(no subject)

[strredwolf]

So Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006.  It's now law... and with that I started to question things, like the exact wording of the law.  Google search... and Wikipedia is covering it, w/o any internal red flags being raised in my mind.

We can skip over the "How such a tribunal will work" parts.  The main deal is "Is there a provision that declares who is covered under this law?"  I mean, if everyone's targeted, that's UltraBad(tm) and the courts would have no problem saying "No, this law's unconsitutional, it's dead."  If it's trying to target specific people, then it's not too bad, but still has problems that needed to be ruled on.

According to Wikipedia, it's the latter -- US Citizens are not covered by the law.  It targets non-US citizens.  Unfortunately, the wording of additional targeting is vague for me -- would speeches in support of a terrorist group be called supporting said group, and thus earn you a trip to Gitmo?  US citizens are in a grey area now -- it's not clear where they are under this law.  Plus, the Judicial branch has been cut off from the detainees...

...which were in the court system already.  Guess what their lawyers did -- sue to strike down the law.  And their petition is being granted.  They want a trial.  The process is already under way, according to the Washington Post.

I hope the Dems win the back Congress.  Congressional gridlock will be good in this age.

Comments

[darthparadox.livejournal.com]

As Olbermann pointed out Wednesday night, they can declare a US citizen an unlawful alien enemy combatant if they want, and strip habeus corpus from them. What's the citizen going to do, try to initiate court proceedings to claim his citizenship?

Congressional opposition means that a bill has to satisfy both parties (or have huge support in Congress) to become law. It's a tougher requirement, which in general yields better bills...

[kazriko.livejournal.com]

Hrmph. I'm pretty sure we covered that in another thread, you know. ;)

I pasted the actual wording of the law into that which specifically said who it would cover. They can declare a us citizen an unlawful enemy combatant, but they can't strip citizenship nor strip habeus corpus. Unless you have some other wording that counteracts that. The definition of alien is directly in the header of the bill.

[darthparadox.livejournal.com]

I know, and I don't dispute that the actual wording of the law only strips habeus corpus from aliens. And at this point, trusting that the government is always going to be careful to stick to the letter of the law is foolish.

Olbermann's point is that the government can claim you're an alien and never give you a hearing to state otherwise. Just like they can claim someone's an unlawful enemy combatant and never give you a hearing to plead your case.

[kazriko.livejournal.com]

And a military trial doesn't give you any chance to plead your case, right? I suggest you read S.3930 Subchapter 4 before saying that they wouldn't have a hearing...

I'm afraid I doubt the neutrality or fairness of someone who uses the following titles for his articles:

• The Day King George Was Crowned...


• Olbermann on the Murder of Habeus Corpus


• Beginning of the end of America

I'm still not decided on this issue. Nobody will make a case based on the text of the law, everyone insists instead on fear-mongering like the Olbermann person you keep quoting. Judging from people of his ilk and their recent utterly dishonest twisting of the fair-tax to attack pro-tax-reduction politicians, I'm disinclined to listen to any argument that says to ignore the letter of the law. Ignoring half of the letter of the law with the Fair tax and claiming they're for higher taxes is getting the only people who actually want to reduce taxes bounced out of the government...

[strredwolf.livejournal.com]

This is why there is such a legal grey area, and I'm glad the courts are getting to rule on this law.

[kazriko.livejournal.com]

Personally, I'm hoping for a Libertarian sweep. ;)

It's about as realistic as any real progress happening with either of the two main parties.

[bibliophage.livejournal.com]

It would be even better if the Supreme Court would start doing it's job.

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."

Therefore, if a state files against a Corporation, the sole jurisdiction is in the Supreme Court of the United States. No "Fifth Circuit Court", no state courts, nada. Supreme Court.

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

Therefore, all crimes involving a federal system must be done by jury. Not panel of three, but a full jury. If it occurred in the US, it must be held in the state where the offense was committed (or one of them - thus the "who is going to try this train riding serial killer" arguments). If it occurred outside of the US, then it will be wherever Congress decrees. Guatemala, the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, whatever. But still a jury.

They should also be reviewing _all_ laws, comparing them against the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Articles of Confederation (the Constitution specifically states that it upholds things done under the Confederation). No precendents, no lawyer-speak, no rules-mongering. Just a direct "Is this allowed under the Constitution as it is written, yes/no"

If they'd start wading through the backlog, spending 8 hours a day, they could probably remove 90% of the federal laws (and a significant number of federal divisions) within 6 months.

Very short case in point. - "In God We Trust". Does it violate the constitution? Yes. Why? Promotion of a specific religion or type of religion. (Monotheism). Is there a problem? nope. Another example, on the same topic. "Public buildings may be rented out to charitable and religious organizations for meetings". Does it violate the constitution? No. Why? Because there is no promotion of a specific religious type. Muslim, tree-hugger, Christian, Jewish, or Zorastrian, they can all rent it. (You could certainly have restrictions not based on religion. "No sacrificing goats indoors. That violates the sanitation regulations for the school, and the smoke from the fire sets off the alarms." )

Don't just blame the lawyers - blame the judicial system for allowing it.

[kazriko.livejournal.com]

Heh, one thing to remember, as well, with some of the cases that the ACLU is bringing up regarding religion on public grounds is that there are in fact 2 clauses related to religion in the constitution. They cling religiously to a variant of the first one, Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

What they keep running afoul of is the second one part. "Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

When they sue to stop a student from mentioning god in their valedictorian speech because it would violate "the separation of church and state" they're violating the free exercise clause, just as they would if a muslim student mentions allah, or a buddist student mentions how the precepts improve their lives.