(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.