(no subject)
Oct. 20th, 2006 02:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
strredwolfSo 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 05:43 am (UTC)I'm afraid I doubt the neutrality or fairness of someone who uses the following titles for his articles:
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...
no subject
Date: 2006-10-21 02:21 pm (UTC)