Military Commissions Act of 2006

[Parihaka]

Military Commissions Act of 2006

Published October 17, 2006

This legislation gives the US president authorization to set up military commissions to try enemy combatants, and sets some limits for their interrogation and prosecution based on Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Defendants may not invoke the Geneva Conventions during trials or file habeas corpus petitions in federal court, and cannot prevent hearsay evidence from entering the court. Defendants may receive the death sentence.


http://www.cfr.org/content/publicati...tary%20act.pdf
Link to full Act.

So I'm kind of curious. From what I understand Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution of the United States states:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

How is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 justified under the above excerpt from the constitution, and how do the Americans on this board feel about it.

Also, do I understand correctly that the above Act is applicable to US citizens as well as foreign nationals?

[bonehead]

I would like to know more about this myself. The" invasion of public safety" clause is a very broad stroke and could be used/abused in a wholesale fashion. Could this be a form of McCarthyism rearing its ugly head again?

[Bill]

I dont know any of the details yet(they'll come out here at WAB and elsewhere soon enough), but preliminarilly, i think this new law SUCKS, and i think it goes totally overboard, and i think it is entirely prone to mis-application and abuse.

I think if the wrong guy has this at his disposal, it is little more than tyranny waiting to happen.

I cant wait till bush and his merry band of fucck ups are out of power, starting with that DEUCHE BAG Rumsfeld.

If the dems win the House, i hope they embarrass and harass him with every hearing and special investigation my tax money can buy, cause if he had any god damned sense of responsibility for what he's done he'd have already blown his own god-damned brains out for the THOUSANDS of dead american heros whose blood is on HIS hands.

[leib10]

It seems like it provides the powers-that-be the ability to twist and bend the rules as much as possible and to enable them to give themselves more powers if they deem it necessary. So no, I feel that this new law is not Constitutional and I don't feel that it's justified.

But as everybody else said, I'd like to learn more before I make a final judgement.

[Shek]

Parihaka put a link to the act earlier in the thread. Here's a link where you can search the legislative history and who voted for and against the bill for everyone that wanted to learn more about it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.03930:

[Ray]

Sniper,

You sure don't like Donald! :)

Actually, he is not such a bad sort.

[Bill]

Sniper,

You sure don't like Donald! :)

Actually, he is not such a bad sort.

I disagree.

I think he's a stoopid assclown who's too arrogant to realize he's as dumb as he is old.

[Ray]

Poor Donald.

I am sure he is choking over his soup! ;) :)

[Bill]

If only....

[Bill]

PS, section 948C seems to exclude US citizens from these tribunals.

"Any alien unlawful combatant is subject to trial by military commision under this chapter."
http://www.cfr.org/content/publicati...tary%20act.pdf

[Parihaka]

PS, section 948C seems to exclude US citizens from these tribunals.

"Any alien unlawful combatant is subject to trial by military commision under this chapter."
http://www.cfr.org/content/publicati...tary%20act.pdf

I'm aware of one US citizen held without habeas corpus until now, I don't know what his status is under this legislation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%...d_terrorist%29

[Shek]

Here's some commentary on the Act:

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/...l?id=110009113

[Bill]

While i agree with the Author Mr. Yoo, something tells me he'll be none to popular at his workplace at Berkeley for his opinions.

LOL...

[Parihaka]

Yup, the only problem I have is the historical WWII analogies he uses to justfy his position. In those cases, the Unted States was at war and they were POW's. In this case, the US hasn't declared war, is not on a war footing, and the prisoners aren't defined by the US as prisoners of war. Tht's why the Supreme court believed Habeas Corpus should apply.

[Bill]

They've always been defined as illegal combatants, and as such, their rights were extremely limited under international law. It's definitely my opinion that SCOTUS wildly over-reached with their decision, which i voiced at the time.