A frequent blog reader hit me with a message the other day about the Military Commissions Act (MCA). Having only taken a cursory look at the matter I had simply filed it away as something that’s probably not such a good thing but it didn’t get my knickers in a twist.
Depending on who you listen to the MCA is either the greatest terrorism fighting tool since smokeless powder, or, an abomination that will remove the right of habeas corpus from anybody the US accuses of terrorism. Sure sounds like something I’d have a strong opinion on, but I didn’t at the time.
Apathy? Sort of. I’ll explain.
The argument against the MCA is that the US government can simply declare somebody an enemy combatant under it and then put them through a military tribunal instead of the criminal courts of the US that provide protection of their civil liberties — the biggest difference being the ability to see all the evidence against you I gather.
That’s where the apathy sets in — we’ve already done that. That’s the reason the MCA went to Congress. The Executive branch needed the Legislative branch to sign off on it. The Judicial branch spelled it out recently in the Hamden case. That’s why the MCA went to Congress. Hence, I’m not too worried about Congress rubber stamping something that the Executive branch has already engaged in. However, I wasn’t happy about it, and that was taking a very pessimistic view of of the legislation that I hadn’t even read yet.
Today I found that Kim du Toit took a look at the MCA and, correctly I believe, demonstrates that the MCA only applies to non-US citizens. This seems acceptable to me. If that sounds counter to my general thinking on matters of civil liberties I’d encourage you to read Kim’s analysis. If his analysis is correct there are plenty of checks and balances with this system.
Further it seems as though Congress, properly, reigned in the Executive branch in this matter by restricting the MCA to non-US citizens. If so, then this shows that our system of government is actually working to protect the civil rights of US citizens.
So, I don’t really see this as a huge blow to freedom in America. Could it be bad? I suppose. However, I think I’ll wait to see these powers abused before before I jump on that bandwagon.
Thanks for the link! In skimming the 38 page MCA I glossed over alien (and the media certainly didn’t mention that word – for some reason). Now as long as we don’t confuse our own citizens with foreigners ….
Wake up.
If you are determined an “Enemy Combatant/Terrorist” your citizenship doesn’t
mean anything. Of course, not that any arguement to the contrary
would matter while your being water boarded in some hell hole by
American Citizens/Employees, i.e. good luck getting in touch with
lawyer. Kim’s a proven lap-dog for the Republican Party, read what the
ACLU says about it, the US Contitutionalist Party, Alex Jones, Steve Quayle,
and on, and on, and on, and on.
Thanks for pointing me to the ACLU, Abject. I read up their specific issues with the MCA and I cannot disagree with their take at all.
I am not a lawyer, but the ACLU is flooded with them. I reckon they’re not making a big stink about the definition of an enemy combatant because the MCA doesn’t go back and redefine it. It sorta looks like it does, but unless the legislation is written to fix up a piece of former legislation (ie: strike this, add a semi-colon here, add this text there) then the definition only holds true for the duration of said piece of legislation. I’d compare it, maybe incorrectly, to technical documentation (RFCs) that spell out the definition of “MUST” and “MAY” just to make sure everybody is on the same page.
It’s there for the same reason they defined ‘alien’ — which isn’t a term under any real debate.
In short I don’t think this will ever affect an American citizen directly — but it sure doesn’t appear to be in line at all with American principles.