(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: 2006-10-26 07:43 am (UTC)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.