Seriously – when did hostilities in Vietnam end, specifically?
I’m asking to try to figure out what you’re picturing, here. I could say, “Congress can end the hostilities,” but I sense that would be unsatisfactory. So I’m trying to understand how you see the process of ending armed hostilities. What happened, SPECIFICALLY, to end the Vietnam War?
I cited 950g for the proposition that access to the judicial system was available. Since the law under discussion refers to the Detainee Treatment Act, why wouldn’t you read it when you were reading this current law? How do you expect to understand what this law is saying if you don’t read a law it refers to?
Let me rephrase. The system as a whole is most assuredly not fine. I have two large problems with it.
We’re tossing people into the military commissions who don’t warrant being there, possibly undermining their fundamental due process rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Torture.
What I meant to say was that the portion about stripping habeas is fine and precedented for normal wartime enemies. My mistake.
Having said that, let there be no mistake. I’m still exceedingly opposed to the bill as a whole.
I would say the answer is yes, although the law does not specifically allow it. But since the law forbids habeas petitions, I would say that if its dictates are not followed, that would permit a detained person to file a habeas. Or possibly a writ of mandamus to compel the tribunal to hear his case as required by law.
Because of habeas corpus - you know, the very thing we’re discussing here.
People wrongly arrested by the local cops can file a habeas petition if detained for long enough to file the paperwork. People nabbed in Afghanistan because their brother-in-law didn’t like them and accused them of being a terrorist don’t have that protection.
The Second Circuit said: "“the President lacked inherent constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to detain American citizens on American soil outside a zone of combat”.
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that mean that the President lacks the authority for such detentions if Congress has not legislated either way on the topic. Now Congress has - you don’t have to be an alien to be an unlawful enemy combatant, hence eligible for detention.
That’s all well and good, once charges have been filed. Who says they have to be?
Seems like the law’s pretty vague as to what sort of timeline must be laid out, but more important, unless I’m missing something, it only applies to detainments in Gitmo, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
And how did that operate to end hostilities from our side, specifically? Again, I’m asking to nail down the process that is necessary from her (or, now, your) point of view.
I assume that you are referring to Section 950(g) of the Act, which states:
The key problem is the court can only review a “final judgment rendered by the military commission”. When, or if, this administration ever gets around to trying these people, I’m hopeful that they will get fair and just trials in accordance with due process. I haven’t read enough of the Act to make a determination yet if that will be the case, but it appears that, once they get their trial, there is adequate appeal rights.
The huge problem that you’ve been ignoring from page 1 is that we’ve been waiting 5 years for due process to happen. I’m not so worried about the guys that are being detained that will, eventually have a fair trial, I’m worried about the other guys, guys like Hamdan, Hamdi, Padilla, and the like, who were indefinitely detained without trial while this administration sat on their hands. The only reason this administration has gotten to the point of finally getting on with the trials is the pressure from the court rulings in those cases. You put aside 5 years of reality, magically wave your hands, and pretend that everything will be fine now. That is simply not the case. All Bush and his people have to do is not try anyone, and they have no recourse. This administration has lost all trust I have that they will act honorably and justly and give trials to those they’ve detained. How you can simply smile, pat us all on the head, and tell us it’s going to be allright is beyond me when this administration has fought tooth and nail to deny these people due process.
Without habeas protections, Bush merely has to let these people rot, and there isn’t a damn thing anybody can do about it. And people like you continue to apologize for it.
And what happens if that law is violated? It is enforced by the executive who violated it. You can’t really separate the law from those enforcing it and interpreting it. If you think GW has a good, or even acceptable record of seeing that the laws he doesn’t agree with are faithfully enforced then I guess your argument makes sense.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with the Vietnam alalogy. That was a conventional war which ended with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords. We will never have such a moment with “Islamic Terrorists”. The WoT will never, ever end. Just like the war aginst crime will never ever end.
Now, if Congress repeals the AUMF from Oct 14, 2001… then it becomes a different scenary. The president will no longer be authorized by Congress “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
Because (a) we’ve indicted Padilla, and (b) we’re fashioning this legislation instead of proceeding with ad-hocc detentions.
Sure they can. But all the cops have to do is show probable cause – essentially the same level of certainty that’s required here.
You are wrong.
Is it so much to ask to read the damn law? I mean seriously.
Sec. 948a. Definitions says: (1) ALIEN- The term `alien’ means an individual who is not a citizen of the United States.
Sec 948c says: Any alien unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States is subject to trial by military commission as set forth in this chapter.
C’mon.
OK, I give up.
Read the damn relevant laws. I am tired of cutting and pasting.
This thread is about the law that Congress passed – more specifically, it’s about the provision Congress refused to pass concerning habeas access.
If your only objection to the law is that you don’t believe it will be enforced correctly because Bush is a Poopy-Head, then I really have very little to meaningfully debate with you.
Perhaps I’m wrong here, but I think this is the temporally relevant section of the Detainee Treatment Act of '05 (from [URL=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/12/detainee-treatment-act-of-2005-white.php]here[/URL):
I don’t see a stipulation here on when a trial or review must take place, just time limits for when and how often the DOD must keep others appraised of their progress toward that end. The ability to use a “classified annex” to provide evidence for continued detention, if necessary, which, I assume, the accused or his/her counsel has no right to review, is troubling.
The OP, at least, is unconcerned with what happens following a conviction. The OP is concerned with the absence of a right to contest one’s detainment in the potentially lengthy (potentially infinite?) interval preceding a trial, or even before the bringing of charges.
Review after conviction is irrelevant to the argument being made by the OP.
I have stated my reasons for opposing the prohibition of habeas corpus and what I see as the dangers from that prohibition. I’ll just ascribe your post to frustration on being attacked from so many sides. Sort of like a bear beset by a pack of hunting dogs.
And no, I don’t intend to imply that the bear was innocently ambling through the woods when he was unjustifiably set upon.
No one person can speak for al Qaeda, and there are other groups covered by the AUMF-- all the president has to do is determine that some group is associated with terror activities.
That might do it, although that wouldn’t be how hostilities normally end. Plus, I don’t see that Congress will ever repeal that act. While it might be theoretically possible to repeal it, we should assume that that won’t happen. I think it’s terrible public policy to give the president such broad powers for what is in all practicallity, forever.