Need help

[sakabatou]

One of my dorm-mates doesn't believe that the bill S. 3930 harms regular citizens. Any specific passages that show this?

[Dammit Ann]

1. try this.

THE DAMMIT CHRONICLES

i have more if you need.

[Skittles]

2. tell him to read a god damn history book

he's probably one of those f***ing idiots who think if they're not doing anything wrong they've got nothing to worry about

[Dammit Ann]

3. jeez.

the anger. ignorance IS curable. hopefully!

[Skittles]

4. I am sick of these ignorant freaks

they are killing America

[Heidi]

5. Kick for sakabatou.

:kick:

[sakabatou]

6. Still looking for actual sections from the bill I can site

[Emit]

7. Check out the link in post #1

It has some discussion and examples. Here's a snip from one of the links:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-military-commissions-act-apply-to.html

Friday, September 29, 2006
Does the Military Commissions Act apply to citizens?


JB


Many people have been asking about whether the new MCA applies to citizens. The answer seems pretty straightforward.

(1) Yes, a few parts of the MCA do apply to citizens; and


(2) the MCA is probably unconstitutional in many of its applications to citizens; and


(3) some constitutional applications of the MCA to citizens are deeply troubling.


A U.S. citizen may be an unlawful enemy combatant under section 948a.


Section 948a(1) defines an 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."


Section 948b states that "his chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants." So the MCA's procedures apply only to aliens; not to citizens. Nevertheless, Congress has declared that persons falling into the definition in 948a are unlawful enemy combatants whether they are aliens or citizens.


Why does this matter, if the military commission procedures in the MCA don't apply to citizens? The answer is that the government might seek to detain citizens as unlawful enemy combatants using the new definition in section 948a.


Hamdi v. Rumsfeld states that the President had authority to detain enemy combatants according to the laws of war based on a fairly narrow definition of the term "enemy combatant":


for purposes of this case, the "enemy combatant" that is seeking to detain is an individual who, it alleges, was " 'part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners' " in Afghanistan and who " 'engaged in an armed conflict against the United States' " there. Brief for Respondents 3. We therefore answer only the narrow question before us: whether the detention of citizens falling within that definition is authorized.

The MCA greatly expands the definition of enemy combatants, because it greatly expands the definition of "unlawful enemy combatants." If the government may detain any enemy combatants, a fortiori it may detain unlawful ones. The new definition is fuzzy: it includes citizens who "materially support" hostilities against the U.S. or whom the DoD says are unlawful enemy combatants.

Hamdi, however, states that citizens have the right under the Due Process Clause to contest their designation as enemy combatants. Because section 948a(1)(ii) purports to make determinations of enemy combatant status conclusive, it is unconstitutional to that extent. Moreover, some applications of "material support" in section 948(1)(i) would violate the Due Process Clause or the First Amendment.


But even putting those cases to one side, the new definition is still troubling: there would be many cases where the new definition is not otherwise unconstitutional but sweeps up people who pose no serious threat to national security. For example, suppose a person knowingly lets an al Qaeda operative stay at their house overnight. That person may be in violation of federal law, but it's hardly clear that the government should have the right to detain such a person indefinitely in a military prison without Bill of Rights protections until the end of the War on Terror, whenever that is. The problem with 948a(1) is that it may place Congress's stamp of approval on a definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" that is far too broad and that allows the government to move a wide swath of citizens outside of the normal procedural protections of the criminal justice system and into a parallel system where the Bill of Rights does not apply.


One last point: Section 7(a) of the MCA strips habeas and federal court jurisdiction with respect to aliens. It does not strip jurisdiction with respect to citizens.


However, what if the DoD determines that a U.S. citizen is an alien in a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, claims that its determination is conclusive under section 948a(1)(ii) and ships the person off to Guantanamo? As I noted before, section 948a(1)(ii) is probably unconstitutional to the extent that it suggests that DoD determinations are conclusive. The citizen should still have the right to prove that he is a citizen in a habeas proceeding, and a court must determine that question in order to determine whether it has jurisdiction. To the extent that the MCA would prevent such a determination, it is unconstitutional.


Posted 12:06 PM by JB

[sakabatou]

8. This is what I was looking for

And me being a lazy bum for it ^_^