Does the US Constitution make law in say... Australlia or does it apply only to US Citizens? How EXACTLY is the Military Commission Act unconstitutional as it applies only to alien enemy combatants?
Section 943C: "Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter" - with "alien" defined in section 948a(3) as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States".
2006-10-19 16:58:56 · 7 answers · asked by MEL T 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Never M: Read the Law and stop listening to MSNBC,the liberal form of Fox News. LOL
2006-10-19 17:13:47 · update #1
notme: I don't see what you're getting at. Yes, he can arrest US Citizens as enemy combatants. That's not new to this law. Well, except the term "enemy combatant". The Pres always had the right to arrest terrorists or traitors. The Military Tribunal does not apply, so??? I just don't get what your're saying.
2006-10-20 01:00:47 · update #2
Yes, Habeas Corpus can and has been suspended by presidents -- Abraham Lincoln, for instance, suspended habeus corpus so that he could indefinitely jail northern journalists who were critical of the War Between the States. FDR and Harry Truman also suspended habeas corpus. What Bush has done is nothing new or radical (past presidents, including Clinton, have done far worse as far as civil liberties are concerned) -- he simply had the bad taste to be a Republican while doing it.
But it's a moot point anyway. The right of Habeas Corpus does not and has never applied to foreign nationals.
2006-10-19 20:08:57 · answer #1 · answered by Simon Templar 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--
`(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.
`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
I understand what you are getting at, but it's what it doesn't say thats important. Bush or Rummy can declare anyone an unlawful enemy combatant. The military commissions then don't apply. Alien is the key word. Think about it.
2006-10-20 00:20:43 · answer #2 · answered by notme 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The constitution says it can be suspended. The Military Commission act doesn't suspend it, it gets rid of it all together. It is also only supposed to be suspended when a rebellion or invasion is going on. Also, if you (a citizen) were arrested and called an "alien military combatant", you wouldn't get to have a trial, lawyer, or bail hearing to prove that you were a citizen. In other words, it was written in a way that makes it apply to citizens as well, since it never allows you to prove you are a citizen.
2006-10-20 11:33:16 · answer #3 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The liberals are using rumor, hype, and hysteria to convey this fear to the US people...
I can't believe liberal lawyers don't have a better grasp of the C than this, so I believe they are deliberately preying on American ignorance...
I wonder how many average citizens are even aware of what habeas corpus is...
And I'm not saying that to be rude, since habeas corpus is such a rare remedy (not talking about frivolous filings), many of us criminal defense attorneys are unfamiliar with it...
2006-10-20 00:21:12 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Looked it up on Wikkipedia, even aliens charged as Unlawful
Combatants have the right to challenge in U.S. courts.
If the evidenciary hearing upholds the Govt's assertions then
they are subject to Military Tribunal.
If the Govt's assertions are not upheld, they can still be detained
while the Govt. prepares other charges.
The key word is Alien.
2006-10-20 00:55:26 · answer #5 · answered by Farnham the Freeholder 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Absent a sufficient showing for a proper restraint of liberty, the court is duty bound to order the restraint eliminated and the person discharged.
2006-10-20 00:07:28 · answer #6 · answered by sweetness01201 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Here are your answers if you truely want them
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UntkKtyUKk&eurl=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THCH9FE3_XM&mode=related&search=
2006-10-20 00:06:31 · answer #7 · answered by Never M 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋