Military Commissions Act/Keith Obermann report

[gc70]

While there was SCOTUS hand-wringing on indefinite military detention in the Hamdi case, it was not rejected and the decision in Hamdi revolved around due process for determining enemy combatant status.

In 03-6696 (6-28-2004), the Supreme Court held:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that petitioner's detention was legally authorized and that he was entitled to no further opportunity to challenge his enemy-combatant label. We now vacate and remand. We hold that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged here, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. (p1)

Even in cases in which the detention of enemy combatants is legally authorized, there remains the question of what process is constitutionally due to a citizen who disputes his enemy-combatant status. (p17)

We therefore hold that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker. (p26)

----------

The Hamdi decision may also explain the much-discussed section 948d of the Military Commissions Act.

948d(c) DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT STATUS DISPOSITIVE.
A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.

Could this be the structure for providing US citizens with due process for determining "enemy combatant" status that SCOTUS demanded in Hamdi?

 

[Mad Martigan]

No, I expect them to be classified as prisoners of war and treated per the Geneva conventions or to be prosecuted as per the Constitution that this country was built on

Why would you expect foriegn combatants who do not meet the clear, specific criteria for GC designation as POWs be treated as POWs under the GC? Furthermore, why would you expect foriegn combatants who do not meet the criteria for POWs to be upgraded to the same protections and rights as United States citizens?

 

[Mad Martigan]

I believe that you see this a cut and dry because you believe the intent of the document is very straightforward. You also know, based on your legal interests, that a law can be made for one purpose and used for another. It certainly would not be the first time. Build the loopholes now, use them later. Purhaps you are being coy...

To what loopholes would you be referring exactly?

 

[September11]

To what loopholes would you be referring exactly?

A loophole by its definition is a gap or technicality in a law used to avoid the scope of the law without violating it.

This document, as attested to by others on this string who have read it, is full of vague and ambiguous statements that would make loopholes easy to find. I will not get into the vast number of possibilities but the primary issue being discussed here is that the government could come and get you, lock you up and keep you there because they so much as suspect you are conspiring. Previously, that was not so easy for them to do.

Read the other posts... I think this is pretty clear... Gary's post just three before yours makes several good points.

 

[September11]

Why would you expect foriegn combatants who do not meet the clear, specific criteria for GC designation as POWs be treated as POWs under the GC? Furthermore, why would you expect foriegn combatants who do not meet the criteria for POWs to be upgraded to the same protections and rights as United States citizens?

This was a statement of my opinion. I was asked what I wanted to the government to do...
Gitmo has become the international excuse to expose our dirty laundry.
I believe we can accomplish everything we want to without loosing so many supporters - my opinion.

 

[Mad Martigan]

A loophole by its definition is a gap or technicality in a law used to avoid the scope of the law without violating it.

This document, as attested to by others on this string who have read it, is full of vague and ambiguous statements that would make loopholes easy to find. I will not get into the vast number of possibilities but the primary issue being discussed here is that the government could come and get you, lock you up and keep you there because they so much as suspect you are conspiring. Previously, that was not so easy for them to do.

Read the other posts... I think this is pretty clear... Gary's post just three before yours makes several good points.

I think the stated purpose contained in the legislation along with section 7a ties up the only important loophole in question. Human Rights Watch is also of this opinion.

 

[Gary Conner]

I think the stated purpose contained in the legislation along with section 7a ties up the only important loophole in question. Human Rights Watch is also of this opinion.

Dear Mad MArtigan:
A loophole is a loophole, because it is an out, from the Section 7a. The change of language to "any person" doesn't tie it up, it creates a loophole to include "any person who" the commission determines violates their opinion of "conspiracy" emboldenment of the enemy.

Your statement above which I quoted (with all due respect) would have merit were it not for the fact that there is no way on God's earth, that you can convince people such as Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer, that the so called "Gunshow Loophole" is all "tied up" and that they cannot ban them when they unfortunately do take over control of the House and Senate, because the "2nd Amendment" ties up the "gunshow loophole" they seem to believe exists.

The Act is ambiguous, unconstitutional, and it is a portential threat to American Citizens who discuss or express "conspiracy" theories, should a Military Commission determine their "conspiracy" theories are "emboldening" the enemy, because "any person" can be ruled to fit the bill if they are determined to fit it by the Military Commission itself.

 

[Mad Martigan]

I would agree that Politicians will abuse and misuse any power given them. I think this legislation is in need of an addition to shore up concerns about it being used on the American citizenry. It just isn't as bad as some people make it out. For example, your concern over the use of "any persons." It is true that this term is used in the description of "unlawful enemy combatants," as well it should be. That means that any person, including American citizens, could be designated an unlawful enemy combatant. I'm not sure why we couldn't just designate them as traitors, since they apparently retain their rights as citizens. Section 7a dictates that even though a citizen may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant, that citizen's right to habeus corpus cannot be denied. I would also point out that "any person" is apparently an abbreviation of "any person subject to this chapter," begging the question; who is subject to this chapter?

 

[STAGE 2]

The Act is ambiguous, unconstitutional, and it is a portential threat to American Citizens who discuss or express "conspiracy" theories, should a Military Commission determine their "conspiracy" theories are "emboldening" the enemy, because "any person" can be ruled to fit the bill if they are determined to fit it by the Military Commission itself.

Gary, please show me where the constitution prohibits americans from being labeled unlawful enemy combatants.

I'll save you the trouble, it doesn't. As long as a citizen retains his habeas rights, which cant be suspended under this act, and he gets his due process, which isn't addressed by this act, the constitution is satisfied.

 

[alan]

The following, from JPFO mentions Olbermann.

ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

October 23, 2006

JPFO ALERT: Trading Liberty for Safety

"Those who would trade essential liberty for temporary
safety deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin

The response was predictable. After sending our alert last
Thursday regarding the passing of the Military Commissions
Act, we received a flood of email. Many were supportive,
but others took exception:

"Don't you care that terrorists want to kill us?"
"Olbermann's obviously a left-wing nut who wants
conservatives out of power."
"The act isn't that bad..."

It is bemusing to watch certain conservatives --
conservatives who once screamed that Bill Clinton was going
to suspend the Constitution, establish martial law, and put
Americans in concentration camps -- blithely justify the
actions of a president who appears to be doing just that. A
president who once reportedly stated that the Constitution
is "just a [expletive] piece of paper."

"Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool." (1)

Remember that phrase? When Clinton advisor Paul Bengala
spoke those prophetic words, conservatives were justifiably
outraged. How DARE the president unilaterally overturn the
Constitution of the United States! He has no right! What
hubris! Yet Bush's repeated infringements are quietly
excused as "necessary," and those who oppose him are
demonized as "liberal nuts" or "terrorist-lovers." Just as
those who opposed Clinton's treachery were demonized as
part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

"Bush won't misuse it. It'll only be used on terrorists,"
states one writer.

Okay, let's pretend that's true (historical evidence to the
contrary). In the early 1930's, in response to a recent
crime wave, the right-of-center Weimar Republic passed
several "vital, necessary" laws registering firearms and
prohibiting Gypsies from owning them. Five years later, a
left-of-center leader was in power and used those same
laws, amending them as needed, to consolidate his power.
The result was World War II and the murder of millions of
what the US might today refer to as "unlawful enemy
combatants."

Writes Joe Wolverton II, "Those who fail to see the dire
gravity of this legislation and who prefer to take refuge
in the naive partisan belief that President Bush and the
Republican Congress would never abuse this tremendous
power, should contemplate well the fact that both the White
House and Congress may very possibly change to Democrat
control in the near future. Then will the supporters of the
Bush administration's grasp for power have a leg to stand
on to even protest, let alone stop, dictatorial exercise of
the same power under a Democrat regime run by Clinton,
Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Schumer, and the like?" (2)

Like most of this administration's recent legislation and
"signing statements," the MCA is a knee-jerk reaction, a
product of short-term thinking that will inevitably be used
for evil, just as the "vital, necessary" laws of the Weimar
Republic were.

"Olbermann's a liberal shill," writes another apologist.

Again, we'll assume that's an accurate statement. But what
difference does it make? Many notable conservatives (who
truly understand what "conservative" means) have stated the
same.

*In addressing the issue before a Senate committee,
Brigadier General James C. Walker, Staff Judge Advocate
General (JAG) for the Marine Corps, said: "I'm not aware of
any situation in the world where there is a system of
jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized people, where
an individual can be tried without, and convicted without
seeing the evidence against him. And I don't think the
United States needs to become first in that scenario." (3)

* Referring to the new law's provision that a detainee
is not allowed to see the evidence presented against him,
Rear Admiral Bruce E. MacDonald, the Navy's top lawyer,
stated: "I can't imagine any military judge believing that
an accused has had a full and fair hearing if all the
government's evidence that was introduced was all
classified and the accused was not able to see any of it."
(4)

* The Air Force's chief lawyer, Major General Jack Rives
declared that the commissions established by the act do
"not comport with my ideas of due process." (5) (One
wonders why -- if this is the _Military_ Commissions Act --
the military is plainly none too happy with it?)

* Jim Bovard, author of the anti-Clinton book _Feeling
Your Pain_ , wrote a scathing commentary on the MCA, as
well as the mainstream yawn it engendered (6).

* So did the ultra-conservative magazine _The New
American_ which states, "The Military Commissions Act of
2006 allows the executive branch to circumvent the
Constitution, endangering the due process of law for all
Americans, not just terrorists."(7).

* Arlen Specter (R) stated of the MCA, "I'm not going to
support a bill that's blatantly unconstitutional . . . that
suspends a right that goes back to 1215..." (8)

* Even the platform of the Constitution Party -- hardly
a hotbed of liberal ideology -- states "We deplore and
vigorously oppose legislation and executive action, that
deprive the people of their rights secured under the Fourth
and Fifth Amendments under the guise of "combating
terrorism" or "protecting national security." (9)

People often make the mistake of assuming that JPFO is a
conservative organization because of our support of the
Second Amendment. Not so; we're very much beyond that. JPFO
is _absolutely_ committed to the Bill of Rights. We have no
sacred cows, no party line to follow. Our only criteria is
"Does this infringe on the Bill of Rights?" If it does, we
react negatively, regardless of who is doing it. Keith
Olbermann is not our source -- the law is our source. And
this law clearly, unequivocably violates the US
Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

"You want to protect terrorists!"

Wrong. We want to protect people accused of terrorism (that
whole unfashionable "innocent until proven guilty" thing).
People have been unjustly accused by our government before,
after all (check out the John Glover case on our website
(10)). If the accused are indeed guilty, then punish them
appropriately. But everyone deserves the basic right to
defend himself in court...not to be locked away in a gulag
under some specious accusation.

"The removal of Habeas Corpus only applies to aliens."

True, as far as it goes. Now what happens if you're picked
up as an "alien"? You can't prove otherwise because without
the right of Habeas Corpus, you cannot demand to go to
court to make your case.

Or you could simply be declared a UEC, or "unlawful enemy
combatant".

Section 948(a) of the MCA defines "unlawful enemy
combatant" as: (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
competent tribunal established under the authority of the
president or the secretary of defense. (11)

Note that this definition (much broader than previously-
used definitions) contains NO exception for American
citizens. And the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
previously upheld the UEC label as meaning you are no
longer under the protection of the Bill of Rights (12). All
the government would have to do at your habeas corpus
hearing is provide some evidence that you have engaged in
some act of terrorism (maybe you donated to an organization
"suspected of terrorist ties"...).

Continued, please read on

 

[alan]

Continued from above, JPFO comments



Jacob Hornberger -- another conservative -- points out,
"How does an American who is labeled an enemy combatant
ultimately get tried? Answer: he doesn?t. Under the
Military Commissions Act, trial by military tribunal is
limited to foreigners. So, even though Americans still have
the use of habeas corpus (so far) to test whether their
detention is lawful, if the Supreme Court ultimately
upholds the ?unlawful enemy combatant? designation for
people accused of terrorism, Americans will be returned to
indefinite military custody as ?unlawful enemy combatants?
if the government has provided some evidence of terrorism
at the habeas corpus hearing." (13)

"At least Bush lets us keep our guns."

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that
people have the ability to overthrow a government that has
become tyrannical. The fact remains that all firearms
permitted in the US must meet the "sporting purpose"
definition. Not all are well-suited for fighting a standing
army. Further, guns do little good when you cheerily
applaud the tyrant or make excuses for him. Guns, after
all, were prevalent in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

The painful reality is that both parties have been
betraying us for years. They do not respect the
Constitution, nor do they respect our basic rights.
Conservatives who excuse Bush's actions have been duped
into remaining loyal to the ideal of conservatism even as
it is twisted into a nearly-unrecognizable mockery of
itself by the Bush administration.

A true conservative would say, "WRONG IS WRONG, no matter
who is doing it. And destroying our freedoms -- for any
reason -- is WRONG. I don't care who's doing it, this is
immoral and illegal. I'm not going to follow the party line
if it goes against everything I believe."

Perhaps the saddest, most telling comment comes from a
writer who states, "Arab and Iranian Muslims must be
exterminated. Any law that remotely points in that
direction is good. That you and the U.S. Government coddle
Muslim scum is an insult to civilization."

Does anyone fail to see the parallel between 1930's Germany
and our present society within this statement? To write
such a hate-filled declaration to a Jewish civil rights
organization -- one fully aware of the dangers of broadly
damning an entire race or religion and advocating their
"extermination" -- is breathtaking in its audacity. That
the writer is willing to give up his own freedoms and
liberty to further such a goal is perhaps saddest of all.

In closing, we offer this challenge: send us a link to a
video or thoughtful article that supports the Military
Commissions Act as legitimate and Constitutional. We'll put
it up, and let our readers decide.

- The Liberty Crew


(1) www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jennings012500.asp
(2) www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4269.shtml
(3) ibid
(4) ibid
(5) ibid
(6) http://tinyurl.com/yltvsz
(7) www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4269.shtml
(8) http://tinyurl.com/pekhj
(9) http://tinyurl.com/5lwep
(10) http://www.jpfo.org/hw-glover.pdf
(11) http://tinyurl.com/jrcto
(12) www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger105.html
(13) ibid

 

[Gary Conner]

Gary, please show me where the constitution prohibits americans from being labeled unlawful enemy combatants.

I'll save you the trouble, it doesn't. As long as a citizen retains his habeas rights, which cant be suspended under this act, and he gets his due process, which isn't addressed by this act, the constitution is satisfied.

Sir:

I can show you where sir. In fact, a fifth grader should be able to do it by rote. It is contained within the Bill of Rights styled as Amendment VI. I suggest you read it in totale.

Regarding your claim that his due process is "not addressed" I suggest you re-read the Military Commissions Act until you find where due process is stripped totally by the act. The Commission determines if you have a speedy trial, or INDEFINITELY are held by the Commission, at the sole descretion of the Commission.

 

[STAGE 2]

Regarding your claim that his due process is "not addressed" I suggest you re-read the Military Commissions Act until you find where due process is stripped totally by the act. The Commission determines if you have a speedy trial, or INDEFINITELY are held by the Commission, at the sole descretion of the Commission.

Gary, in order to have any authority the commission must have jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is never presumed. The commission only has jurisdiction over aliens. You can't get around this fact. Before they can decide anything, the issue of jurisdiction must be settled.

This act has no effect on american citizens. You can't point me to a single section in the act that states where habeas can be suspended for a citizen or where the tribunal has jurisdiction over a citizen.

 

[alan]

Garry Conner:

Perhaps there is something wrong with my computer, I don't think so, but perhaps. In any event, having tried the links you provided, what audio I get comes through in about 6 word bursts, the thing then stopping to "buffer" or to "reload". This is certainly not your fault, but such a situation makes it very difficult to listen to whatever is being said. Any ideas or suggestions from you or anyone else?

Also, if I remember correctly, you asked something about the exact wording of the newly enacted legislation. I would think that thomas.loc.gov, given the exact bill name or number, could provide the text.

Also, you asked/said something about The Congress having blown it, blown it is my phrase, not yours. In reply to that, please consider the following. In today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 23 Oct., main section, pages 1 and 2, there was a fairly lengthy article dealing with new legislation that "may break the bank for Internet gambling industry". On page 2, one finds the following. "The bill passed through Congress with some politicians never knowing of it's existence".

The gaming bill was a non-germane rider hung on Port Security legislation, so I suppose the thing that "some politicians" didn't know about was likely the gaming business, since Port Security and the problems therewith seem to have been the subject of conversation lately.

In any case, assuming that the claim is true, rather than simply being an exercise in CYA by some gutless elected things playing NANY STATE OPERATORS who learned nothing from the flop that was The Prohibition Act, one gets a fairly good look at the process of making law. It isn't pretty, for once again, it would appear that our law makers are willing to vote on proposals that they haven't read, and which they do not know much about what is said therein. It is certainly possible that the same Congress (House and Senate) could, re this Military Commissions Act, have been "out to lunch" when votes were tallied, or that they, once again, voted on a proposal they hadn't read.

Want to lay odds on how long a period of time passes before some of our elected things complain to the effect that I or we didn't know that "that" was in there?

 

[Gary Conner]

Dear Stage 2:

Gary, in order to have any authority the commission must have jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is never presumed. The commission only has jurisdiction over aliens. You can't get around this fact. Before they can decide anything, the issue of jurisdiction must be settled.

This act has no effect on american citizens. You can't point me to a single section in the act that states where habeas can be suspended for a citizen or where the tribunal has jurisdiction over a citizen.

Have you read this Act? How about the very first sentence for starters, under Section 2? How about Section 948a. (1) (i)? wherein it says "a person who..." instead of any alien unlawful combatant who?

Have you followed the logic of this Administration regarding signing statements? Have you read the President's letter addressing how the Administration considers people who "discuss conspiracy theories" are helping to "embolden" the enemy as it relates to this act, and seen the numerous times the term "any person who" appears throughout the entire act?

Jurisdiction is granted to "any commissioned officer" appointed by either the Secretary of Defense, or the President of the United States within this act.

Being that the first paragraph of the act itself allows for the establishment of Military Commissions "for areas declared to be under martial law" OR in occupied territories should circumstances so require, I would think that after reading the entire Act, it becomes more than clear that "any person" could be subject to a Military Commission by being declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" should a Military Commission want to charge someone with discussing a conspiracy theory which the Commission felt came under the Administration's definition of "emboldening the enemy."

There are numerous attorneys who declared this language dangerously ambiguous, and could be interpreted to encompass an American Citizen.

One of those Lawyers is a current nominee for office of Attorney General of the State of Texas, who stated on Friday afternoon, October 20th, on the courthouse steps of the Travis County Courthouse, (while being filmed by KXAN television news reporters) went on the record that this Act completely shreds habeous corpus for American Citizens, and I think his law degree and credentials are a lot better than my layman's opinion, although we do happen to agree totally on this issue.

So it ain't just me that's concerned. I am not a lawyer, but I can see a loophole intent here big enough to drive a Duece and a Half through.

If you don't agree, then fine. I for one, don't like it at all.

 

[STAGE 2]

I would think that after reading the entire Act, it becomes more than clear that "any person" could be subject to a Military Commission by being declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" should a Military Commission want to charge someone with discussing a conspiracy theory which the Commission felt came under the Administration's definition of "emboldening the enemy."

Its not more than clear because you are subjectively reading from provisions without reading them in context.

‘‘(3) ALIEN.—The term ‘alien’ means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

‘‘§ 948b. Military commissions generally ‘‘(a) PURPOSE.—This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combat* ants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.

‘‘§ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions ‘‘Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

‘‘§ 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions ‘‘(a) JURISDICTION.—A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.

and finally...

SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.

‘‘(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

Not seeing a pattern here? Selective reading maybe? Whether or not a citizen is labeled an enemy combatant isn't the issue. I can label you an enemy combatant, scream it from the roof tops, and stamp it on your forehead, and nothing under this act will allow me to do anything other than give you your day in court.

 

[Gary Conner]

Dear Stage 2:

I notice you conveniently post each and every subsection of 948 with the exceptionof a.

Here it is:


948a., the very first paragraph, section (1) (i), gives the definition of an "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" as follows:

"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" can be determined to be an "unlawful enemy combatant" according to that chapter.

Since this is the VERY FIRST paragraph, I cannot understand why you don't address it.

You said I could not point out one thing that would allow a citizen to be prosecuted under this act.

I pointed out the above subchapter number for you in my previous post, but you seem to want to read only selected ones. The ones you selected, are not the ones upons which I based my concern. I submit your looking only at the subchapters I AM NOT discussing, kind of defines the term "selective reading."

Stage 2, the very Articles of the Constitution direct that the President, if not in agreement with a Billl, SHALL RETURN it to the House in which it originated for the purpose of a majority vote. This President doesn't do that.

This President instead scribbles comments directly onto a Bill presented him, claims it to be a "signing statement" and announces his Administration accepts as valid only the portions he indicated, and sends the entirity to the Federal Register to be printed.

This Administartion has "made" a treaty with Mexico and Canada styled as the "North American Partnership Agreement" (which deals in border issues that are supposed to be regulated by Congress) without one single vote from Congress approving of this treaty (much less a majority vote in the Senate) in a direct violation of Article II of the Constitution of the United States prohibiting him from "making" a treaty without Senate authorization.

Those are just two of the reasons, that his letter announcment which accompanied the announcment of his signing the Military Commissions Act, should be of concern for anyone who could be found to be "any person" "engaged in discussing "conpiracy theories" which could "embolden the enemy." It attempts to void the First Amendment.

Considering the first paragraph says the words "any person who materially supported" hostilities could be considered an unlawful enemy combatant, I submit you are wrong as wrong as can be when you say I cannot show you specifically what I am talking about.

If "a person" is found to be an "unlawful enemy combatant" under that definition, he or she could be (1) prosecuted under this act (2) held indefinitely (3) Put to death.

 

[STAGE 2]

I keep saying.... so what? You can label people all day long. Military commissions under this bill don't have jurisdiction over citizens. Its that simple.

 

[Gary Conner]

You continue to say "so what" because you believe the following language excluded U.S. Citizens, and it does not.

Here is your entire argument, in 948c.: ‘‘§ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions ‘‘Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter."

Do you comprehend the importance of the fact that the sentence above, does not say or specify "limited to" any unlawful alien enemy combatant? It says "persons subject to" the act are "...any alien unlawful enemy combatant" but it does not rule out any citizen found to be an unlawful enemy combatant.

That is where you are as wrong as wrong can be, when you say it is exclusionary, as it is not. It only sets forth the statement that people who are aliens can are subject to it, however, it (for a reason) does not say specifically "no U.S. citizen" can be subject to this Act.

You are claiming it states that No Citizen is subject to trial by military commissions. And in that, you are just wrong.

So the "So What" is again, 928a (1) (i), which DOES say "The term Unlawful Enemy Combatant means-"A Person who"...

And therefore, once you are "labeled" as such, then you are subject to it, whether you are an alien, or a citizen who is "labeled as an "Enemy Combatant" and that is a HUGE difference in what you are saying the Act excludes.

That is why some of the greatest legal experts in America are mighty concerned right now, because in many's view, it is not a small issue to be "labeled an illegal enemy combatant.

That is the "so what". And if you read further in 928a (ii) you will see that it goes on to say "...any person who""...is subject to" the act.

So it is indeed troublesome, and not just a "so what" issue.

 

[STAGE 2]

Do you comprehend the importance of the fact that the sentence above, does not say or specify "limited to" any unlawful alien enemy combatant? It says "persons subject to" the act are "...any alien unlawful enemy combatant" but it does not rule out any citizen found to be an unlawful enemy combatant.

That is where you are as wrong as wrong can be, when you say it is exclusionary, as it is not. It only sets forth the statement that people who are aliens can are subject to it, however, it (for a reason) does not say specifically "no U.S. citizen" can be subject to this Act.

This is your problem and the problem of so amy others who aren't lawyers or who don't understand the law. Jurisdiction is never presumed. Jurisdiction MUST BE EXPRESSLY GRANTED either constitutionally or by statute. If the enabling statute doesn't specifically give jurisdiction over someone then a court doesn't have it. Its that simple.

If I make the statement, "I have jurisdiction over apples", by law, even though I didn't say that I don't have jurisdiction over oranges and pears, my jurisdiction is limited to apples. Thats how the judicial system works, thats how statutory construction works, and thats why you are wrong.