The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Most of the attention in the press has focused on subsection (i) of the definition, which would designate as an UEC any "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)." And that subsection is, indeed, broad, and fairly indeterminate, depending on how "materially supported hostilities" is interpreted (something that the Administration apparently could do without much or any judicial review).
But the really breathtaking subsection is subsection (ii), which would provide that UEC is defined to include any 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."
October 17, 2006 - 135 years to the day after the last American President (1870s, President Grant suspended habeas corpus in nine counties in South Carolina, as part of federal civil rights action against the Ku Klux Klan under the 1870 Force Act and 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act.
) suspended habeus corpus, President Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
(Dios) But to understand my point, it helps to have a knowledge of the law instead of relying on the word invasion. Since Ex Parte Milligan through Quirin and the Japanese cases up to the recent ones
So, going back over the cases, you will see that "invasion" just doesn't mean boats at the shoreline or troops marching down main street. Rather, it means aggresive acts of war against the United States. And "invasion" can be mean the threat of invasion. See, e.g. Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 314, (U.S. 1946); Korematsu v. U.S., 323 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1944). That was really the essence of the Japanese cases.
‘‘(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)"
§ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
‘‘Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by
military commission under this chapter.
... there is a body of case law limiting the applicability of the Constitution’s procedural protections to non-citizens ...
« Older Is there a physicist in the house? | 'Course Amos 'n' Andy couldn't vote Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments