Is That Legal?

Seems to me -- and I could be wrong -- to be more repugnant than sex with the help.
Number of presidents to go through impeachment hearings for "sex with the help" - one.
Number of presidents to go through impeachment hearings for imprisoning American citizens without charges - zero.
I don't know if you're wrong, but we're at the very least in the minority.

Seems y'all on the Left are pitching a fit over something that is made up. Typical.

Really, now. Is it necessary to make things like this up simply because you do not like to treat people caught on the battlefield who would be happy to slit your throat as an infidel harshly?

I would think that Eric would understand the lengths that Islamics would go through to kill infidels, considering where he works.

[SHERTAUGH: Eric did not write this post. I did.

Also, check out the statute before leaping to the conclusion that your GOP Congress and President give a hoot in hell about U.S. Citizens.

Here's what the statute says:

‘‘In this chapter:
‘‘(1) UNLAWFULENEMYCOMBATANT.—(A) The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means—
‘‘(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who
has purposefully and materially supported hostilities
against the United States or its co-belligerents who is
not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who
is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces);
or
‘‘(ii) 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 com-
petent tribunal established under the authority of the
President or the Secretary of Defense.

The problem with your discourse is, unfortunately, you're wrong.

American citizens will not be subject to the bill: the link to the bill will show this.

Section 948a, 'definitions', defines an 'alien' as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States."

And Sec. 948c defines 'Persons subject to military commissions' as `Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.'

I'm not a lawyer, but it does seem that aliens are by definition non-citizens, and citizens are not specifically included in Sec. 948c. Therefore, US citizens have nothing to fear from this act.

As it should be.

Further, Sec. 948d makes clear that lawful enemy combatants (defined in 948a if you want to look) also are not subject to the military commissions defined by this act.

It helps to read the legislation.

SHERTAUGH: Huh? Read the Bill? What statute did you read? The term "UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT" is defined this way:
‘‘In this chapter:
‘‘(1) UNLAWFULENEMYCOMBATANT.—(A) The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means—
‘‘(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who
has purposefully and materially supported hostilities
against the United States or its co-belligerents who is
not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who
is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces);
or
‘‘(ii) 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 com-
petent tribunal established under the authority of the
President or the Secretary of Defense.

I look, and I look, and I don't see a thing saying U.S. Citizens cannot be unlawful enemy combatants.

WAKE UP, DUDE.

This is not meant to be snarky, but I did read the legislation after reading some disturbing reports that it would subject Americans to the possibility of being declared unlawful enemy combatants and then be subject to the jurisdiction of the kangaroo courts that the act establishes. It is clear that American's could, in theory, be declared unlawful enemy combatants under the definition, but it also seems clear that only alien UECs are subject to the new commissions. Am I missing something here? I haven't gone back to look at earlier versions of the legislation in Thomas but I have a suspicion that "alien" was added to 948c and 948d(a) late in the process.

[Shertaugh: Clif, thank you for the comment. I agree with you that USCitizens are not subject to the commissions. But I think that is the nub of the problem. USCitizens as UEC, once so designated, have no judicial recourse. No commission. No US court because of the habeas-stripping provisions. That said, as Jack Balkin at Balkinization argues, the lack of judicial recourse for American citizens is exactly why making Americans UECs is unconstitutional.]

American citizens could ALWAYS have been determined to be unlawful enemy combatants. See Quirin. This is not a change in the law, it is a codification of existing law.

Youare absolutlely WRONG that American citizens have no legal recourse in the event they are deemed UECs. They can try for habeas, which is NOT denied to American citizens.

Sheesh. Is this what passes for legal analysis these days on the left?

[Shertaugh: A.S., yes, habeas is available; I never said it wasn't. Your authoritarian, anticonstitutional view blinds you to this simple fact: exactly who is going to file the habeas petition for these UECs out of GitMo, the ACLU?]

Clif: the part where those who are awaiting determination of status haveno rights to challenge either their detention, nor the conditions of it.

This law, as written, allows us to build our very own Chauteaux D'If.

TK

Shertaugh wrote: A.S., yes, habeas is available; I never said it wasn't.

In the comment immediately above, Shertaugh wrote: USCitizens as UEC, once so designated, have no judicial recourse. No commission. No US court because of the habeas-stripping provisions.

Hmmm, Shertaugh. You never said that habeas was not available? Really?

[Shertaugh: Pardon the lack of clarity and mistake. I meant within the Terror/Tribunal Act itself -- in contrast to, say, the Criminal Justice Act. And I admit my mistake as to habeas for US citizens -- it was not stripped for that group.]

I believe that there is a much larger topic of concern that people are failing to recognize; we (Americans) take offense to this issue, because we feel that our human rights are being violated by this act, however, not one person has raised the issue of the human rights violations that are currently occurring within Guantanamo Bay at this very moment. As long as it is not an American, we brush the violations aside with the justification that they are terrorist, therefore all bets are off. Yet, can we even say this with assurance? There is a reason that Guantanamo Bay is not on American soil, because our constitution provides for certain protections. Show me the trail of these people that proves their terrorist connections and I will retract my statement, however, I feel extremely confident that I won’t have to face this embarrassment because such trails have not taken place and, perhaps, never will. I understand the idea of community and looking out for ones own; but when are people going to realize that our beloved American freedoms, including those of human rights, are not just for Americans.

I think the MORE frightening issue is the uber-authority given the President to secretly detain, torture w/ immunity and try with a hand-picked tribunal anyone He ALONE deems as materially supporting the ill-defined enemy. I'm no historian, but didn't Hitler really get going once he had control of the military and the legislature's powers had been ceded to him? We already have 2 Wars and another one or two in the making. HELP! US Citizens only have habeas corpus until they're rendered to Syria, Uzbekistan, etc. Example: US citizen, Mohammed Munaf, is being held in Iraq by the US Military. They are about to render him to Romania - a nation known to torture. You can confirm this at www.DemocracyNow.org.

Perhaps you should disclose at the outset your censorship of comments. I was give a different impression.

What censorship?--Ed.