Talk:Military Commissions Act of 2006/Archive 1

Citizens or only Aliens?
Can somebody with some real legal training tell me if this applies only to aliens, or does this apply to citizens as well? Chris Gore 23:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added two articles to the media section that address this question. One is by Jennifer Van Bergen who has practiced law and writes about human rights and constitutional law. She writes that the denial of habeus corpus only applies to non-citizens, but that the "unlawful enemy combatant" status can be applied to citizens, effectively denying them habeus corpus, as well. The second article is something I wrote (Much of my writing is about constitutional law, but I have no formal background in law.) that discusses the effects and meanings of denying habeus corpus to citizens. Brandon Batzloff 22:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Mohammed Munaf, a US citizen, will likely be sentenced to death in Iraq because of the Military Commissions Act: An American Sentenced to Death in Iraq. I did not add this to the media section because the blog posting is not directly relevant to the Military Commissions Act. Brandon Batzloff 11:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

↑ Mohammed Munaf is being sentenced to death by Iraqi courts because he was captured in Iraq and turned over to Iraqi authorities, as he should be. It's completely unrealted to the Military Commissions Act. I also don't like the other names someone added to the Wiki and attributed them as examples that the act allows prosecution of American citizens -- they were prosecuted before this Act. Had the Act been in effect at the time of their capture, there never would have been a question on how to deal with them: they would have had to be turned over to the justice system rather than holding them for ages because no lawmakers could figure out what to do with them. User:TheCynic

I asked a lawyer about this to gain further clarification. Classification as an unlawful enemy combatant can result in indefinite detention for citizens, but not the suspension of habeus corpus. However, indefinite detention is still a violation of Civil Rights. Further, such imprisoned citizens can be tortured because MCA has redefined torture. It will be important to follow the cases of citizens arrested as enemy combatants in order to see if they simply disappear into the system or if they are held in the manner in which other prisoners are held (which is not to say that the Civil Rights of prisoners are respected). Brandon Batzloff 16:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

These seem to be the parts of the bill that raise the most questions for people (habeas/unlawful enemy combatant). I've added the relevant text from the bill, hoping that it will make the article's analysis more obvious. One possibility raised by some commentators about applying this to U.S. citizens is that a CSRT could (conceivably) declare a person not to be a citizen, thus making the person's conditions of detention unreviewable. I didn't add that to the article because it seems to me to be too speculative. IANAL, just a legal worker. ArielGlenn 17:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sec.7(a) of the Act amends the General-Section 2241 of title 28, United States code so that it reads: "No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien [emphasis added] detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." - with "alien" previously defined as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States" [Sec.948a (3)] So Ohnoitsjamie's revert on 16:29, October 17, 2006 is a righteous one. Of course, as in its other provisions, the Act doesn't explicitly preserve habeas for American citizens either. In any case, as the Padilla case demonstrates, if Bush wants you fucked, you are going to get fucked - whatever that "goddamn piece of paper" says. Ribonucleic 22:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, it explicitly says that American citizens can be declared unlawful enemy combatants - and once that happens, good luck in terms of bodily safety, habeas corpus or no. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is accurate. The bill does explicitly state that anyone can be declared as an unlawful enemy combatant. At this point they can literally do anything to you, as habeas corpus is also easily circumvented in this case. 132.42.128.28 13:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, no it does not. Even this panty waist, with an appropriate last name of "Dorf" will go so far as to extend to "resident alien"
 * Under the terms of the MCA, then, the government could declare a permanent resident alien--including someone who has been residing lawfully in the United States for decades--to be an enemy combatant, and lock him up, potentially forever. That alien--who could be your neighbor--would never have an opportunity to challenge his detention or treatment in a U.S. court. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am a lawyer. While, admittedly, I haven't done any extensive research on the issue, I'd like to point out that the text of the law states that it's "Purpose" is to "establish[] 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."  Any Court interpreting this law would catch that word alien, and would not apply this law to a citizen.  This law would also be unconstitutional, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, if applied to a citizen.  However, the Fifth Amendment does not apply to aliens.  See Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784.  But, I'm inclined to agree that a citizen detained as an unlawful enemy combatant is probably completely screwed, regardless of what the law says. bagboy


 * However, there is a larger issue here. Aren't there already provisions which allow enemy combatants to be stripped of their American citizenship? I read somewhere, admittedly unreliable, that this is made possible by some aspect of the Patriot Act, but I don't know. Does anyone know if the Patriot Act, or any other law or precedent makes it possible to strip someone of U.S. citizenship?  If so, then the Military Commissions Act of 2006 can be applied after that simple step. Thanks for any info on this, which I await...--Daniel 11:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Under Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), the only real way to lose your citizenship seems is to either be convicted as a traitor (not exactly common), or give it up voluntarily before a U.S. Consular Officer. I think there are spaces for not paying your taxes for ten years, naturalization in a foriegn state, or joining another state's armed services, but I can't really find any cases of this within recent history.  The wiki page for United States citizenship covers this. - Gattsuru

That also means us, whether you born an american or not, you are concidered an enemy combatant. You will be locked up forever without proving your innocence. You will also be put to death by torture or beheading by guillotine.--68.154.20.29 19:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The writing on the effects of MCA on citizens on this page had become dangerously misleading. The quote about it not affecting civil rights is simply not true. I posted another sentence citing Amnesty International and the National Lawyers Guild who have come to the opposite conclusion. I was tempted to remove the previous quote, but refrained from doing so. Brandon Batzloff 12:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. The citation from AI reads as follows: Permit the executive to convene military commissions to try "alien unlawful enemy combatants", as determined by the executive under a dangerously broad definition, in trials that would provide foreign nationals so labeled with a lower standard of justice than US citizens accused of the same crimes. This would violate the prohibition on the discriminatory application of fair trial rights. The AI pieces does not say that this effects US citizens. As for the NLG, we all know where thier sympathies lay, so I dont think its appropriate to use them in this article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You are skewing facts. Amnesty International stated that the suspension of Habeus does not affect citizens. Amnesty states that MCA authorizes the indefinite detention of US citizens, which as I stated in the addition I made to the effects on citizens section, is a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. Why did you erase my statement citing Amnesty International and the NLG? Both of these are legitimate research organizations, Amnesty being an NGO and the National Lawyers Guild being a legal bar association. Your comments about knowing where the NLG sympathies lie are a personal opinion and not worthy of negating decisions and statements made by the NLG. The NLG is a valid legal organization, while the news show pundit you quote is simply that, a pundit. His opinion is essentially meaningless, while the research by Amnesty International and the lawyers of the NLG carries a great deal of weight. The misinformation that you are interested in conveying on this page is similar to other forms of propaganda used by neo-cons and other radical rightists. Wikipedia should be about facts, not the manipulation of information. Brandon Batzloff 11:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In the time I've been following this article, it appears that there's a concerted effort to portray the MCA as applying to U.S. citizens. First, the word "alien" was ignored by those professing this viewpoint. Once that was adequately addressed, there now seem to be attempts to portray 950v as extending the law to U.S. citizens even though 950v(b) reads: "“(b) OFFENSES.—The following enumerated of fenses, when committed in the context of and associated with armed conflict, shall be triable by military commisssion under this chapter at any time without limitation—" So, yes, if you are in Iraq as a U.S. citizen and are aprehended as an unlawful enemy combatant, you might fall under this--and you should. But if you are in the U.S., simply being called an unlawful enemy combatant is not enough to be subject to military tribunals. As I said in my edit, "rape" is also identified as an action that would put someone under the perview of this law, but obviously rapes will continued to be prosecuted civily with due process. Whether or not an "unlawful enemy combatant" can be held indefinitely is a completely separate issue that has nothing to do with this law. I see all of this as a disturbing effort by some to skew the accuracy of this Wikipedia article to portray the MCA as something that it's not. User:Letxa2000, 25 October 2006

First, there are comments below under The Truth that should be removed. It reprehensible that anyone would superimpose such a status on his own words on a Wikipedia talk board. Further, any indication by any party that they would assassinate anyone (as in "I earnestly hope you will oust the people responsible so that folks like me won't have to "take them out."") should not be tolerated. It is first political, second it is threatening, third it is illegal. That person needs to be banned and IP info turned over to the FBI. Threats of assassination or of any kind are way over the line of polite discussion.

But as to the subject matter:

There is a fundamental principle of statute codification, contracts, or lawsuits that any first semester law student would know. Every law passed and most legal document first somewhere identifies the persons or jurisdictions (or gains authority through another statute that does), and ONLY then goes on to further detail. Thus, any person that fits the qualification is subject to the next criteria. They are never expanded later. Hence, laws written in a given state first specifies the jurisdiction or persons to whom the law applies, and then they don't need to keep saying it every time they create a new paragraph. It is also why the parties are stipulated in a contract or lawsuit right up front, and then go on to refer to them generically from that point on. Therefore later when it says, "any person", it means any person who fits the identification criteria previously stated. The persons specified here are "Any alien unlawful combatant" - that's it. Therefore later when it says "any person", it is understood they are saying, "any person [who is an alien unlawful combatant]". They don't need to say that 80 times over and over again.

There is also significant confusion generated here over language dealing with who has duties and allegiances, with the presumption that only citizens have such duties and then therefore working it backwards to include them. There are many different duties and allegiances that do not include U.S. citizenship. Every person within the borders of the country has a statutory duty to uphold the laws of the United States, citizen or not. (This would also include anyone not present here in the U.S. but that DOES extend their control here such as if someone tried to hack a bank or the DOD from foreign soil, shot down a U.S. plane over foreign waters, or attacked a U.S. embassy.) If you apply for a visa, you further sign a written oath of duty (not allegiance), even though you are not a citizen. Additionally, about 30,000 of the US military are not U.S. Citizens, yet they do take an oath of allegiance to the United States in order to join, and they do have a duty. These are just a few of the examples, and there are many others.--Shardman 15:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And apparently someone has re-added the inaccurate text regarding "extending" the law to U.S. citizens "later" in the act. This is wrong. Shardman already gave a clear legal reasoning. And even if that weren't the case, 950(v)-b already limits the applicability. I hate to get involved in an add/delete war, but that "extension to U.S. citizens" section in the first part is just wrong. It has to go. User:Letxa2000, 26 October 2006

Taken right from the bill:

"(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.--(A) The tearm "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" means--

(i)a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities or it's co-belligerants who is not a lawful enemy combatant...

"DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT STATUS DISPOSITIVE--A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combat Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdictin for trial by military commission of this chapter."

"(B) NOTICE TO ACCUSED.—Upon the swearing of the charges and specifications in accordance with subsection (a), the accused shall be informed of the charges against him as soon as practicable."

Nowhere does it mention "aliens", which even then had to be described in the "Definitions" preface.--Tim

So an American Citizen can be declared an unlawful enemy combatant, and after that he doesn't have to be informed of charged untill it is pratical, this doesn't explicitly say you don't have right of habeas corpus, however it could very well extend your stay in prison without much reason to do so. So as the laywer earlier said, if you are declared an enemy combatant you are pretty screwed, however being declared an enemy combatant would be pretty hard if you are a law abidding citizen, at least, I hope.--Also Tim.Humanzy 06:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You missed a spot, Tim : “ALIEN- The term `alien’ means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.” The section on ‘persons subject to military commissions’ specifically limits itself to :

“ `(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant.” "
 * In addition, it later states that imprisonment or simply status as a unlawful enemy combtant can be reviewed by the United States District of Columbia District court... so that's a little hard to get around. - Gattsuru

Does that really change the fact that it can apply to you? I don't think so, it just gives you a few more rights than an Alien. You can still be declared an Unlawful Combatant, and held in prison for an extended period without charges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanzy (talk • contribs)
 * Actually it does change the fact that it can only be applied to aliens because the definition category only explains what these words means. They do not make decisions in who qualifies for the act.  Only the relevant sections of 948b to 948d.  The changes to remove the term "alien" from the act is impossible especially in the incoming Democratic House/Senate.  ViriiK 16:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Blockquoting
I usually always like blockquotes as opposed to direct quoting within paraphrased text, but if you want to go with it that's fine by me in this instance. Yours, Smeelgova 23:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC).


 * Per Manual of Style, the blockquoting style is used for long quotations. What's "long" isn't precisely defined.  One standard I remember seeing somewhere (possibly in the Bluebook, though I'm not sure) is to indent a quotation if it has two or more sentences or 50 or more words.  I've sometimes indented things that fell short of those guidelines.  Here, though, the specific passages involved are very short and are fine as inline quotations. JamesMLane t c 08:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure thing, thanks for the iteration, didn't know about all that policy stuff. Yours, Smeelgova 21:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC).

-I think the bill was just passed in the house and senate, and now just needs bush's signature http://uspolitics.about.com/od/antiterrorism/a/HR6166.htm

- As I understand it Specter did vote for the habeas corpus amendment but also voted for the bill even though his amendment had failed. (In fact, Senate voting records confirm this.) I suggest to strike out -quote Specter voted against his own amendment -unquote

-I have read the law in its entirety, and can say with confidence that the only thing that stops it from being applied to citizens is one word in one sentence in one section. That word is 'alien', found in § 948c. If this word were to be delted, the entire document could then apply to American citizen. Add to that the Secretary of Defense is given power in the bill to alter anything in it as he sees fit, so long as he submits the changes to Congress 60 days before the changes are enacted. It does not require their consent or review, simply that he must inform them. 68.42.67.41 09:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)jaxvon

I apologize for the I.P. address, bt I'm not sure how to use the Wiki noting system. In any case, this debate is fairly irrelevant from a legal standpoint. Habeas Corpus grants the accused a right to challenge that detention. If someone is presumed an alien (there are no standards on this) and arrested under the MCA, whether they are a citizen or not will be irrelevant because they will have no chance to prove it. NLG ad Amnesty International may certainly be correct in their interpretations, but the applications are irrelevant, because no one implicated under the law will have the right to challenge the detention or prove that it does not apply to them. It's a Catch 22: In order to have a hearing, the accused would need to prove himself/herself to be a citizen. In order to prove himself/herself to be a citizen, the accused would have to have a hearing. Adittionally, the court could not hear any motions from a third party. The law doesn't ban challenges from the detainee, it simply deprives the 800-year old Anglo-Saxon court system jurisdiction. If the Founding Fathers had been able to foresee such the Haeas Corpse, I rather think that they would have stuck with the other King George III. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.72.58.142 (talk • contribs).

Legal refs
Sorry to quote a legal blog but there aren't going to be law review articles on the bill yet. I suppose if op-eds in Jurist are ok, then references to Marty Lederman's analysis are good enough. The references to the bill sections can all be cleaned up when it is passed (we can reference 10 USC 47A, section 948 etc). ArielGlenn 17:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I have added the full citation to the Act. The article needs to distinguish between Act sections and Code sections enacted by the Act. I'll add the details slowly bit by bit. Also, I'm not providing links to the Cornell University Law School web site for the Code cites, as the provisions probably won't be up on that site for awhile anyway. Yours, Famspear 21:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've converted all the Code cites unless I missed one. The article now differentiates the slip law-session law cites (such as Act section 5) from the Code cites (basically, the sections in the "900" series of numbering). I realize this doesn't mean much to most non-lawyers, but this will really make the article easier to use, trust me.

There are some other codifications in the Act that somebody may want to talk about in the article later. Yours, Famspear 21:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

PS - I haven't studied the text of the Act in depth -- I'm just making technical changes. Also, I see now where some other editors are making corrections on the actual numberings of some of the cites themselves. This article is comin' along! Yours, Famspear 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that this was not vandalism? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, I'll have to check. (And I haven't checked any of the actual section numbers for accuracy; I was just formatting, basically.) May take a while to check this, as I'm pulling off to work on something else. Yours, Famspear 21:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm back. Oh boy, looks like that edit by AequitasForAll was incorrect (maybe I'll just assume it was a good faith mistake and leave it at that), and was properly reverted (sigh). Yours, Famspear 21:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Competent tribunals" not defined
Secs.948i-948m define the military commissions that prosecute (when they feel like it) people designated "unlawful enemy combatants". They do not define the "competent tribunals" that make that designation. Ribonucleic 15:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm, yeah it is: A "competent tribunal" is defined in the US Army field Manual. section 27-10, for the purpose of determining whether a person is or is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and consists of a board of not less than three officers. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Army Field Manual, section 27-10, is not Sections 948i-m of the Act - which is what the text I removed from the article was claiming defined the tribunals. Ribonucleic 20:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Please don't bring up those annoying Geneva Conventions"
Sec.5a says: "No person [emphasis added] may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action [emphasis added]..."


 * The Geneva Conventions are, are they not, treaties, signed by a president and approved by the Senate? Kinda like that "no militarization of space" treaty?  Or did my civics teachers fail me? --Baylink


 * Unfortunately, International Humanitarian Law has been a problematic resource for litigants in U.S. Courts. Traditionally only states had standing to assert breaches of treaties.

That's because in the this Act re-wrote "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" as a U.S. term with a new definition. What the Geneva convention wouldn't have called a combatant, can now be. And hence, they have no rights under the Geneva Convention (they'd probably not get much of a sentence). It also separates Civilians from the Civilian court and takes them to the brutal Military Tribunals (freaking scary).

Alien vs. Citizen
Aren’t the two mutually exclusive? Commenting in the article that the Act does not specifically exclude American citizens is meaningless, because the Act clearly spells out who it applies to, non-citizens. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are. But the Act only says what it can do to aliens. It does not exclude the possiblity of doing the same thing to citizens.


 * You are reading provisions into the law that do not exist.


 * Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions


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


 * And that’s it, no one else is defined as being subject to the provisions of the Act.


 * By this logic, we could comment that since the law does not exclude prosecution of dogs in Chile for urinating on fire hydrants, that they too might fall under the domain of this law. Reading into the law what is not stated in its text is WP:NOR Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As the top of this very Discussion page suggests, people are wondering if American citizens can be subjected to these kangaroo courts - or only those scary brown people with the strange names. I see no reason why a "Scope of the Act" section can't address this curiosity - in an NPOV fashion, of course. Ribonucleic 18:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * People wonder alot of things, and in this instance, we have it defined in the law for us. The law has defined its jurisdiction within it, no legal scholar has, as of yet, claimed this could apply to a US citizen, ergo, this material should not be included in the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add any legal scholar who claims that it can't be applied to an American citizen to the Criticism section. Also, please refer them to the Padilla defense team. Ribonucleic 19:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Asking me to prove a negative? It just don’t work that way. Your the one who wants to include it, you must provided a cite justifying it. I have already cited a legal scholar who says it will be applied to aliens and resident aliens (oh the humanity!) and never once did he say "citizen". Under the terms of the MCA, then, the government could declare a permanent resident alien--including someone who has been residing lawfully in the United States for decades--to be an enemy combatant, and lock him up, potentially forever. That alien--who could be your neighbor--would never have an opportunity to challenge his detention or treatment in a U.S. court. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thought I'd add my 2 cents. I am a lawyer (although not a military one), and definately not a scholar. I'd also be interested in a different legal opinion, here, but I just read the plain language of the act and don't see how it applies to citizens.

In the definitions section (948a) there are separate definitions for "alien" and "unlawful enemy combatant." Since courts look to the specifics in a bill to trump the general, it's clear that the terms are mutually exclusinve - one can be an "unlawful enemy combatant" even if a citizen.

The problem, however, is that under the jurisdiction sections of 948c and 948d, on "alien unlawful enemy combatants" are subject to the act. 948c provides that alien unlawful enemy combatants are subject to "trial" by military commission/ 948d, while allowing the determination of unlawful enemy combatant status to be made by the military commission - and not subject to review (amazing!) - still provides that jurisdiction is only over "alien unlawful enemy combatants." Also, the habeas corpus denial, by definition in the act (Section 7) also only applies to "aliens."

Now - while I don't disagree with a previous poster that I wouldn't put it past the Bushies to stuff folks away in Gitmo regardless, I just don't see anything in this act that allows it. I'd love to see someone show me how I'm wrong, so I could become even more paranoid. One last thought - I suppose the gov. could try to show that, based upon a person's acts, he had willfully given up citizenship and therefore had de facto become an "alien" - and that would be the trick. Again, I wouldn't put anything past them.


 * Maybe you could comment on Section 950v "Crimes triable by military commissions"?


 * `(26) WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY- Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.


 * Is the Act still only applicable to non-citizens? Who has allegiance or duty to US besides US citizens? If a person is charged with a crime triable by military commissions, wouldn't that then make them subject to the Act?

Original Research in Article
From WP:NOR “Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.”

Namely, the inclusion of a section entitled “major provisions” is OR. Why are these provisions major? Who decided that they are major? Since there is no section in the text of the law, why are these specificly cited as “major provisions”. Sources need to be added to these, preferably by some mainstream legal authority on why these cited provision are an more notable than the hundreds of other provision s in the law. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I've removed "Major". Wasn't mine to begin with. Ribonucleic 19:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Major or minor, still does not matter. Why is one section 949c.(b)(3)(D) in the article, but not 949c.(b)(3)(B)? Are we trying to draw the reader to a conclusion, and if not, why are we not replicating the Act in its entirety? I am removing the whole section, until we have some noteworthy legal commentary on the specific sections, otherwise its inclusion is POV and prejudicial. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Those are the facts of the law, neutrally stated, each and every one documented. Don't blame me if they look bad. If NPOV is your real concern here, I respectfully suggest that you add to balance out what is there - rather than make a large, unilateral deletion. Ribonucleic 20:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutrally sated, but not neutrally presented. And how do I balance it? Do I simple cut and past the whole act? Since you have deemed to necessary to unilaterally decide what has gone in, regardless of notability, it’s a case of NPOV and OR. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You could address your OR concerns by finding and quoting media articles commenting on the "novel" aspects of the Act - i.e. hearsay evidence, torture evidence, secret evidence, etc. That probably wouldn't take long. If your passion for eradicating OR isn't quite that motivating, you could leave the article as it is. Or, to get away from all this unilateralism, we could wait to see what other comments on the dispute appear here. But I spent a lot of time documenting all those neutrally stated facts that you found so prejudicially presented. So until there's some consensus, I'm going to strive to keep them in. Ribonucleic 20:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, feel free to do so, but lets just leave the tag be for a while. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Who's the enemy combatant?
The definition does not say you're the Bad Guy "if a tribunal finds that you materially supported..." It says you're the Bad Guy if you: 1) materially supported, or 2) a tribunal says you are. It says nothing about what, if anything, the tribunal would have to decide before saying so. Ribonucleic 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you know, it looks like it does! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Section 10 of the Act simply amends the wording of the Detainee Act. It does not say it is binding (or even a handy reference) for a tribunal finding of Bad Guy status under section ii of the definition. Feel free to try again. Ribonucleic 20:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Read the Detainee Act, It has been amended, and I provided a link. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I checked your link, but I couldn't make sense of it. [Is it any different than the text at http://www.pegc.us/detainee_act_2005.html ?] In any case, the point of your earlier gloating - as I understood it - was that the MCA does in fact define how you can get disappeared under part ii. It does not do so by referring to any such definition in the Detainee Act - at least not in Section 10 as you stated in the article before I removed it as unsupported. And the references to the Detainee Act in section 8, as best I can tell, only appear to be finessing the torture specifics. They shed no light on how the tribunal decides you ought to be tortured in the first place. Ribonucleic 21:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * “How you see it” is not relevant to the content of the article. Only sourced information please. I added the briefing from Wolfowitz on this issue, instructing the set up of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal. . - Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Section 948a (ii) says "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." If the President, Secretary of Defense, or the Pentagon says "you're an enemy", then you are one.--68.154.3.149 22:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hip Hip Hooray!
Let us all celebrate in joy the marvelous step the greatest nation of the entire planet - nay, 'entire galaxy!' - took in the direction of freedom and democracy!201.19.185.68 00:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tell Osama hi when you see him troll boy. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * TDC, just a reminder that the Discussion area is for debating the editing of the article - not for feeding the trolls, especially in their own moronic register. However, this comment of yours did remove any last lingering doubt I had about the sincerity of your previous "OR" deletions - so I can't complain. Ribonucleic 15:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If I want to feed some Brazilian troll, that’s my prerogative. And while you may doubt the sincerity of my NOR complaint, I see that you have not doubted the merit of it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, violating the stated guidelines for use of the Talk page is indeed your prerogative - as I suppose it was for the troll. Congratulations on having lowered yourself to his level. And I do doubt the merit of your OR tag - but I consider it a reasonable expression of your disagreement with the section, whereas I found your previous wholesale deletion unreasonable. Ribonucleic 17:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence admissible
For my fellow editors' discussion, see the following material in the text:


 * Based on his findings, the judge may introduce hearsay evidence [10 U.S.C. sec. 949a(b)(2)(E)(i)], evidence obtained without a search warrant [10 U.S.C. sec. 949a(b)(2)(B)], evidence obtained when the degree of coercion is disputed [10 U.S.C. sec. 948r(d)], or classified evidence not made available to the defense [10 U.S.C. sec. 949d(f)(2)(B)].

I would just point out that perhaps except for the last item, classified evidence not made available to the defense, the listed items would also be admissible in a "regular" Federal court in criminal or civil proceedings, especially hearsay and evidence obtained without a search warrant. The article as currently written might be a bit misleading by not pointing that out. However, for now I'm just leaving this here for your discussion. Yours, Famspear 22:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: Just to be clear, the judge makes the decision, based on the particulars of each offered piece of evidence and the law applicable thereto. Just because something is hearsay, or just because a particular piece of evidence was obtained without a warrant, does not necessarily mean that it's not admissible. Yours, Famspear 22:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just on heresay, what sec. 949a(b)(2)(E)(i) actually says is "Except as provided in clause (ii), hearsay evidence not otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence applicable in trial by general courts-martial may be admitted in a trial by military commission..." I haven't looked into the provisions on improperly obtained evidence yet.  Daniel 10:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Jurisdiction of commission with respect to U.S. citizens
I note that there seems to be some discussion as to whether the Act would cover actions against U.S. citizens. I don't know the answer. Under ordinary rules of Federal court jurisdiction and statutory construction, this Act would not appear to apply to someone who is not an alien. However, there might be some exception to the ordinary rules, who knows. Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear 23:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone in the press ask Bush if the Act applies to US citizens. After all, he signed it.Mikekopac 16:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the law explicity singles out non-citizens. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, as mentioned above, the law does limit the procedures (Military Commissions in lieu of Habeas Corpus) to alien unlawful enemy combatants, but the law does involve American citizens, insofar as section 948a provides a definition for American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants.
 * It's incorrect to state the law explicitly singles out citizens (not 'non-citizens' as you state). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the Act covers only alien unlawful enemy combatants. You see, in English there are things called adjectives. Adjectives are a part of speech which modifies a noun, in this case unlawful enemy combatant, and may describe it or make its meaning more specific.


 * Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
 * Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
 * Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions
 * (a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.


 * See, in both these sections on persons subject to military commissions as well as the jurisdiction of said commissions, the term unlawful enemy combatant is preceded by the adjective alien, meaning that both the persons subject as well as the jurisidciont of the act are confided to aliens. Quite simple, really. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I know what an adjective is, and how it works, thank you very much. Your incivility notwithstanding, you are merely repeating my observations and making a false conclusion. Section 948a clearly defines an unlawful enemy combatant in a way that does not exclude American citizens. The Act does involve American citizens. While the procedures denying 'alien unlawful enemy combatants' public trials do not affect American citizens (as I already said), 948a does. Honestly, I cannot determine if you are serious or in fact more interested in attacking others with your incivility. Please make an effort not to be so disrespectful of you fellow editors, as you have repeatedly done on this page.
 * I repeat... The Act does involve American citizens. Simple. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I wasn’t being uncivil, just trying to break it down into its most simple rudimentary form. And I will repeat, find a legal source that agrees with this, you know, kind of like I did. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You were indeed. Telling me the function of an adjective in English is derogatory (in that it insults one's intelligence). And as far as your comment about 'legal sources', your legal interpretation that the Act does not involve U.S. citizens is plainly OR. The onus is on you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Fortunately for me, I do not have to rely on my own interpretation of the law, as I have added sources, or did you not see those in the text of the article? Seems only one opinion here is unsourced, and as such is WP:NOR.


 * Once again, you question my intelligence and you bait me. Your conversation here is uncivil, and ungrounded in fact. The Act's wording is clear. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ryan, you accused me OR, even when I cited not one, but two sources supporting the text I have included. Just for the record Ryan, its not original research if I am citing a legal authority on the subject. And I realize that the wording of the act is clear, this probably explains why neither yourself nor Ribonucleic has been able to do what I have, find a legal scholar to back this up. Either cite a source to buttress your point here on the talk page, or leave it be. Toodles. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot be more clear myself, so I will provide the words of Congressman David Wu (D-OR), who voted on the bill.
 * ''WU. Mr. Speaker, I want to focus like a laser beam on the right of habeas corpus and the untoward effect of this legislation on habeas corpus. This is an ancient doctrine that has been with us since at least the days of Charles I. It has presented difficulties to many American Presidents from Jefferson to Lincoln to Grant to Roosevelt.
 * ''We have the power to do much in restricting habeas corpus; but we should do so very, very carefully because it is the protection from tyranny that our forebears sought in the Revolution.
 * ''Congress here is entering upon dangerous constitutional shoal waters, and it is, in my belief, unconstitutionally limiting access to habeas corpus. The courts have repeatedly ruled in a restricted fashion whenever Congress or the Presidency has restricted access to habeas corpus and each of us, not just the Supreme Court, but we in the Congress and those in the executive branch, we all take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and this act, by restricting habeas corpus, will not serve America well.
 *  And by so restricting habeas corpus, this bill does not just apply to enemy aliens. It applies to all Americans because, while the provision on page 93 has the word ``alien in it, the provision on page 61 does not have the word ``alien'' in it.
 * ''Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, I am a U.S. citizen. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court.
 * '' This bill applies to every American, regardless of citizenship status.
 * Are we clear now? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually you could have been clearer and cited that a long time ago and avoided this whole debate, but I digress. Now we can add it in. Hooray!!! But not unless we add some of this good good stuff from Warner as well.
 * It is wrong to say that this provision captures any U.S. citizens. It does not. It is only directed at aliens--aliens, not U.S. citizens-- bomb-makers, wherever they are in the world; those who provide the money to carry out the terrorism, wherever they are- again, only aliens and those who are preparing and using so many false documents. 
 * Hmmm, two radically different takes from two politicians on the same subject, who in the good Lords name could have thought that possible! Maybe we should only stick to legal journals and the like, ehh? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I made Wu's exact point from the very beginning. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And I am glad you have found someone wu (get it, wu) shares your opinion on the subject. But since you waited until now to cite someone else, it was WP:NOR, plain and simple, especially considering that I went through great lengths to demonstrate and "cite" a contrary opinion from several legal scholars. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Revisionism is the penultimate refuge of a debater who has lost the debate. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if you would have simply referred to WP:cite, this little verbal exercise could have been easily avoided, now couldn’t it have? And exactly what “debate” did I lose? I merely asked you that if the material was to be included that it had top be cited, a task which you reluctantly satisfied. Thank you for you compliance with my demand. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I look forward to your inclusion of the material - and thanks again. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything in the act saying how a person could prove they are indeed a citizen? It seems to me that citizenship is a moot point if you cannot prove it, so I was just wondering if this was included. 18:13:21 2006-10-26 (UTC)


 * Dear fellow editors: Without having yet read the Act in full, I would say if there is nothing in the Act about how you prove you are a citizen, you should observe that statutes (laws enacted by legislature, such as the Congress) do not, as a general rule, provide specifics on "how you can prove stuff." If you claimed that you are a citizen and the other side disputed it, the first question would be: Who has the burden of proof? If, for example, you have the burden of proof, then you would have to do two things: (1) come up with some evidence, and (2) persuade the jury (or judge in a bench trial or, in this case, the military commission) that you are a citizen (e.g., born in the U.S.? birth certificate? naturalized? naturalization papers? testimony? etc.) In most cases, there is no specific "rule" about how you "prove" a particular thing in a court of law, etc. Aside from what are called "burdens of pleading," there are two burdens: the burden of production, and the burden of persuasion. These last two burdens are the burdens of proof in American law. A detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this talk page. Yours, Famspear 18:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To anyone's knowledge, does the act stipulate who has the burden of proof in this instance? 21:04 2006-10-21 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: Based on a quick scan of the Act, although burden of proof is mentioned in the Act, it appears that the Act does not expressly assign, to either the prosecution or the defense, a burden of proof on the question of whether someone is a citizen. The question of whether someone is a citizen versus an alien may be more of a jurisdictional question. I know that's not a very satisfactory answer. Yours, Famspear 21:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I appoligize for not being able to properly cite this, but I am confident that the source can be found with a bit of research. I distictly remember reading an article stating that the government in the past has used the argument that by comitting a terrorist act, a US citizen volunterally renounces their citizenship. This argument could easily be made in a military tribunal, leaving the accused without any legal access to a court.

The Criticism section
Incidental: October 25, 2006: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said that the habeas provision of the MCA violates a clause of the Constitution (see ref. 31 - "Court Told It Lacks Power..."). Yet, according to the roll call votes, he voted in favor of the bill (Roll call votes). Why recognize a violation of the Constitution, but vote in favor of the bill? These roll calls will come in handy at the voting poles :-)

TDC: Chris Floyd, in addition to being a published journalist, is a quite articulate (uncomfortably so for you, I imagine) proponent of his own criticism. As such, he is a primary source for the documenting of the claim made in the section. As such, I am restoring him. And while you may not feel that citizens are vulnerable to the Act, he, Greenwald, and many many others do. That is what the section is saying. Ribonucleic 18:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * With respect to WP:RS, this guy is a nobody. He writes for counterpunch and a bunch of left wing websites, none of which conform to RS, especially in this context:


 * Law
 * First of all, remember there are several legal traditions and that laws are only valid in their own jurisdiction. The opinion of local experts is therefore preferred, in general, to that of outside commentators, due to variances across areas of jurisdiction.
 * When discussing legal texts, it is in general better to quote from the text, or quote from reputable jurists, than to quote from newspaper reports, although newspaper reports in good newspapers are acceptable too. The journalist who wrote the paper may not be trained as a lawyer, although s/he may have access to a wider variety of legal experts than many lawyers do, so judge the quality of the report according to how well that journalist, or that newspaper, has covered legal issues in the past.


 * substitute another source if you like, but Floyd is a nobody. I have already cited a legal scholar who states that this will apply to aliens. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your opinion of Floyd is irrelevant. He is being referenced a primary source for the article's statement, "The Act has been denounced by critics who assert that its wording authorizes the permanent detention and torture (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) of anyone - including American citizens - based solely on the decision of the President." He is a critic, and that's what he is asserting. Feel free to put the opinion of your legal scholar in the "Scope of the Act" section. Ribonucleic 19:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh no, you see, that’s where your wrong. While Floyd may well be one of the critics "denouncing", he is not a noteworthy critic, see above for what a noteworthy critic in this regard would be. Is he a "reputable jurists", no; is he a” journalist who has access to a wide variety of legal experts”, again, no (he does not seem to cite any of them in his crybaby story). Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If the article sentence said "noteworthy critic", this argument would have a leg to stand on. It doesn't, and you don't. Ribonucleic 19:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The article said: The opinion of local experts is therefore preferred, in general, to that of outside commentators and also said When discussing legal texts, it is in general better to quote from the text, or quote from reputable jurists. Sorry, but thems the rules. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * All delightfully beside the point. The Floyd article is not being referenced in support of a claim that the Act subjects Americans to torture at the whim of their President - in which case his lack of legal expertise would indeed be relevant. It is being referenced as a primary source in support of a statment that critics are making that assertion. So to repeat from above: He is a critic, and that's what he is asserting. The pattern of your zealous contributions here makes it clear that this bothers in you some way. But I respectfully invite you to deal with it. Ribonucleic 20:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)3


 * Nope, all keenly on target. Critics must be notable critics. If you want to include a crank like Chris Floyd, then it opens this article up to become a race to the bottom, which is exactly why sources like Floyd are generally frowned upon. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with TDC on this point. If you can reference anyone you want to support the fact that the laws are being 'criticised', you may as well just write: "These laws have been criticised, I for example personally think they're a bit shit."  It's not as though there's a shortage of reputable legal and political scholars you could reference instead.  Daniel 05:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Given your recent vandalism of the Criticism section - now removed - I will not waste any more of my time arguing with you. Enjoy living in the totalitarian state you've endorsed. Ribonucleic 22:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, things certainly got crazy here when I was gone, didnt they? Do you have a good explantion why you not only removed the material I put in from National Review, but also labeled them as Vandalism? Was it the article from NRO? Was it the change in the name of the section? You had best have a good reason. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the picture featuring K. Olbermann in Criticism section. The label currently says "MSNBC's Keith Olbermann dramatizing his interpretation of .." and it has clear POV bias. Alex Pankratov 04:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the protocol here, just an observer, but in reading this far -- and after your comment, Ribonucleic, to whit, "The pattern of your zealous contributions here makes it clear that this bothers in you some way. But I respectfully invite you to deal with it. Ribonucleic 20:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)3," perhaps this link may be an explanation: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/171006enemypropagandists.htm

Pocket Veto?

 * ATTN: The bill was never passed into law, since Congress adjourned the day it was passed (Sept. 29). Technically, this is actually a pocket veto: http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/pocket_veto.htm. The article should be changed to reflect this fact.


 * Look up Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution for more info.
 * seems to reinforce the above?

Dear fellow editors: I see some frenetic commentary by anonymous Wikipedia readers above, regarding whether this law is really a law. Please relax. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 became law under the U.S. Constitution on the date it was signed by the President, October 17, 2006. As explained below, the statement that the bill "was never passed into law, since Congress adjourned the day it was passed (Sept. 29)" and the reference to a pocket veto are both apparently based on some confusion about the workings of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7. Please go back and read that provision carefully as you review the explanation below.

The bill in question was indeed passed by the Congress at 2:47 pm (Washington, DC time) on September 29, 2006. However, under Article 1, section 7, the passage of a bill by Congress does not start the running of the ten day period during which the President generally must sign a bill, etc.

Instead, the ten day period (actually, it's ten days excluding Sundays) begins running when the bill is presented to the President. This is traditionally done by physically delivering the signed copy of the bill (generally signed, I believe, by the Speaker of the House and the Vice President of the United States, who is president of the Senate, or by other congressional officials duly appointed for that purpose) to a designated employee of the White House or the Executive Office of the President. The date of presentment under Article I, section 7 is the date on which the ten day period begins to run. This has nothing to do with whether Congress has already adjourned.

According to the official record of Congress at the Library of Congress web site, the bill was presented to the President on October 10, 2006. Counting ten days (except Sundays) from that date, you get Saturday, October 21, 2006 as the "deadline" so to speak.

As the President signed the bill on October 17, 2006, it became law on that date under Article I, section 7. As shown in the Wikipedia article, the law has already been assigned its Public Law number and its volume and page number in the United States Statutes at Large. Yours, Famspear 04:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Post script: By the way, had the President not liked the bill, and had simply done nothing and let the bill sit on his desk, the bill would automatically die on Sunday, October 22 with the Congress not in session -- and that would have been an example of a pocket veto. By contrast, if Congress were still in session and the President were to do nothing and the October 21st deadline were to pass while the Congress was in session, the bill would become law even without his signature. Yours, Famspear 04:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out the fine print. ^

Dear fellow editors: on 24 October 2006, an anonymous editor inserted the following material:


 * Additionally, under Article 1, Section 7of the consitution the bill cannot be made into law: "If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him...it shall not be a law." The bill was completed in Congress on September 28th, and signed by the President on October 17th. Ommiting [sic] Sundays and Columbus Day, it was returned to Congress in 15 days.

For reasons that should be obvious, this material is erroneous and was removed. Not that it makes any difference, but the bill was "completed" in Congress on September 29, not September 28. The date of presentment starts the running of the 10 day period, not the date of "completion." By the way, when counting the ten day period, you do omit Sundays -- but not Columbus day.

Additionally, once a bill is signed into law, it is not "returned to Congress." The new statute is sent to the Archivist of the United States, National Archives and Records Administration, and is duly assigned a public law or private law number (in this case, public law) and a citation for the U.S. Statutes at Large, as was done for this statute. Yours, Famspear 20:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent analysis. This is consistently re-edited incorrectly. Zz414 01:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote Tall
The vote tally seems wordy, a link is provided, I am going to remove it. Any objections? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, you could move it down to just above the "see also" section. Then it wouldn't break up the text so much. &mdash; goethean ॐ 15:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good nuff. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Going to POV tag
I am adding the tag, restoring "Criticism" to accurately describe what the section contains, and moving the pro-torture stuff to a new Rebuttal section where TDC and his sock-puppet alter egos can quote all the network TV legal scholars he likes. Ribonucleic 20:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Woah .. calm down there, I dont do the Sockpuppet thing, and please do not make that accusation again without some proof like a checkuser or something. I was actualy enjoying watching the two of you bicker back and forth like that.


 * Now to the meat: why exactly did you tag the article as POV? You never did give a reason why. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The POV tag is entirely accurate. That rebuttal section is like saying the detainees have the right to breathe air. Andrewwellbrock 17:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree that this article has been aggressively managed - and that the result is an article which reflects a very one-sided view of the Act, its' impact and influence over Americans and non-citizens alike, the Constitutional issues involved in repealing habeas corpus for individuals residing within the United States, and it minimizes commonly-held critical viewpoints by notable figures in favor of language more supportive to the Act and its' proponents - and I support the placement of a POV tag on that basis. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That makes 3 of us. And since TDC's own summaries of his past edits make clear that he thinks Osama-lovers are trying to unfairly smear this noble law, I'm sure he'll have no objection. Ribonucleic 19:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Senate Votes
The numbers in the senate votes section do not add up properly.


 * I think they do now. Torturous Devastating Cudgel

Moving a footnote up a bit
Dear fellow editors: The article contains the following sentence with a footnote reference:


 * Because Lynne Stewart was convicted of material support for a terrorist organization, it is possible that she might be classified as an "unlawful enemy combatant."

The footnote actually goes to the material immediately prior to that sentence, so I changed the position of the footnote. Nothing in the cited article on Lynne Stewart that I could see even mentioned "unlawful enemy combatants" as that term is used in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The statement ("Because Lynne Stewart was convicted . . ." etc.) may be correct or incorrect -- but I would say that, either way, the footnote might not go at the end of that particular sentence. Yours, Famspear 21:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't very good; it as much a citation of the law as an explanation of it. Also, it doesn't explain what they law does in simple, straightforward, common-language terms. I urge anyone who understands it better than I do to work on this article further.163.192.21.43 22:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"alien" unlawful combatants
It appears that a brand spanking new anonymous editor has appeared just in time for User:TDC to "win" an edit war over the inclusion of the word 'alien' in the last sentence of the intro -- how lucky! However, including the word 'alien' doesn't make any sense. The CATO institute scholar found that US citizens can be detained, but not tried, under the Act. Despite this clear finding, User:TDC continues to repeatedly insert the term 'alien' before the phrase 'unlawful combatant'. The intro to this article claims that: the Act provides for controversial practices relating to the US government's detention and treatment of alien unlawful combatants. That is not the whole truth. The Act also provides for controversial practices relating the the US gov't's detention of unlawful combatants who are not aliens. To regain accuracy in this article, his edit must be reverted. &mdash; goethean ॐ 23:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are accusing me of using a sockpuppet, then I would welcome you file a check user, as such use would most surely land me in a heap of trouble. And as for your second claim, please cite a source, as I have cited many and review the above discussion with Letxa2000. Thanks and have a great day! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat myself. The CATO institute scholar found that US citizens can be detained, but not tried, under the Act. &mdash; goethean ॐ 15:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The act does not pertain to detainment, but to trials, and as the CATO guy is in the minority (so far he is the only one cited who thinks anything in the act applies to US citizens), it does not go to establish article consensus. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ribonucleic 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * TDC, why do you insist here (on November 3rd) that "the CATO guy... is the only one cited who thinks anything in the act applies to US citizens," when it was already pointed out to you on October 19th above that Congressman David Wu (D-OR) states explicitly that there are provisions in this act that apply to U.S. citizens. In trying to assess the source of your inconsistency, I can only conclude that it stems from a disingenuous attempt to conform this article to your POV.  Please do not insist that this Act is uncontroversial, merely because you favor one interpretation of it.  And I agree with Ribonucleic above that your constant use of personal attacks degrade this forum, so I would urge you to avoid them in the future, for the betterment of the wikipedia community, if not for your own sense of integrity. Dwinetsk 00:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

March of the sockpuppets
I assert that 70.208.196.254 and 70.223.58.113 are sockpuppets used by TDC to evade enforcement of the three-revert rule. 1) This is the only article either ISP has edited. 2) 70.208.22.145 summarized its 15:55, November 2, 2006 edit as "I think TDC is right here". 3) 70.223.58.113 summarized its 11:06, November 4, 2006 edit with "umm, no" - as TDC summarized his 12:05, November 1, 2006 edit of the Al Haig article with "umm, no they havent". 4) Their edits continually reintroduce, without Talk page discussion, changes originally made by TDC - specifically to the heading and content of the "Criticism" section. 5) These changes, without exception, serve the purpose of blunting criticism of the article's subject - which has been the effect of all TDC's edits to the article. 6) TDC's User Talk page contains literally dozens of warnings and suspensions for 3RR violations - including one just over 2 months ago that was characterized by the admin as a "vast violation of your revert parole". 7) In an exchange with another member, TDC admits subverting enforcement: "Aren't you on revert parole?" Gamaliel 02:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC) /// "So block me for a day, you know I am." Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:45, 6 June 2006. 8) TDC has demonstrated familiarity with IP manipulation: "Thank you, but is a dynamic IP, so it wont last too long." Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC). In light of this, I am treating all future edits by TDC, 70.208.196.254, 70.223.58.113, and any other anonymous accounts that suddenly show up to start reintroducing TDC's edits as vandalism and reverting accordingly. I don't expect the anonymous accounts will mind - seeing as they haven't been involved with Wikipedia much. :-) But if TDC would like to defend his, ahem, good name, he may refer this matter to the admins with my compliments. I'm sure they'll be delighted to be dealing with him yet again.Ribonucleic 01:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight of the criticism section?
Since it seems this legislation passed both the Representative and Senate chambers by pretty large numbers, it would seem the support section should carry more weight than the criticism section. Yet this is not the case. Comment? --Tbeatty 06:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In shortening the Official Comments section a while back, I made a point of leaving it 2 pro, 1 con - as close to the exact ratio of the Senate vote as you can get without quoting all 100 of them. And I'm tightening up the Criticism section now for its own good. But I repeat my edit summary encouragement that you focus your improvements on the Support section - since that seems to be where your sympathies are. Ribonucleic 07:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I wondered if your removal of the Olbermann pic [which I'm disappointed to agree is justified by the Fair Use provisions] was inspired by a passion for copyright justice or, you know, just trying to make the Act look a bit less heinous. [Especially since your first crack at getting rid of it was based on the completely different and demonstrably wrong claim of "irrelevancy".] Given your recent edit to the article introduction, I doubt no more. But we're all here editing in good faith, right? So I'll simply point out that your edit justification "Criticism doesn't belong in intro" is belied the presence of an acknowledgment of controversial status in the introductions to the articles on both Ward Churchill and Ann Coulter [just to cover both ends of the spectrum] - not to mention Scientology. If you want to quote the Official Line on what a valorous and noble law this is, that's fine with me. But when the most influential newspaper in the country describes the Act as "tyrannical", that's more controversy than you can justify sweeping out of the intro without seeming, you know, all POV and stuff. So I'm putting "controversial" back in. Ribonucleic 08:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that I take a look, I see that the article on John Yoo, who you saw fit to include when re-creating the Rebuttal section as the more enthusiastically titled Support section, also has the controversial nature of his torture-cheerleading memos mentioned right there at the top above the Contents box. FYI. Ribonucleic 08:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the repeat -- I don't know the protocol here, just an observer, but in reading this far -- and after your comment, Ribonucleic, to whit, "The pattern of your zealous contributions here makes it clear that this bothers in you some way. But I respectfully invite you to deal with it." Ribonucleic 20:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)3, and particularly because TDC knows IP manipulation, perhaps this link may be an explanation: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/171006enemypropagandists.htm

Context
Claiming that "The Act changes pre-existing law to explicitly disallow the invocation of the Geneva Conventions" ranks somewhere between "lawerly half-truth" and outright falsehood.

The Act allows (as per the Geneva Convention) that the detainnees in question can seek "can seek release from unlawful imprisonment" (habeus corpus) from the military tribunal system as outlined in the Geneva Convention.

And affirms the right of the detainees to appeal the tribunals' decisons to the DC court or appeals and the Suprmem court

I feel that the article would be less biased if it mentioned those facts and included some sort of reference to the Geneva Convention.

Specifically the Geneva Conventions allow the US (or any other signatory) - to distinguish bewteen POWs and enemy combatants - to hold enemy combatants incommunicado unti theend of hostilities - to try enemy combatants in front of an military tibunal - and allows those tribunals to enforce peanl sentences inlcuding imprisonment beyond the end of hostilities, forced labor or even the death penalty.

Presenting the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in this context makes it seem more likley that the act is wihtin the realm of "International Law." Ignoring these facts while discussing the Act

To Wit:

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) Articles 44 and 45

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

SECTION.-COMBATANT AND PRISONER-OF-WAR STATUS

Article 44.-Combatants and prisoners of war

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).


 * 4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war,***** but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol

(emphasis mine) and Article 45.-Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities

1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, [B]if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status,[/B] or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, *****he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.*****

2. If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an offence arising out of the hostilities, *****he shall have the right to assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial tribunal *****and to have that question adjudicated. Whenever possible under the applicable procedure, this adjudication shall occur before the trial for the offence.

and

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Gen Con 3 Article 4 Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. . . . 6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.”

and

Article 5

Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is *****detained as a spy or saboteur,***** or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

Article 107

. . ..

Furthermore, if a prisoner of war is finally convicted or if a sentence pronounced on a prisoner of war in the first instance is a *****death sentence,***** the Detaining Power shall as soon as possible address to the Protecting Power a detailed communication containing:. ..

Bob Hyneman 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Bob Hyneman

Text deleted from 'criticism'
TDC deleted some of the following text from the "Criticism" section. I am placing it here so that it can be determined what should be returned to the article. Yale University professor of law Bruce Ackerman agrees that the Act:

"'authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights'."

A number of legal scholars and Congressional members - including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) - have said that the habeas provision of the Act violates a clause of the Constitution that says the right to challenge detention "shall not be suspended" except in cases of "rebellion or invasion." The law has also been criticized for allegedly giving a retroactive, nine-year immunity to U.S. officials who authorized, ordered, or committed potential acts of abuse on detainees.

Amnesty International said that the Act "contravenes human rights principles." They point out that:

"Among other things, the Military Commissions Act will:


 * Strip the US courts of jurisdiction to hear or consider habeas corpus appeals challenging the lawfulness or conditions of detention of anyone held in US custody as an "enemy combatant". Judicial review of cases would be severely limited. The law would apply retroactively, and thus could result in more than 200 pending appeals filed on behalf of Guantánamo detainees being thrown out of court.
 * Prohibit any person from invoking the Geneva Conventions or their protocols as a source of rights in any action in any US court.
 * Permit the executive to convene military commissions to try "alien unlawful enemy combatants", as determined by the executive under a dangerously broad definition, in trials that would provide foreign nationals so labeled with a lower standard of justice than US citizens accused of the same crimes. This would violate the prohibition on the discriminatory application of fair trial rights.
 * Permit civilians captured far from any battlefield to be tried by military commission rather than civilian courts, contradicting international standards and case law.
 * Establish military commissions whose impartiality, independence and competence would be in doubt, due to the overarching role that the executive, primarily the Secretary of Defense, would play in their procedures and in the appointments of military judges and military officers to sit on the commissions.
 * Permit, in violation of international law, the use of evidence extracted under cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or as a result of "outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating or degrading treatment", as defined under international law.
 * Permit the use of classified evidence against a defendant, without the defendant necessarily being able effectively to challenge the "sources, methods or activities" by which the government acquired the evidence. This is of particular concern in light of the high level of secrecy and resort to national security arguments employed by the administration in the "war on terror", which have been widely criticized, including by the UN Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee. Amnesty International is concerned that the administration appears on occasion to have resorted to classification to prevent independent scrutiny of human rights violations.
 * Give the military commissions the power to hand down death sentences, in contravention of international standards which only permit capital punishment after trials affording "all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial". The clemency authority would be the President. President Bush has led a pattern of official public commentary on the presumed guilt of the detainees, and has overseen a system that has systematically denied the rights of detainees.
 * Limit the right of charged detainees to be represented by counsel of their choosing.
 * Fail to provide any guarantee that trials will be conducted within a reasonable time.
 * Permit the executive to determine who is an "enemy combatant" under any "competent tribunal" established by the executive, and endorse the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), the wholly inadequate administrative procedure that has been employed in Guantánamo to review individual detentions.
 * Narrow the scope of the War Crimes Act by not expressly criminalizing acts that constitute "outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment" banned under Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions. Amnesty International believes that the USA has routinely failed to respect the human dignity of detainees in the "war on terror".
 * Prohibit the US courts from using "foreign or international law" to inform their decisions in relation to the War Crimes Act. The President has the authority to "interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions". Under President Bush, the USA has shown a selective disregard for the Geneva Conventions and the absolute prohibition of torture or other ill-treatment.
 * Endorse the administration’s "war paradigm" – under which the USA has selectively applied the laws of war and rejected international human rights law. The legislation would backdate the "war on terror" to before the 11 September 2001 in order to be able to try individuals in front of military commissions for "war crimes" committed before that date.

&mdash; goethean ॐ 16:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Definition Section (948a) of the Act does not determine who is qualified for the tribunal at all.
The relevant section that determines who is qualified for the tribunal is Section 948c. It has never been and never will be 948a. 948a is a definition section which is standard in every bill that is drafted in the United States. '''It declares to people on what those terms they mean. It however does not make decisions. 948c however does and it states "Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.'''"  Now notice the alien AND unlawful enemy combatant in that statement? Now when a person goes before a pre-trial phase they are to be determined if they are qualified for military tribunals. They have to fit the exact statement under 948c. Meaning that they have to be both ALIEN and UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.

Now what are their definitions of each?

(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.

(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

I hope you understand this and do not try to invoke extreme POV based on what your interpretation of the act is. Even though the Democrats won both the House and Senate, it is now impossible for anyone to remove the word Alien from the act because it exempts American Citizens. ViriiK 09:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So if the Excutive says you're an alien and you say you're not, who decides? If it's the Executive, then indeed the Act may apply to any American citizen; if it's the Judiciary, then the Act is nugatory. rewinn 01:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By law, if you are not an American Citizen, you are an alien. Nothing more and this isn't debatable.  Do you see Padilla or Walker being tried under this Act?  Also the Appeals Court of the United States oversees the Military Commissions and they will blow the whistle if a ruling was unfair.
 * `Sec. 950g. Review by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Supreme Court
 * `(a) Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction- (1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of a final judgment rendered by a military commission (as approved by the convening authority) under this chapter.
 * `(B) The Court of Appeals may not review the final judgment until all other appeals under this chapter have been waived or exhausted.
 * `(2) A petition for review must be filed by the accused in the Court of Appeals not later than 20 days after the date on which--
 * `(A) written notice of the final decision of the Court of Military Commission Review is served on the accused or on defense counsel; or
 * `(B) the accused submits, in the form prescribed by section 950c of this title, a written notice waiving the right of the accused to review by the Court of Military Commission Review under section 950f of this title.
 * `(b) Standard for Review- In a case reviewed by it under this section, the Court of Appeals may act only with respect to matters of law.
 * `(c) Scope of Review- The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals on an appeal under subsection (a) shall be limited to the consideration of--
 * `(1) whether the final decision was consistent with the standards and procedures specified in this chapter; and
 * `(2) to the extent applicable, the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
 * `(d) Supreme Court- The Supreme Court may review by writ of certiorari the final judgment of the Court of Appeals pursuant to section 1257 of title 28.
 * Also you're basing your argument on a hypothetical scenario. ViriiK 07:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You have failed to answer the question. Please do so, if you are discussing in good faith.
 * I will do you the courtesy of addressing a couple of points you have brought up.
 * 1. if you are not an American Citizen, you are an alien: This point is irrelevant; the question is that if you claim you're a Citizen and the Executive claims you are not, some branch of our government must decide who is correct. If it is the Executive that decides, then the Act may be applied to an American citizen; if it is the Judiciary that decides, the Act is nugatory.
 * 2. You're basing your argument on a hypothetical scenario
 * 2.1. I have made no argument; I have asked you a question which you have failed to answer.
 * 2.2. The hypotheticality of a situation is no bar to the unconstitutionality and/or unwisdom of a law
 * 2.3. In fact, Americans have been arrested by America forces and held without access to lawyers; most recently, some American military contractors who are now suing our executive
 * 3. Do you see Padilla or Walker being tried under this Act?. They most certainly could be; all the Executive would have to do is to rule that they renounced their citizenship when (according to the Executive) they adhered to our Nation's enemies. Actually, you should worry more whether the Executive might claim you are not a citizen; how could you prove if if a "commission" said you'd renounced it?
 * 4. the Appeals Court of the United States oversees the Military Commissions. So-called "oversight" is illusory; the act limits the grounds on which the Appeals Court can overturn a judgement; for example "the Court of Appeals may act only with respect to matters of law" means that the Court if bound to accept the Commission's findings of fact no matter how irrational they may be. More significantly, by the limitation of the time at which an appeal may be lodged to post-final-judgement. This limitation violates the Speedy Trial provision of our Constitution, as well as the garauntee of Habeas Corpus.
 * The fundamental problem with the Act is that it treats the Executive as a Plenipotentiary limited by the Constitutionally-granted rights of individual, whereas precisely the opposite was the intent and language of the Founders: Our Federal Government has limited rights granted to it in our Constitution by the People who retain all rights; the right to habeas corpus is universal and precedes our Constitution, and is explicitly not waived by the Constitution as to any person, citizen or non-citizen. There are Royalists who think otherwise, but they lost our Revolution and, indeed, at Runnymede. Still, they rise and must be defeated in every generation. Today's tactic is to label criticism of this law as POV, no matter how objectively phrased it may be. rewinn 23:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've failed to answer nothing. You claimed I failed to answer the question.  I see no precedents or commissions being tried against these two people that are held by the United States currently.
 * 1. Padilla is charged with "conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim people overseas."
 * 2. Walker has 10 different charges against him which I won't bother to list.
 * 3. Plus you made the comment "This point is irrelevant" but I'm sorry this point is not irrelevant. You claim it's irrelevant but I don't agree.
 * 4. You mentioned Habeas Corpus. I'm sorry but they are not entitled to Habeas Corpus as they are not United States Citizens at all.  They have no right to claim Habeas Corpus whatsoever.  Judge James Robertson has already ruled on this who previously ruled in favor of Hamdan in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case.  He stated "The Constitution does not provide alien enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay with the constitutional right to file a petition for habeas corpus in our civilian courts, and thus Congress may regulate those combatants' access to the courts".  Swing and a miss.
 * 5. You're arguing "unconstitutionality" but unconstitutional of what?  How is it unconstitutional when this act is being used against aliens not of this country?  You're forgetting the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States demanded this act when they ruled in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case.  You claim to have a close watch on that wiki so you should know this.  There's also the other thing.  The Constitution gives Congress the power in which it states
 * To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
 * To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
 * To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
 * Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
 * That being said, you're the one making up a hypothetical situations claiming what's stopping the Executive from claiming "you should worry more whether the Executive might claim you are not a citizen."
 * Also you claim the review is illusory. Why is that?  You're forgetting the fact that the James Robertson serves on the "United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit" which Hamdan appealed to as it was mentioned in the Act.  Review?  Illusory?  Nonsense.
 * PS, I'm not a troll, don't bother calling me one. ViriiK 08:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You have failed to answer the question::
 * '"So if the Excutive says you're an alien and you say you're not, who decides?"
 * If you are not trolling, you will answer the question. It's not that hard.  rewinn 02:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. you will find a hint in the article, currently at note #19. rewinn 02:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's easy. Judge James Robertson has already ruled on this and declared.  "The Constitution does not provide alien enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay with the constitutional right to file a petition for habeas corpus in our civilian courts, and thus Congress may regulate those combatants' access to the courts."  That's a second swing and a miss. Also the relevant section still applies to Section 950g where the Appeals Court still is able to review the case after it is concluded with the Supreme Court's support regarding a writ of certiorari.  You still refuse to recognize that and run on the assumption that the case will go on forever giving no judgements.  You have no precedents nor arguments to base yourself on.  The military has already excused a number of people from Guantanamo through their CSRT process.  There are high profile people that will be tried such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is now held at Guantanamo.  I'm curious though if you're concerned about giving habeas corpus to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or not.  Of course you won't answer that.  You'll keep pounding on the dead horse claiming I still haven't answered your question.  To be humble, I don't care.  ViriiK 03:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The question to which the above is an answer is '"So if the Excutive says you're an alien and you say you're not, who decides?"
 * The answer given is that an alien enemy combatant doesn't get habeas
 * If your answer is responsive, then you have just called yourself "an enemy alien combatant"
 * Be advised that our intel assets have access to wikipedia and may, at an appropriate time, use your confession.
 * If they do, how would you challenge them? You can not use a "habeas" petition because they assert that, as a matter of fact, you are an enemy alien combatant.    rewinn 03:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I challenge the validity of this entry
I believe that this entry incorrectly states that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed into law.

If I'm correct, I believe that according to U.S. Law, in order for a bill to pass in the House and Senate, it must achieve a 2/3rd (66%) AYE Majority, which the Military Commissions Act of 2006 clearly did not meet.

To quote the entry:

Final passage in the House

 * AYE = Votes for the act
 * NAY = Votes against the act
 * ABS = Abstentions/no votes

<!-- YEAS   250 --- Aderholt Akin Alexander Andrews Bachus Baker Barrett (SC) Barrow Barton (TX) Bass Bean Beauprez Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop (GA) Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonner Bono Boozman Boren Boswell Boustany Boyd Bradley (NH) Brady (TX) Brown (OH) Brown (SC) Brown-Waite, Ginny Burton (IN) Buyer Calvert Camp (MI) Campbell (CA) Cannon Cantor Capito Carter Chabot Chandler Chocola Coble Cole (OK) Conaway Cramer Crenshaw Cubin Cuellar Culberson Davis (AL) Davis (KY) Davis (TN) Davis, Jo Ann Davis, Tom Deal (GA) Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Doolittle Drake Dreier Duncan Edwards Ehlers Emerson English (PA) Etheridge Everett Feeney Ferguson Fitzpatrick (PA) Flake Forbes Ford Fortenberry Fossella Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gerlach Gibbons Gillmor Gingrey Gohmert Goode Goodlatte Gordon Granger Graves Green (WI) Gutknecht Hall Harris Hart Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Hensarling Herger Herseth Higgins Hobson Hoekstra Holden Hostettler Hulshof Hunter Hyde Inglis (SC) Issa Istook Jenkins Jindal Johnson (CT) Johnson (IL) Johnson, Sam Keller Kelly Kennedy (MN) King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Kline Knollenberg Kolbe Kuhl (NY) LaHood Latham Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder LoBiondo Lucas Lungren, Daniel E. Mack Manzullo Marchant Marshall Matheson McCaul (TX) McCotter McCrery McHenry McHugh McIntyre McKeon McMorris Rodgers Mica Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller, Gary Moore (KS) Murphy Musgrave Myrick Neugebauer Northup Norwood Nunes Nussle Osborne Otter Oxley Pearce Pence Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Platts Poe Pombo Pomeroy Porter Price (GA) Pryce (OH) Putnam Radanovich Ramstad Regula Rehberg Reichert Renzi Reynolds Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Ross Royce Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Salazar Saxton Schmidt Schwarz (MI) Scott (GA) Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherwood Shimkus Shuster Simmons Simpson Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Sodrel Souder Spratt Stearns Sullivan Sweeney Tancredo Tanner Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Turner Upton Walden (OR) Walsh Wamp Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Westmoreland Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL)

NAYS   170 --- Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Baca Baird Baldwin Bartlett (MD) Becerra Berkley Berman Berry Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Boucher Brady (PA) Brown, Corrine Butterfield Capps Capuano Cardin Cardoza Carnahan Carson Clay Cleaver Clyburn Conyers Cooper Costa Costello Crowley Cummings Davis (CA) Davis (FL) Davis (IL) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Dicks Dingell Doggett Doyle Emanuel Engel Eshoo Farr Filner Frank (MA) Gilchrest Gonzalez Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Gutierrez Harman Hastings (FL) Hinchey Hinojosa Holt Honda Hooley Hoyer Inslee Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson, E. B. Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy (RI) Kildee Kilpatrick (MI) Kind Kucinich Langevin Lantos Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) LaTourette Leach Lee Levin Lipinski Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lynch Maloney Markey Matsui McCarthy McCollum (MN) McDermott McGovern McKinney McNulty Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Melancon Michaud Millender-McDonald Miller (NC) Miller, George Mollohan Moore (WI) Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Murtha Nadler Napolitano Neal (MA) Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Owens Pallone Pascrell Pastor Paul Payne Pelosi Price (NC) Rahall Rangel Reyes Rothman Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Sabo Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sanders Schakowsky Schiff Schwartz (PA) Scott (VA) Serrano Sherman Skelton Slaughter Smith (WA) Snyder Solis Stark Stupak Tauscher Thompson (CA) Tierney Towns Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Van Hollen Velázquez Visclosky Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Wexler Woolsey Wu Wynn

NOT VOTING   12 --- Burgess Case Castle Evans Fattah Foley Lewis (GA) Meehan Ney Strickland Thompson (MS) Wilson (SC)-->

In the Senate it received 65 AYE votes, and 34 NAY votes. 65+34=99. 99/3*2=66. 66-65=1, fell short of passing by one vote in the Senate.

In the House it received 250 AYE votes, and 170 NAY votes. 250+170=420. 420/3*2=280. 280-250=30, fell short of passing by 30 votes.

If I am in fact correct, that Passage of a Law requires a 2/3rds majority, then the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was never actually passed into law. And if so, I think that this entry should state the truth, that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is not law. And furthermore, it should state that the Government, and Mainstream Media have been falsely informing the public that it is law.

DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE

It may be important to note the comment of international jurists as discussed on page 208-9 in TORTURE TEAM by Philippe Sands (2008). Admittedly, this book is not objective but the comments of the international jurists are relevant to a discussion of the externalities created by the MCA of 2006.