liberalgunnut said:
Of course you seemed to leave out the part that one man gets to define who is a enemy combatant/threat to America... which pretty much destorys your position. There is nothing in the act that says if the president felt that gun owners were a threat to the US he couldn't decide that they were all enemy combatants.
I left out that part because it is nowhere in the legislation you are discussing (referring to the
Military Commissions Act). The decision of whether someone is an unlawful alien combatant belongs to the Combatant Status Review Tribunal which is a military court.
Contrary to your assertion that the President can simply declare gunowners to be enemy combatants, the act requires several things to find someone an unlawful enemy combatant:
First, you must find that they are not a lawful enemy combatant. This is defined under the bill and Geneva III as:
`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
if you don't meet any of these categories, then you must have engaged in hostilities against the United States or supported those who do (Sec. 948(a)(1)(A)).
Finally, because the suspension of habeas corpus applies only to ALIEN unlawful enemy combatants, American citizens who are declared to be unlawful enemy combatants can still contest their status in Federal court (see
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld).
You actually pointed out Padilla... and then went on to say it's limited to aliens? you seem a bit confused.
I believe you are the one who is confused. let me explain the timeline.
1) Padilla gets arrested and is detained without trial.
2) Lawyers challenge the government with writs of habeas corpus for Padilla and Hamdi (another American citizen, except Hamdi was picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan)
3) After several years of wrangling, Padilla and Hamdi both have hearings before lower courts
4) The Supreme Court issues the Hamdi decision in 2004 saying that even unlawful enemy combatants must be given habeas corpus if they are American citizens.
5) The Supreme Court further expands habeas corpus to alien unlawful enemy combatants in the Hamdan decision citing as part of the opinion that Congress had not authorized the President such power.
6) In response, Congress passes the Military Commissions Act which authorizes such power for ALIEN UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANTS.
So you see Padilla happened prior to this legislation and really has no bearing on this legislation since Padilla would still be entitled to pursue habeas corpus in Federal court even if this legislation had been passed. Clear enough for you?
I saw nowhere in the Act that limits it to aliens. If I'm incorrect, I'd love for you to show me the source on that.
It is tough to see what you don't look for. Here is the text to the
Military Commissions Act.
"`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
`Any
alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter. "
That is the ENTIRE language describing who is subject to military commissions. As you can clearly see, the very first adjective used to describe who is subject to a military commission is the word "alien"
Is there anything else where I need to hold your hand and walk you through the language you obviously didn't read step by step?
