That is definitely a valid interpretation of the law and one that the administration will likely push. There are two reasons I will wait before going into a panic. First, we need to wait for the results of legal challenges to the law. There is a strong argument that the law violates the Habeas clause of the constitution. If the courts accept the argument, which is by no means a certainty but likely IMO, then this provision of the law will be deemed unconstitutional. Second, the tribunals are administered by the military. I’ve seen more than one military lawyer say that military commissions would not part too far from Article III courts simply because the military wants other countries to honor the Geneva Conventions when U.S. soldiers are captured. I also stated earlier that there are other reasons why the military is wary of the law’s implementation. So, while there is definitely a reason to be concerned, I still have some modicum of faith that the courts and the military JAG offices are more competent and reasonable than the Justice Department or White House.

This ridiculous piece of legislation (suspension of habeus corpus for immigrants) will not sustain an almost certain 14th amendment challenge and should result in a swift striking down of the law.

Also the atrocities committed by the IDF are evidenced by independent facts and the reaction/hypocracy of the Ummah on worse atrocities by the Russian army in Chechnya or Janjaweed in Somalia do not negate that independent reality.

Well said, Kobayashi.

I found a video clip of an interview by Ken Olbermann of a law prof at George Washington U. You can view it at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15318240 (sorry, haven’t figured out how to link to videos here). Here’s an excerpt:

OLBERMANN: I want to start by asking you about a specific part of this act that lists one of the definitions of an unlawful enemy combatant as, quote, “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.”

Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant.

And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless. You know, standing behind him at the signing ceremony was his attorney general, who signed a memo that said that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the point of organ failure or death.

So if he appoints someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who heÂ’s going be putting on this board.

OLBERMANN: Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?

TURLEY: It does. And itÂ’s a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didnÂ’t rely on their good motivations.

this is what the democrats (the donkey) will do to the republicans (the fat dude)in the midterm elections

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3130011932080891613&hl=en

Even without this latest excess, however, there have been tons of wake up calls for Americans, but they’ve all been systematically responded to with gigantic snores. If people haven’t been bothered yet by: * The aggressive use of surveillance records (including access to library records) under the Patriot Act without any effective supervision by Congress, * The Hooveresque monitoring (yes, that vast sucking sound you hear is from the information vacuum) of peaceful protesters by the FBI, * The use of warrantless wiretapping, * The recording of large numbers of calls to infer patterns (which will possibly provide some work for the good hardworking people implementing the first 3 ideas) why should one more intrusion tip the balance?

And as long as voters keep electing pusillanimous politicos like Arlen Specter, dissembling demagogues like Orrin Hatch, and hypocritical humbugs like John McCain (yes, I am an alliteration aficionado! A veritable verbal vidwan!), I don’t see how things can get any better.

The only amendment that matters, after all, is the second. Yeehaw!

“When they came for me, there was nobody to complain, because they didn’t know why I had disappeared, or where I was.”

From the commentary I’ve read, though, I derived the impression that the suspension of habeas corpus would apply to citizens as well if the President or Sec of Defense decided to name them enemy combatants. Perhaps this is not being made sufficiently clear through the media? One commentator said that it was the first time the American system, “designed to be run by devils”, allowed for no checks or balances against a bad president. In 1930s Germany, the granting by Hindenburg of authoritarian powers to Hitler was a shocker for the left – in a country like the States, which embodies the democratic tradition, it seems incredible that people don’t understand that the ‘bell is tolling’ for them…

Please don’t tell me that the simple right to appear before a judge to challenge one’s detention is a subtlety for most American voters…

Sorry for being cryptic. What I meant to convey is that lots of people are unclear whether habeas corpus extends to non-citizens. Admittedly, when I say “lots”, there is an extrapolation involved. I found that many 1st-year, Ph.D.-level U.S. students are confused over civil right versus voting rights. This confusion may well extend to the populace at large. This may be why the issue of how much of a loss it would be to the national ethos to selectively suspend habeas corpus — especially if said suspension will most likely affect only foreigners — appears to be a murky area (maybe I shouldn’t have said “subtlety”) for the uncommitted, generally-politically-disengaged, superficially concerned-about-national-security type of swing voter.