects the finality of judgments." Ante, at 11. In fact, Article 76 does not stop there. It goes on to instruct that final court-martial judgments are binding "subject only to action upon a petition for a new trial [under Article 73]," or action by the appropriate Secretary or the President. 10 U. S. C. §876 (emphasis added).
In light of these provisions, only Article 73 provides any authority to the CCAs or the CAAF, and even that narrow authority is limited to pending cases. Once a conviction is final, only the judge advocate general can provide relief. See supra, at 3; 10 U. S. C. §873. To the extent the CCAs or the CAAF could be deemed to have some inherent continuing authority to issue writs of coram nobis, Articles 73 and 76 extinguish it.
The Government goes on to argue that even if military courts have jurisdiction to issue writs of coram nobis, and even if Articles 73 and 76 do not bar such relief, the courts still lack authority to issue coram nobis, because the writ is neither "necessary" nor "appropriate" to the court-martial system of justice. See 28 U. S. C. §1651(a) (federal courts "may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions"). Coram nobis allows the court that issued a judgment to correct its own errors of fact. See Morgan, 346 U. S., at 507, n. 9 (" 'If a judgment in the King's Bench be erroneous in matter of fact only, … it may be reversed in the same court, by writ of error coram nobis' " (quoting 2 W. Tidd, Practice of the Courts of King's Bench, and Common Pleas 1136 (4th Am. ed. 1856); some emphasis added)); see also ante, at 11 (referring to "authority of a court to protect the integrity of its earlier judgments" (emphasis added)). But a court-martial is not a standing court. On a case-by-case basis, "[i]t is called into existence for a special purpose and to perform a particular duty. When the object of its creation has been accomplished it is dissolved." Runkle v. United States, 122 U. S. 543, 555–556 (1887); see also 66 M. J. 114, 124 (CAAF 2008) (a court-martial "does not have independent jurisdiction over a case after the military judge authenticates the record and the convening authority forwards the record after taking action"). Because the court-martial that issues the conviction no longer exists once the conviction is final, there is no court to which a postconviction petition for coram nobis could be directed.
The absence of standing courts-martial is no mere technicality, but rather an integral and intentional part of the military justice system. "Court-martial jurisdiction sprang from the belief that within the military ranks there is need for a prompt, ready-at-hand means of compelling obedience and order." United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11, 22 (1955). But meeting that need requires expending significant military resources, and "[t]o the extent that those responsible for performance of [the military's] primary function are diverted from it by the necessity of trying cases, the basic fighting purpose of armies is not served." Id., at 17. Accordingly, courts-martial, composed of active duty military personnel, have always been called into existence for a limited purpose and duration.
It is no answer that the CCAs and the CAAF are standing courts that could act as substitutes for coram nobis purposes. As this case illustrates, those courts are not equipped to handle the kind of factfinding necessary to resolve claims that might be brought on coram nobis. Instead, the CCAs will have to resort to the procedures invented by United States v. DuBay, 17 U. S. C. M. A. 147, 37 C. M. R. 411 (1967), under which a new convening authority will refer a case to a new court-martial, and task various military personnel who have no prior familiarity with the case to conduct an out-of-court evidentiary hearing on the merits of the petitioner's claim. Id., at 149, 37 C. M. R., at 413. This "unwieldy and imperfect system" will undoubtedly divert valuable military resources, 66 M. J., at 136 (Ryan, J., dissenting), all in aid of postconviction relief Congress specifically withheld.
The Court expressly declines to consider the Government's "necessary or appropriate" argument: "[T]he Government's argument speaks to the scope of the writ, not the [CCA's] jurisdiction to issue it. The CAAF rejected the former argument. Only the latter one is before us." Ante, at 12. The Court may well be correct in dividing the questions into separate pigeonholes. But the Government's argument, even if an argument about authority rather than jurisdiction, applies to every coram nobis case, given the nature of the military justice system. It is curious to conclude that military courts have jurisdiction, while not considering a raised and briefed argument that they may never exercise it.
Since the adoption of the UCMJ, "Congress has gradually changed the system of military justice so that it has come to more closely resemble the civilian system." Weiss v. United States, 510 U. S. 163, 174 (1994). "But the military in important respects remains a specialized society separate from civilian society." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither the jurisdiction nor the powers of Article III courts are necessarily appropriate for military courts, and Congress's contrary determinations in this area are entitled to "the highest deference." Loving v. United States, 517 U. S. 748, 768 (1996). Rather than respect the rule that military courts have no jurisdiction to revisit final convictions, the majority creates an exception that swallows it. Because I would hold the military courts to the statutory restraints that govern them, I respectfully dissent.
A court-martial conviction may still be collaterally attacked in an Article III court, but that is because those courts possess jurisdiction beyond that granted by the UCMJ. See, e.g., 28 U. S. C. §§2241, 1331. We have repeatedly held that Article 76 "does not expressly effect any change in the subject-matter jurisdiction of Art. III courts." Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, 749 (1975). Our cases have never questioned that Article 76 limits the jurisdiction of military courts.
Once you get into the business of extending jurisdiction, it can be hard to stop. Denedo is no longer in the military. Ante, at 2. Military courts lack jurisdiction over "civilian ex-soldiers who ha[ve] severed all relationship with the military and its institutions." United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11, 14 (1955). In the event coram nobis does issue with respect to a former service member, the Government maintains it would lack jurisdiction to retry. Tr. of Oral Arg. 56–57; see 10 U. S. C. §§802–803. Avoiding that extraordinary result would require another "belated extension" of the original court-martial proceeding, expanding the jurisdiction of military courts to try individuals who have long since severed their ties to the military.


Anyone who has witnessed or been subjected to bullying can attest to the fact that bullying is a destructive social experience. Researchers have corroborated that the effects of childhood bullying are felt well-beyond the initial incident. Furthermore, the damaging effects of bullying have been shown to impede social relationships, deteriorate well-being, disrupt physiological processes, and degrade overall health.
A recent study by deLara (2018) documented concerns from adults who had experienced childhood bullying. Many of the individuals reported symptoms related to depression, social anxiety, and unhealthy relationships. Research has also indicated that being subjected to bullying increases risk for adverse health outcomes, such as inflammatory diseases, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease (Copeland et al., 2014). Dysregulated hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and cortisol secretions are physiological malfunctions that have been examined in the literature on bullying. Vaillancourt and colleagues (2008) indicated that children who were bullied were more likely to have dysregulated cortisol levels. Cortisol is an important hormone that prepares the body for a physical response. However, repeated duress such as bullying, causes an overuse of the system and can reduce levels of cortisol. A reduction in cortisol secretion can lead to a feeling of low-energy. Low-energy is a symptom of depression and can affect an individual's desire to engage in social activities.
STOP the bullying. Make eye contact with the individual being bullied, and the individual who is bullying. Tell the individual who is bullying that their behaviour is unacceptable.
TALK to the individuals involved in the bullying. Ask why the incident happened.
EXPLAIN that the bullying behaviour is ineffective.
PROBLEM SOLVE and brainstorm solutions to prevent the bullying from happening again.


The groundbreaking Colibri Quasar Table Cutter provides the ability to choose between two types of cuts for your premium cigars. An S-Cut (straight) and a V Cut come built into this innovative device. Super sharp surgical stainless-steel blades provide precision sharp cuts every time. A sturdy black all-metal body secures the blades that run on oiled quad pistons to ensure smooth action when in motion. Best of all, the V-shaped cutter can accommodate up to a 70-ring, and the S-Cut can handle a 60-ring cigar.