More On The Military Commissions Act

Earlier today I responded to a post by my friend, Richmond Times-Dispatch columnist Bart Hinkle, regarding the Military Commissions Act. I took exception to Bart’s characterization of the legislation, and now Bart has responded to my criticism.
I’ll respond to his response point by point.

(1) Conservatives should be leery of any expansion of government power. To that end, they should ask themselves not what a law is intended to do, but what power it actually grants. More about that in a sec.

I agree that conservatives should be leery of any expansion of government power, but a) I’m not convinced the Military Commissions Act was an expansion of government power and b) even if you want to consider it an expansion of power I feel that it was a necessary one.
In support of my first point, let me say that Congress’ limitation of the federal courts’ jurisdiction in the area of habeas corpus filings by foreign terror detainees is an act fully in keeping with the constitution. Note that Article III gives Congress all the authority it needs to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and that is exactly what they’ve done here. Further, let me also point out that never before has this country granted habeas corpus privileges to war detainees. Granted, the war on terror is not your typical war in that there isn’t a clearly defined field of battle and our enemies don’t come from a specific country or wear a specific uniform, but that is no reason to stop treating the war on terror as though it were a war. Which leads me to my second point: The Military Commissions Act was necessary to wage the war on terror in that our soldiers and intelligence agents need to be able to detain people suspected of engaging in terrorism immediately and without having to prove to some lawyer that we have enough evidence to keep them in prison.
The idea of allowing a terror suspect to continue to operate while we struggle to build enough of a case against him to detain him just isn’t palatable to me.

(2) In fact, it is true that the Military Commissions Act (MCA) weakens habeas rights. Otherwise, there would be no need for the language brother Port cites denying courts jurisdiction to hear habeas appeals. Before the MCA, courts could hear habeas claims from resident aliens detained as unlawful enemy combatants. Now the courts can’t. Even if one says this is the proper course of action, it still constitutes a weakening of habeas rights. (So why not just say, “MCA weakens habeas rights for noncitizens, as it should”?)

I’m not we need to quibble over labels. If we want to say that MCA weakens habeas rights for non-citizen terror detainees then let’s go ahead and do that. I don’t have a problem with it. What I object to is the idea that Congress/the President have grabbed some new sort of power. As I’ve pointed out before, the MCA was a rebuke of a judicial power grab rather than a power grab from either the executive or legislative branches. Never before has our court system agreed to hear habeas cases from foreigners detained as enemies of this country, but now they’ve started to do just that. So Congress and the President smacked the judges back down.
Seems like a good example of our governments balance of powers working in harmony to me.

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://Array gregdn

    “The idea of allowing a terror suspect to continue to operate while we struggle to build enough of a case against him to detain him just isn’t palatable to me.”

    No one has ever suggested doing that. If you have probable cause this person would arrested, just like a suspect in any other type of criminal case.

    What I’d like to know is, does the government have a list of who the enemies are? Could someone make the case that they didn’t know Al Quaeda was our enemy?

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    gregdn,

    You are stuck on this as lawfare vice warfare.

    The goal is to stop the terrorists cold; Killing them to the extent possible, capturing those who hold intelligence value or who surrender, and then holding those captured accountable under the customary laws of warfare.

    Treating this as warfare and proceeding with such judicial matters as are necessary uner the laws of warfare allows us to bring these war criminals to justice witohut damaging our own domestic legal system.

    Out Here
    Rodney Graves
    rodney.g.graves@gmail.com

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    I think people get very easily confused about what this all means.

    First of all, the Combat Status Review Tribunals are not unfair, rubber-stamp commissions – they have freed at least 23 detainees so far whom the CSRT have found were innocent.

    Second, if they CSRT finds that a detainee is a ‘lawful combatant’, they have the right of habeus corpus to challenge that. They also get the privilege of enjoying full Geneva Convention protections until the end of the War on Terror, and as far as I know the Military Commissions act does nothing to change that – it only halts appeals from the commissions, not the CSRT. Could amount to a life sentence as a POW, the way things look.

    Or, the CSRT could find that the detainee is an ‘unlawful combatant.’ They too have the right of habeus corpus to challenge this status. Then the government may try them as war criminals, which is exactly what unlawful combatants are.

    These detainees are not exactly being deprived of habeus corpus or representation by lawyers.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development