ekzept (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} ekzept) wrote,@ 2006-09-29 14:18:00 |
|
| Current mood: |  worried |
| Entry tags: | civil rights, habeas corpus, judiciary |
Coturnix has seen it before, and he's scared
Corturnix describes himself as a "a Red-State Serbian Jewish atheist liberal PhD student". his science is great to read.
he's scared. as i am. but the difference is, he's seen it happen before.
the damning thing is that phrase in S.3930.PCS, passed yesterday:
The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant.and:
The term `lawful enemy combatant' means an individual who is--as mentioned earlier, the statute has its applicability restricted to aliens, for now. but, if you are a naturalized American citizen, there are various administrative measures that can be used to strip you of that citizenship and you would then be subject to the statute. someone who is an American citizen because they were born here would need to undergo a trial to have their citizenship stripped, either, for instance, for treason or something as seemingly innocent as refusing to testify before Congress regarding their subversive activities.
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
update 20060929 1451 EDT: Cosmic Variance has a nice summary of others opinions on the matter, including excerpts from statements read on the Senate floor before the vote.
update 20060929 1503 EDT: there is really interesting legal discussion in the comments to this blog post. i cited it before above and read the main entry, but i skipped the comments. these folks are attorneys, so the language is thick and heavy, but it's really interesting and revealing.
update 20060929 1521 EDT: the same blog has two more entries with comments, one regarding whether or not the Military Commissions Act ("MCA", as it's now called) applies to citizens (the answer there, disturbingly, is yes), and how the MCA eliminates judicial remedies.
update 20060929 2235 EDT: the discussion is raging, particularly among the lawyers. see "Junking Checks and Balances" at FindLaw.com. see its associated commentary thread, 600 messages at last count. see FindLaw's "How The Military Commissions Act of 2006 Threatens Judicial Independence".
