October 3, 2006

WELL, HE ALMOST GOT IT RIGHT:

The New Detainee Law Does Not Deny Habeas Corpus: Fear not, New York Times, al Qaeda’s lawfare rights are still intact. (Andrew C. McCarthy, 3 Oct 2006, National Review)

There are innumerable positives in the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the new law on the treatment of enemy combatants that President Bush will soon sign. Among the best is Congress’s refusal to grant habeas-corpus rights to alien terrorists. After all, the terrorists already have them...
First, Congress cannot “suspend” habeas corpus by denying it to people who have no right to it in the first place. The right against suspension of habeas corpus is found in the Constitution (art. I, 9). Constitutional rights belong only to Americans — that is, according to the Supreme Court, U.S. citizens and those aliens who, by lawfully weaving themselves into the fabric of our society, have become part of our national community (which is to say, lawful permanent resident aliens). To the contrary, aliens with no immigration status who are captured and held outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and whose only connection to our country is to wage a barbaric war against it, do not have any rights, much less “basic rights,” under our Constitution...
But wait. Isn’t habeas corpus necessary so that the terrorists can press the Geneva Convention rights with which the Court most recently vested them in its 2006 Hamdan case? Wrong again...
If the political representatives of a nation believe one of its citizens is being unlawfully held at Gitmo, the proper procedure is for that nation to protest to our State Department, not for the detainee to sue our country in our courts. In fact, several nations have made such claims, and Bush administration has often responded by repatriating detainees to their home countries … only to have many of them rejoin the jihad. In any event, though, there would be nothing wrong with declining to allow habeas to be used for the creation of individual rights that detainees do not in fact have under international law...
But let’s ignore that the critics are wrong about the entitlement of al Qaeda terrorists to constitutional or treaty-based rights to habeas. There is an even more gaping hole in their attack on the new law. Congress has already given al Qaeda detainees the very rights the critics claim have been denied.
Last December, Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). It requires that the military must grant each detainee a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) at which to challenge his detention. Assuming the military’s CSRT process determines he is properly detained, the detainee then has a right to appeal to our civilian-justice system — specifically, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. And if that appeal is unsuccessful, the terrorist may also seek certiorari review by the Supreme Court.
The thing is, Congress can't give them those rights either. The DTA was a consitutionally impermissible infringement on the Executive.

Posted by Pepys at October 3, 2006 7:49 PM
Comments

If the President signs the law, then isn't he bound by those provisions?

Posted by: h-man at October 4, 2006 4:05 AM

In re Yamashita http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/docs/yamvsty.pdf

Been there, done that, hanged that.

War criminals have rights, but not the same rights as either civilian criminal law defendants or prisoners of war. This is very simple, basic material. It's in Yamashita.

I do wish writers would stop using the term, "enemy combatants," when they mean accused war criminals. A captured enemy combatant is a prisoner of war unless he is an accused war criminal. What I am beginning to suspect is that every man jack of the people we are grabbing up should be an accused war criminal because of the Protocol I issue. Their way of war is so far short of ours that they do not come up to our definitions of privileged belligerency.

It is jihad we are fighting, and not an armed force. The civilizational conflict cannot be forced into Western categories. When we attempt to do so, we came up a truth few can handle. Bandits, fighting withour uniform or functional equivalent, and not part of a disciplined organization responsible for their actions, can never be prisonerts or war. They are pests, to be swatted aside as Pompey swatted the Mediterranean pirates.

This in not quite Rule .303, but it is closer to that than to to saying they have the rights of either citizens or lawful combatants.

Posted by: Lou Gots at October 4, 2006 5:43 AM

h:

No. A law can't change the Constitution.

Posted by: oj at October 4, 2006 7:32 AM
« EVIL ALL THE WAY DOWN: | Main | WISHING WON'T MAKE IT SO: »