Sad, But True!

[Decker]

Which detainees haven't been tortured??  All of those fatties on 4,000 calorie a day diets being fed specially prepared desserts and having access to cardio equipment. 

How many have been tortured under the Military Commissions Act passed on 17 Oct. 06?  I say zero.   

So the president and republican Congress go through all the trouble of passing a retroactive law defining torture to eliminate any chance of repurcussions from the Geneva Conventions (we are talking about torture here) just to not use the newly created power to torture?

Sounds like spin to me Beach Bum.

"So we are reduced to fighting over a word, “torture”. President George W Bush’s preferred terminology is “alternative interrogation techniques” or “coercive interrogation” or “harsh interrogation methods”, or simply, amazingly, his comment last Thursday that a policy of waterboarding detainees is merely a policy to “question” them." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article648370.ece

How many times are you going to defend the indefensible Beach Bum?

[Decker]

The MCA does apply to american citizens. 

"The first prong of the bill's definition (of unlawful combatant) is unjustifiably broad. But the second prong of the definition is far worse. It appears to delegate to the President or Secretary of Defense unrestricted power to deem anyone an unlawful enemy combatant. All it requires is that a "competent tribunal" like a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) make the determination. (CSRTs are the administrative boards that review detentions at Guantanamo.) The bill itself says nothing about the substance of the criteria that the tribunal should apply."  http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20061009.html

Although US citizens cannot be tried under the MCA, they can be detained indefinitely.



.

[Dos Equis]

So the president and republican Congress go through all the trouble of passing a retroactive law defining torture to eliminate any chance of repurcussions from the Geneva Conventions (we are talking about torture here) just to not use the newly created power to torture?

Sounds like spin to me Beach Bum.

"So we are reduced to fighting over a word, “torture”. President George W Bush’s preferred terminology is “alternative interrogation techniques” or “coercive interrogation” or “harsh interrogation methods”, or simply, amazingly, his comment last Thursday that a policy of waterboarding detainees is merely a policy to “question” them." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article648370.ece

How many times are you going to defend the indefensible Beach Bum?

I'm not defending anything Decker.  I'm just refusing to engage in wild unsupportable conjecture.  You choose to believe detainees are being tortured under the MCA.  I say that is malarkey.  No proof. 

[Dos Equis]

The MCA does apply to american citizens. 

"The first prong of the bill's definition (of unlawful combatant) is unjustifiably broad. But the second prong of the definition is far worse. It appears to delegate to the President or Secretary of Defense unrestricted power to deem anyone an unlawful enemy combatant. All it requires is that a "competent tribunal" like a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) make the determination. (CSRTs are the administrative boards that review detentions at Guantanamo.) The bill itself says nothing about the substance of the criteria that the tribunal should apply."  http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20061009.html

Although US citizens cannot be tried under the MCA, they can be detained indefinitely.



.

That woman doesn't know what she's talking about.  The MCA says in no uncertain terms that it applies to aliens.  Let me know when an American citizen is indefinitely detained under the MCA.  I won't be holding my breath. 

[Decker]

That woman doesn't know what she's talking about.  The MCA says in no uncertain terms that it applies to aliens.  Let me know when an American citizen is indefinitely detained under the MCA.  I won't be holding my breath. 

She acknowledged that an american citizen cannot be tried under the MCA (it's a military court) but that an american citizen can be held without trial as an enemy combatant.


Reread 948(a)(1)(ii) where it says that the president and Sec. of Defense have the absolute power to put together a tribunal to determine that any person is an unlawful enemy comabatant.

Is the tribunal for determining unlawful enemy combatant status the same as the military commission that limits its jurisdiction only to aliens? 

No it is not.  How do I know?  The authors would have written "military commission" instead of "tribunal" in the glaringly overbroad definition of "unlawful enemy combatant".

[Dos Equis]

She acknowledged that an american citizen cannot be tried under the MCA (it's a military court) but that an american citizen can be held without trial as an enemy combatant.


Reread 948(a)(1)(ii) where it says that the president and Sec. of Defense have the absolute power to put together a tribunal to determine that any person is an unlawful enemy comabatant.

Is the tribunal for determining unlawful enemy combatant status the same as the military commission that limits its jurisdiction only to aliens? 

No it is not.  How do I know?  The authors would have written "military commission" instead of "tribunal" in the glaringly overbroad definition of "unlawful enemy combatant".

I disagree.  The entire purpose of the MCA plainly says it applies to aliens.  You cannot simply read the word "person" in one section and interpret that word separate and apart from the purpose of the Act.  The MCA was not enacted to apply to American citizens and I'm unaware of the military or U.S. government using the MCA to indefinitely detain American citizens. 

[OzmO]

I disagree.  The entire purpose of the MCA plainly says it applies to aliens.  You cannot simply read the word "person" in one section and interpret that word separate and apart from the purpose of the Act.  The MCA was not enacted to apply to American citizens and I'm unaware of the military or U.S. government using the MCA to indefinitely detain American citizens. 

Wasn't there some guy they did detain?   You and 240 were debating about it a few months ago.

[Dos Equis]

Wasn't there some guy they did detain?   You and 240 were debating about it a few months ago.

You're thinking of Jose Padilla.  240 and Ribo made the absurd argument that Padilla was detained in 2002 under the provisions of the MCA, when the MCA wasn't enacted until four years later in 2006. 

[OzmO]

You're thinking of Jose Padilla.  240 and Ribo made the absurd argument that Padilla was detained in 2002 under the provisions of the MCA, when the MCA wasn't enacted until four years later in 2006. 

Ok so, Padilla was held  without a charge or judge etc.. for a period of months or years?

[Dos Equis]

Ok so, Padilla was held  without a charge or judge etc.. for a period of months or years?

He was held for years without charges.  He's currently on trial. 

[OzmO]

He was held for years without charges.  He's currently on trial. 

That's not legal is it?  to be held without charges for years?

[Dos Equis]

That's not legal is it?  to be held without charges for years?

I'm not sure.  Some courts/judges did say Padilla could be held indefinitely.  We shouldn't be holding anyone indefinitely without charges IMO. 

[OzmO]

I'm not sure.  Some courts/judges did say Padilla could be held indefinitely.  We shouldn't be holding anyone indefinitely without charges IMO. 

Yeah i agree.

We went through this MCA thing before.   the language gets a little vague doesn't it?   but it does say it applies to aliens and not citizens.  We will have to see if it is ever abused.  i hope not.

[Dos Equis]

Yeah i agree.

We went through this MCA thing before.   the language gets a little vague doesn't it?   but it does say it applies to aliens and not citizens.  We will have to see if it is ever abused.  i hope not.

I don't think the MCA language is vague at all ("This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants.").  I'll be very surprised if the government tries to use the MCA to detain and/or prosecute an American citizen and whether that attempt is upheld by the courts.

 

[Decker]

I disagree.  The entire purpose of the MCA plainly says it applies to aliens.  You cannot simply read the word "person" in one section and interpret that word separate and apart from the purpose of the Act.  The MCA was not enacted to apply to American citizens and I'm unaware of the military or U.S. government using the MCA to indefinitely detain American citizens. 

This is why the law is overbroad.  You can look at that section and see that tribunals for determining the 'unlawful combatant' status of any person is distinct from the  military commissions which apply to only aliens.

Under the MCA, US citizens accused of terrorist sympathies/acts are tried under the judicial system.  Non-citizens are subject to the military commissions.

The MCA's military commissions do not apply to US citizens but the determination of status could apply to anyone. 

Everything in Sec. 948(b) purpose is correct:
`(a) Purpose- This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.

That is a true statement.  But it does not contradict my conclusion that 948(a) applies to US citizens.  948(b) simply says that this law's purpose is to establish military commissions for accused non-citizens. 

But 948(a) says more than that.  It says anyone can be an enemy combatant if determined so by a tribunal chosen by the president or Sec of State. 

If the president and congress wanted the tribunals for determining enemy combatant status to apply only to non-citizens, it could have been phrased that way.  It wasn't. 

Instead we get a statement of the obvious--military commissions will apply to non-citizens.  No kidding.  But as I said, the Act comprehends much more.

Therefore the language is vague and overbroad.  This happens all the time in statutory construction.  Under the Bush regime though, I find it typically nefarious and not accidental.

Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.


Again, the above is a true statement but it says nothing of the tribunals which determine enemy combatant status.

[24KT]

That's not legal is it?  to be held without charges for years?

yes, it is legal for that American citizen to be held without charges for years.
Bush made it legal by signing the MCA which applies retroactively.

[OzmO]

yes, it is legal for that American citizen to be held without charges for years.
Bush made it legal by signing the MCA which applies retroactively.

Show me where this has happened and where it says that in the MCA.

I've seen nothing that says that.