Habeas Corpus only Revoked for Non-Citizens?

[redqueen]

This is not my understanding of the bill that just passed.

It seems to me that it was left wide open for use against citizens and non-citizens alike.

I don't watch Jon Stewart regularly, but I did see a clip of him referring to the bill that way and was surprised to hear it.

[bryant69]

1. That's one theory

Of course, other people suppose that if President Bush wants to claim that a United States Citizen is an "enemy combatent," whose going to stop him?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[uppityperson]

2. I think this was a difference between House and Senate versions

I don't know what they finally agreed on.

[LeftCoast]

3. Without judicial review who's to know whether they're citizens or not?

How long did they hold Padilla w/out an appearance in court? Of course, he had brown skin so it didn't bother the pubbies though...

[BelgianMadCow]

4. Reid was extremely candid in his closing words on the bill

he clearly stated US citizens are included (in the possible targets). And he should know, right.
So I think Jon has it wrong, yes.

[thecrow]

5. Please note at the beginning of the bill where it declares

its purpose... for detainee trials "AND OTHER PURPOSES"

That's the part that chilled me.

[Swamp Rat]

6. No. A U.S. citizen can be named an "enemy combatant" etc. and then be

tortured, sent away forever, or executed in secret. All they have to do is change your citizenship status by accusing you of helping the "enemy" in some fashion (completely ambiguous). This is left up to the discretion of Bushler&Co. See how it works?

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. The intent, as explained by the repugs, was non-citizens.

They did, however, remove language that would effectively restrict it to non-citizens in the final draft, and it can now apply to anyone * doesn't like. At his discretion.

[alfredo]

14. I believe the Patriot Act II gives him the power to

revoke a person's citizenship. I don't know if that is just for naturalized citizens or everybody.

[redqueen]

8. Thanks for all your responses... that's what I thought...

whatever weasel words the idioitic or complicit republicks used to waffle around the full truth of this shameful bill, Stewart obviously had it all wrong.

Thought that was the case... I'm surprised so many still don't get it. Well, not the idiots that still believe the republicks... that's to be expected... but others? Yeah, shocked.

[GregD]

9. Not signed yet by *?

Anyone have any guesses why?

[Oilwellian]

10. Your understanding is correct

BURIED IN THE complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.

This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops "during an armed conflict," it also allows him to seize anybody who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison.

Not to worry, say the bill's defenders. The president can't detain somebody who has given money innocently, just those who contributed to terrorists on purpose.

But other provisions of the bill call even this limitation into question. What is worse, if the federal courts support the president's initial detention decision, ordinary Americans would be required to defend themselves before a military tribunal without the constitutional guarantees provided in criminal trials.

Legal residents who aren't citizens are treated even more harshly. The bill entirely cuts off their access to federal habeas corpus, leaving them at the mercy of the president's suspicions.

We are not dealing with hypothetical abuses. The president has already subjected a citizen to military confinement. Consider the case of Jose Padilla.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman28sep28,0,619852.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail


Greenwald chimes in:

As Ackerman put it: "The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights." Similarly, Lederman explains: "this (subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant') means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."

This last point means that even if there were a habeas corpus right inserted back into the legislation (which is unlikely at this point anyway), it wouldn't matter much, if at all, because the law would authorize your detention simply based on the DoD's decree that you are an enemy combatant, regardless of whether it was accurate. This is basically the legalization of the Jose Padilla treatment -- empowering the President to throw people into black holes with little or no recourse, based solely on his say-so.

(It's the definition of "enemy combatant" within the Act that hangs us.)

[w4rma]

11. Habeas Corpus is revoked for citizens who Bush deems "unlawful combatants"

Both non-citizens and citizens. An arbitrary decision by Bush revokes your Habeas Corpus rights.

This law is about as unConstitutional as it gets, but I doubt that it will be overturned for years. Which means it will most likely be in effect right up until Bush leaves office in 2008.

[onenote]

12. only for non-citizens

Despite what any number of posts in this thread claim, the language in the Military Commissions Act is unambiguous when it comes to the restriction on habeas corpus: the limitation applies only to "alien" enemy combatants. The term "alien" also is unambiguously defined: "The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States."

If someone who is detained as an enemy combatant seeks to apply for a writ of habeas corpus, the government could cite this provision as grounds for the court to dismiss. However, if the applicant claims to be a citizen, nothing in the law prevents (and indeed it would be unconsititutional) a court from making a determination as to whether the restriction is applicable to that person (i.e., a determination as to whether the person is a citizen).

Look, I understand why people want to claim the law applies to citizens. But its stupid. The argument is rebuttable on the face of the law and it undermines the credibility of the more valid arguments against this horrible law. Why toss the other side a softball so that they can they can use to undercut the rest of your case.


SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.

(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):

`(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.

`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

[alfredo]

16. Doesn't this bill forbid a victim from challenging his/her

detention? Did Patriot Act II give him the power to jank a person's citizenship?

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. My understanding was that in the final draft the word 'alien' was

removed - they want to protect their asses in regards to Padilla (and however many more citizens we don't know about) who have been declared enemy combatants.

I know that in another thread (don't have it bookmarked) i read (7,e,2) to read "...conditions of confinement of a person who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

BTW, even if I'm wrong, it is still unconstitutional -- the constitution provides protection to all persons within the jurisdiction of the united states, not just to citizens. That's why they wanted to put the prison in Gitmo in the first place, because they knew that this was illegal, despite the fact that military bases are considered to be in US jurisdiction - all bases have cooperative agreements with their host nations regarding law enforcement. We have simply not honored our cooperative agreement with Cuba since 1959.

[onenote]

19. the provision cited in my post is the final language

While "alien" is not part of the definition of the term unlawful enemy combatant, it modifies the term enemy combatant as used in certain parts of the Act, including the habeas corpus provision.

As for the constitutionality of the provision, that remains to be seen. Not all provisions of the Constitution have been held to apply to non-citizens. The Supreme Court held that the Guantanamo prisoners could apply for writs of habeas corpus because the statutory provision governing the writ of habeas corpus doesn't distinguish between citizens and non-citizens. It did not reach the question of whether Congress could constitutionally limit the writ to citizens.

[DireStrike]

20. 7, e, 2

`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.

Still applies to only aliens.

Unless the word alien was removed as rumored. But I don't see proof of that anywhere.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. It could be i saw an earlier draft.

It still bothers me, however. We have to trust to the integrity of those who are holding the detainees. If I'm picked up on the street and hauled off to prison, and told that I am an enemy combatant with no rights to a lawyer, how do I claim my right to habeas corpus? "I'm a citizen!"
"No, you're not." "I want a lawyer!" "Can't have one." "Why not?!" "BECAUSE I SAID SO!"

We have to trust to the good will of fascists.

The only reason the fascists want this law passed is to keep themselves from going to prison when this insanity ends.

[KansDem]

13. Well, the neo-con fascists want ID for voting, not just driver's license..

...but birth certificate, so now they'll want similar ID for just walking around. Even if you're an American citizen, who's going to believe you when you tell them so?

Officer: "Got an ID?"
Citizen: "Here's my driver's license"
Officer: "Uh-uhh, won't do. Where's your certified, state-issued birth certificate?"
Citizen: "Uh...um...I don't know. At home, I think"
Officer: "Down on the ground and spread 'em...!"

Sure, you can tell them you're an American citizen, but if Bush says "no you aren't..." ?????

[madmusic]

15. If possible at all...

The Fed will apply it to all.

The Black Hole of power.

[DireStrike]

17. As I read the bill it sounds like it IS only for non-citizens

I was surprised too, I thought Jon had it wrong, and everything I've heard said so.

Somebody seriously competent with the law needs to review the bill in order to stop the spread of any disinformation. It should be in a damn stickied thread and on the front page if my reading is right. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

The phrase "unlawful enemy combatant" is ALWAYS preceded by the word "alien" in all but two places - the definition of the term, and this paragraph which I don't understand:

`(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.

So, you may be declared as an unlawful enemy combatant, but unlawful enemy combatants still have the right of habeas corpus. Habeas is revoked for "Alien" (clearly defined as non-citizen) UECs.

There may be other provisions in the bill that revoke habeas corpus but I haven't read it thoroughly.


Patriot act II is not law, but if it were passed along with this bill WOULD give the administration an easy 1-2 punch for indefinite lockup of anyone (1: revoke citizenship, 2: declare unlawful enemy combatant-ship. Bam, instant alien unlawful enemy combatant.)

They might be trying to break it down into small bites so that people won't notice that when parts of separate laws are used together it negates rights. We should be on the lookout for this, and spreading falsehoods about laws now only weakens our position later, when we may have to argue about how laws could be abused.


Link to the torture bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109YZXbw1::

[redqueen]

22. Thanks...

it really shouldn't be so hard to figure out... that on its own makes me suspicious.

[Crabby Appleton]

23. Aliens only on Habeas modification

and as a restriction on the applicability of the Act provisions for unlawful enemy combatants.

Here is the version passed by and agreed upon by both the house and the senate

Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

MCA2006

and you may note the the MCA modifies and adds to Title 10 of the US Code, which is the section of federal law the governs the conduct of the military/DoD. Criminal offenses are in Title 18.

ADDED : the Habeas section 7 is near the bottom of the act.

[mmonk]

24. I believe some citizens were rounded up after 9/11.

Maybe that's the compromise.

[flyarm]

25. we have no idea what any bills are anymore with * signing

over 700 signing statements!

what the bills say on paper means nothing anymore..and we are not privy to see what the bills actually end up under pissy pants!

fly