Its a global war on terror. Therefore, anyone detained anywhere, for any reason that can be related to terror, however remote, is a battlefield detention. This stuff becomes a lot easier once you understand how they think. So to speak.
The proposed legislation says:
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States is subject to trial by military tribunal.
Unless you can show me a flaw, I’m fine with that.
The Supreme Court said the Congress had the right to ditch part of the Constitution? Holy crap.
Oh, and who said anything about tribunals, other than to note the ‘or’?
Your question is irrelevant.
I would have a problem being executed for murder, even if I were guilty of the crimes that led to that sentence being imposed upon me. Thats’ why we don’t use the standard of asking if the accused would have a problem with his punishment.
I am not an alien unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States. If I were, and if I were still somehow fair-minded about resolving questions like this, then I wouldn’t have a problem with being subject to trial by military tribunal.
See my last quote box in post 10.
This thread is about the amendment to the military tribunal law that removes the habeas provisions. The Supreme Court has never suggested that enemy combatants are entitled to habeas review as a matter of constitutional right.
Can someone this for me: Does the law as it was passed allow the detainees to challenge their detention in military court, or is no challenge allowed at all? I don’t see that habeas corpus in the US judicial system needs to apply to non-citizens being detained outside the country, but there should be some mechanism within the tribaunals that have been established for the detainee to have a hearing. I would not support the ability of this or any administration to detain even “illegal comatants” indefinitely without access to a hearing and process to appeal that outcome.
So??
I don’t see your operative word ‘alien’ before the phrase ‘unlawful enemy combatant.’
Still not seeing the flaw. As long as the Combatant Status Review Tribunal or the competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense is in place, what’s the issue?
And you accuse others of strawmanning?
Of course we can trust The Leader to make such determinations! After all, His record is for candor and truthiness is spotless and without blemish! The angels themselves blush in His presence, so mindful are they of His purity! Praise the Leader!
prove it!
Yeah, and everyone else in the thread that’s arguing against him only makes America worse…putz.
A rather simplistic reading of the case isn’t it? Hamdan also dealt with the issue of the availability of habeas to the Guantanemo prisoners in light of this administrations first attempt to deny judicial review of its actions in the Detainee Treatment Act. While the majority specifically did not hold that the jurisdiction stripping act of Congress violated the Constitution, the UCMJ, or the Geneva Convention (“We find it unnecessary to reach either of these arguments. Ordinary principles of statutory construction suffice to rebut the Government’s theory—at least insofar as this case, which was pending at the time the DTA was enacted, is concerned.”), they saw this coming.
I wish I could say I’m surprised that an one time appellate defender would be all in favor of stripping the judiciary of jurisdiction in habeas cases, I’ve learned that you are quite the shill for this administration.
Since the issue of this statute’s constitutionality is, apparently, undecided, I will simply say that it is a horribly bad idea. It is the next in a whole series of steps that this administration has taken to further lower the values of our country. I am appalled that this country, once the beacon of fairness and honor in this world, has so quickly turned to a bunch of cowardly snakes intent on dragging us down to the lowest levels. This administration and its lackeys have the audicity to claim moral high ground of spreading freedom and democracy, while gutting those very values. I’m disgusted.
OK, (1) they’re in place - on the other side of an ‘or’ from the part about unlawful enemy combatants. Doesn’t seem to say such tribunals need to be invoked to declare someone a UEC; that’s just one route.
(2) The CSRT at least has some definition here; how about this possible “competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense”? Sounds like that’s a grant of authority to the President and the SecDef to create and staff such tribunals by their own say-so. Doesn’t sound like much protection for someone the President wants held indefinitely, does it?
(3) Like I keep saying, you keep on reading ‘alien’ in where it isn’t in the bill as presently constituted. Could be you, could be me, AFAICT.
Are you “a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense”? Might you be at some point in the future? If, the day the law came into effect, a tribunal determined you to be an unlawful enemy combatant do you think your opinion on the topic might change?
Uless I’m missing something, it looks like Bricker’s quote eliminates US Citizens as enemy combatants. Last time I checked the US Constitution and associated ppw applied only to US Citizens. While it may be distasteful to hold furriners without charges until…later…I can’t see exactly how a doctrine intended for US Citizens can be applicable for anyone else.
The real protests should be coming from their respective countries of origin. Has Afghanistan et.al. been clamouring for the release of their citizens from US custody? (honest question)
Yes.
Strawmanning is the response to an argument that your opponent never made.
Let’s review the ENTIRE sequence, shall we?
If you suggest that my response is a strawman, it’s pretty clear that it isn’t. Der Trihs SPECIFICALLY advanced the argument that my personal reaction to having these laws applied to me was relevant.
Right?
Well said! Worthy of Shakespeare!
PPW? I don’t know what “ppw” means, but the US constitution does not apply only to US citizens. At a minimum, it applies to anyone within the borders of the US.
I don’t know about Afghanistan, but some countries have been. And these are countries that our erstwhile allies, like Britain and Kuwait.