ummm... that might be because from your high horse it's hard to see what the bill says
Here is what the bills says:
Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
Yet, you don't want to discuss the part about who is actually subject to military commissions under this chapter. You only want to discuss a single section of the chapter regarding definitions. Why is that?
While other sections describe these as 'alien'.... the definition does not make that distinction. This simply describes a 'Unlawful Enemy Combatant' as someone who is engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a 'Lawful Enemy Combatant'.
Yes - and those people are not subject to military commissions -as the above section explains and as the
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision that I have quoted to you several times now both explain.
Apparently I'm not the only one confused... the Counsel on Foreign Relations seems a bit confused as well
What makes you think the Council on Foreign Relations is confused? I didn't see a question in there. They are simply restating the law, which not surprisingly, says that if you take up weapons against the United States during war, you are an enemy combatant whether you are an American citizen or not. They then go on to explain the difference between an unlawful enemy combatant and an enemy combatant according to Geneva III. Under Article 5 of Geneva IV, an unlawful combatant receives no protections under the Geneva conventions.
Finally they explain that because al-Quaida clearly is not a lawful combatant under Geneva III Article 4, they must be
unlawful enemy combatants.
of course the problem with naming one an enemy combatant prior to determining their guilt is a big problem for those named enemy combatants... but no so much for you.
I think you are confusing the President declaring the al-Quaida organization to be unlawful enemy combatants under
Geneva III Article 4 with specific individuals being named enemy combatants. Surely you don't mean to suggest that the President is incorrect in that declaration concerning al-Quaida?
No individuals have been declared "unlawful enemy combatants" without a combatant status review tribunal - which is a military court designated to hear just that issue.
btw: did you miss the second sentence of the Hamdi case?
You are quoting from the dissent in Hamdi (i.e. the losing side). You do understand what dissent means right (or "decent" if you prefer)? Scalia lost that vote. I am trying really hard to be nice here; but I am left with two conclusions:
1) You don't understand what a dissent opinion from the Supreme Court means - which means trying to explain more complicated legal issues to you is going to be more work than I have time for.
2) You do understand what a dissent opinion from the Supreme Court means and selectively quoted it to support your case, even though you knew it did no such thing.
I am sure you can understand why I would be reluctant to waste my time with someone who fits into either of those two categories.
Scalia (in speaking of rights):
Quote:
They apply only to citizens, accused of being enemy combatants, who are detained within the territorial jurisdiction of a federal court.
The MCA excludes Federal Court.
Just to clarify this for you... Scalia was arguing that any citizen detained within the
territorial jurisdiction (i.e. within the United States proper) has habeas corpus rights. This would be in contrast to the statutory jurisdiction provided by the MCA. His argument was that because Hamdi was captured on the battlefield in another country, he lost his rights as an American citizen.
That argument lost. The Court said that regardless of where you are, or the fact that you are an unlawful enemy combatant, you still have habeas corpus rights as an American citizen; but even Scalia's losing dissent would still offer the vast majority of American citizens habeas corpus rights under the MCA.
Quote:
are any other American citizens currently being detained without trial?
Since your actual argument consists only of the words "you", I am going to do my best to just guess at the point you are trying to make. I'm sure you'll understand if I don't get it perfect. Please note the emphasis above and answer the question. I've been very nice about you repeatedly ignoring my questions while answering yours. Now, please list for me all American citizens who are being detained without access to our court system (p.s. Hamdi was released).
As to your other two points, even with my mind-reading mod powers, I wasn't able to guess what argument you thought you were making.
Once again, here is a nice summary to take away from this: There are a lot of problems with this bill; however, American citizens still have full rights to habeas corpus under this bill.
Finally, since we seem to be specifically addressing the MCA, we should probably stop dragging this thread OT and continue the conversation here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=228834&page=3