| Military Commissions Act Of 2006 |
Article Index for Military |
Website Links For Military |
Information AboutMilitary Commissions Act Of 2006 |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006 | |
| 2006 in law | |
| anti-terrorism policy of the united states | |
| counter-terrorism | |
| george w. bush administration controversies | |
| terrorism | |
| united states federal defense and national security legislation | |
|
The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600 (Oct. 17, 2006), enacting Chapter 47A of title 10 of the s and other Unlawful Enemy Combatants through full and fair trials by military commissions, and for other purposes." {Link without Title} Military Commisssions Act of 2006 The bill eliminates Habeas Corpus and bipartisan critics contend that it is unconstitutional. This law has been used to detain "enemy combatants" indefinitely in a military prison without access to a lawyer. SCOPE OF THE ACT :Sec. 948b. Military commissions generally ::(a) Purpose- This chapter establishes 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. ::(b) Authority for Military Commissions Under This Chapter- The President is authorized to establish military commissions under this chapter for offenses triable by military commission as provided in this chapter. ::(c) Construction of Provisions- The procedures for military commissions set forth in this chapter are based upon the procedures for trial by General Court-martial under chapter 47 of this title (the Uniform Code Of Military Justice ). Chapter 47 of this title does not, by its terms, apply to trial by military commission except as specifically provided in this chapter. The judicial construction and application of that chapter are not binding on military commissions established under this chapter. ::(d) Inapplicability of Certain Provisions- (1) The following provisions of this title shall not apply to trial by military commission under this chapter: :::(A) Section 810 (article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to speedy trial, including any rule of courts-martial relating to speedy trial. :::(B) Sections 831(a), (b), and (d) (articles 31(a), (b), and (d) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to compulsory self-incrimination. :::(C) Section 832 (article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to pretrial investigation. ::(2) Other provisions of chapter 47 of this title shall apply to trial by military commission under this chapter only to the extent provided by this chapter. ::(e) Treatment of Rulings and Precedents- The findings, holdings, interpretations, and other precedents of military commissions under this chapter may not be introduced or considered in any hearing, trial, or other proceeding of a court-martial convened under chapter 47 of this title. The findings, holdings, interpretations, and other precedents of military commissions under this chapter may not form the basis of any holding, decision, or other determination of a court-martial convened under that chapter. ::(f) Status of Commissions Under Common Article 3- A military commission established under this chapter is a regularly constituted court, affording all the necessary `judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples' for purposes of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions . ::(g) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights. :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 . ::(b) Lawful Enemy Combatants- Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant for any offense made punishable under this chapter. ::(c) 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 Combatant 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 jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter. ::(d) Punishments- A military commission under this chapter may, under such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when authorized under this chapter or the law of war. The term ''" Competent Tribunal "'' is not defined in the Act itself. It 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. It is also a term defined in Article five of the third Geneva Convention . However, the rights guaranteed by the Third Geneva Convention to lawful military combatants are expressly denied to unlawful military combatants for the purposes of this Act by Section 948b: (g) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights. Army Publishing Directorate , US Army Field Manual, Section 27, Military Justice November 16 , 2005 The criteria by which a Combatant Status Review Tribunal may determine someone to be an "alien unlawful enemy combatant" under Section II of the definition are provided by the Detainee Treatment Act Of 2005 , and referenced in section 10 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The Combatant Status Review Tribunal is composed of three neutral officers, none of whom was involved with the detainee. One serves as a Judge Advocate , and the senior ranking officer serves as the president of the tribunal. Detainees may testify before the tribunal, call witnesses, and introduce any other evidence. Following the hearing the tribunal will determine in a closed-door session whether the detainee is properly held as an enemy combatant. The criteria by which "another competent tribunal" might do so are specified Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. PROVISIONS The Act changes pre-existing law to explicitly forbid the invocation of the Geneva Conventions when executing the Writ Of Habeas Corpus or in other civil actions sec. 5(a) . This provision applies to all cases pending at the time the Act is enacted, as well as to all such future cases. If the government chooses to bring a prosecution against the detainee, a military commission is convened for this purpose. The following rules are some of those established for trying alien unlawful enemy combatants. ‘‘(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.
The Act also contains provisions (often referred to as the "habeas provisions") removing access to the courts for any alien detained by the United States government who is determined to be an enemy combatant, or who is 'awaiting determination' regarding enemy combatant status. This allows the United States government to detain such aliens indefinitely without prosecuting them in any manner. These provisions are as follows:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109IRC4fi:e116721:
APPLICABILITY The text of the law states that its "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." While the most controversial provisions in the law refer to alien Unlawful Enemy Combatants , earlier provisions (section 948a) refer to unlawful enemy combantants, not excluding U.S. citizens. Therefore, there is some controversy over whether this law affects the rights of habeas corpus for United States citizens. Legal and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies Habeas Rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their indefinite detention.1 While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. 2 CBS legal commentator Andrew Cohen has commented on this question and writes that the "suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus – the ability of an imprisoned person to challenge their confinement in court—applies only to resident aliens within the United States as well as other foreign nationals captured here and abroad" and that "it does not restrict the rights and freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizens anymore than they already have been restricted."3 On the other hand, congressman David Wu (D-OR) stated in the debate over the bill on the floor of the House Of Representatives that "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." For more on this interpretation, see Criticism . LEGISLATIVE HISTORY The bill passed the Senate, 65-34, on September 28 2006 . Roll call vote , via www.senate.gov. The bill passed in the House, 250-170-12, on September 29 2006 . Roll call vote , via clerk.house.gov Bush signed the bill into law on October 17 , 2006 . Legislative actions in the Senate Several amendments were proposed before final passage of the bill by the Senate; all were defeated. Among them were an amendment by ( R - PA ) and Patrick Leahy ( D - VT ) preserving habeas corpus. Specter's amendment was rejected by a vote of 51-48. Specter voted for the bill despite the defeat of his amendment. The bill was finally passed by the house on September 29 2006 and presented to the President for signing on October 10 2006 thomas.loc.gov . Final passage in the Senate -- AYES 65 ---
One, two, and three stars after a name means that senator will be up for reelection in 2008, 2010, or 2012. The 9 with no stars resigned or were defeated in 2006. NAYS 34 ---
NOT VOTING 1 --- Olympia Snowe (R-ME) --> Final passage in the House
-- 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)--> OFFICIAL STATEMENTS
Today, the Senate sent a strong signal to the terrorists that we will continue using every element of national power to pursue our enemies and to prevent attacks on America. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 will allow the continuation of a CIA program that has been one of America's most potent tools in fighting the , 2006 .
Simply put, this legislation ensures that we respect our obligations under Geneva, recognizes the President’s constitutional authority to interpret treaties, and brings accountability and transparency to the process of interpretation by ensuring that the executive’s interpretation is made public. I would note that there has been opposition to this legislation from some quarters, including the '', On the Military Commissions Act, S. 3930, September 28 , 2006 ''.
Passing laws that remove the few checks against mistreatment of prisoners will not help us win the battle for the hearts and minds of the generation of young people around the world being recruited by , On the Military Commissions Act, S. 3930, September 28 , 2006 ''. CRITICISM Alleged unconstitutionality A number of legal scholars and Congressional members - including Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member 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." "Court Told It Lacks Power in Detainee Cases", ''Washington Post'' Another criticism is that the Act violates the Constitution's prohibition against , described the issue this way: The MCA states that it does not create any new crimes, but simply codifies offenses "that have traditionally been triable by military commissions." This provision is meant to convince the courts that there are no ex post facto problems with the offenses that the bill lists. In ''Hamdan v. Rumsfeld'', however, a plurality of the Supreme Court (four justices) found that conspiracy--one of the offenses enumerated in the MCA--was not a crime triable by military commission. The bill's statement that conspiracy is a traditional war crime, does not, by legislative fiat, make it so.5 Law professor John P. Cerone, the co-chair of the American Society Of International Law Human Rights Interest Group, adds that the Act "risks running afoul of the principle against ex post facto criminalization, as recognized in international law 15 of the International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights ) as well as US constitutional law."6 The Act may apply to U.S. citizens The Act has also been denounced by critics who assert that its wording makes possible the permanent detention and torture (as defined by the Geneva Conventions ) of anyone - including American citizens - based solely on the decision of the President. "Twilight Struggle: Finally Standing Up as the Republic Crashes Down", Chris Floyd In the House debate, Representative David Wu of Oregon offered this scenario: 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. House Floor Debate on Military Commissions Act One has described the Act as "the legalization of the , Sleep Deprivation , and enforced stress positions. " The Bush administration's torture of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla" He continues to be held by the United States. According to Bill Goodman , Legal Director of the Center For Constitutional Rights , and Joanne Mariner, from FindLaw , this bill redefines unlawful enemy combatant in such a broad way that it refers to any person who is engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States. This makes it possible for US citizens to be designated unlawful enemy combatant because it could be read to include anyone who has donated money to a charity for orphans in Afghanistan that turns out to have some connection to the Taliban or a person organizing an Anti-war Protest in Washington, D.C. As such habeas corpus may be denied to US citizens.
Jennifer Van Bergen, a journalist with a law degree, responds to the comment that habeas corpus has never been afforded to foreign combatants with the suggestion that, using the current sweeping definition of , November 1, 2006. The Act also suggests that unlawful enemy combatant refers to 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. Some commentators have interpreted this to mean that if the President says you are an enemy combatant, then you effectively are.
The Combatant Status Review Tribunals are flawed Human Rights First has commented on the numerous flaws in the Military Commissions Act. Among them they cite ''"(s)ubjecting detainees to military commissions based on the deeply flawed Combatant Status Review Tribunal’s status determination."'' Analysis of Proposed Rules for Military Commissions Trials Human Rights First It has been reported by the Seton Hall study "No-hearing hearings" that the CSRT's are inadequate and biased in favour of determining a suspect " and Counsel to two Guantanamo detainees, Joshua Denbeaux, Esq. and David Gratz, John Gregorek, Matthew Darby, Shana Edwards, Shane Hartman, Daniel Mann, Megan Sassaman and Helen Skinner Students of Seton Hall University School of Law Bush's War Crimes Cover-up by Nat Hentoff, , November 17, 2006
According to Associated Press Mark Denbeaux said “These were not hearings. These were shams,” and called the hearings a Show Trial . A previous study, the Denbeaux Study , had already established that 92% of captives at Guantanamo were not Al-Qaeda fighters and appeared to have been captured by Bounty Hunter s, in return for a $5,000 reward. With the Military Commissions Act in mind the Washington Post stated: Gitmo Justice Is a Joke By Andrew Cohen, Special to the Washington Post , November 30, 2006 ''If the actual trials of the detainees are as empty and shallow and pre-ordained as were the Status Review Tribunals there is every reason to be mortified at the prospect -- made real by the legislation -- that the federal courts will be frozen out of vital oversight functions. If a regular trial court proceeding were this shoddy, this unwilling to perform a truth-seeking function, this unable to achieve a fair process, the judge presiding over it would be impeached.'' Nat Hentoff commented similarly in the Village Voice : Our Own Nuremberg Trials by Nat Hentoff, Village Voice, December 17th, 2006 ''Co-author Joshua Denbeaux tells me: "The government's own documents proved that the government's claims that the prisoners were the 'worst of the worst' was a false and shameful public relations ploy . . . We hope that our reports will convince Congress to amend the Military Commissions Act and restore federal jurisdiction." If that happens, the prisoners could contest their conditions of confinement, their imprisonment, and their sentences.'' Criminal and Civil Prosecutions Two provisions of the MCA have been criticized for allegedly making it harder to prosecute and convict officers and employees of the U.S. government for misconduct in office. Under the War Crimes Act Of 1996 , any violation of Common Article 3 Of The Geneva Conventions was considered a war crime and could be criminally prosecuted. Section 6 of the Military Commissions Act limited the definition of what constitutes a war crime under the War Crimes Act so that only actions that are considered "grave breaches" of Common Article 3 could be the basis for a prosecution, and it made that definition retroactive to November 26 , 1997. The specific actions defined in section 6 of the Military Commissions Act include Torture , cruel or inhumane treatment, Murder , Mutilation or Maiming , intentional causing serious bodily harm, Rape , Sexual Assault or abuse, and the Taking Of Hostages . According to Mariner, of Human Rights Watch, the effect is "that perpetrators of several categories of what were war crimes at the time they were committed, can no longer be punished under U.S. law."7 The Center for Constitutional Rights adds: The MCA’s restricted definitions arguably would exempt certain U.S. officials who have implemented or had Command Responsibility for coercive interrogation techniques from war crimes prosecutions. In 2005, a provision of the Detainee Treatment Act (section 1004(a)) had created a new Defense as well as a provision to providing Council for agents involved in the detention and interrogation of individuals “believed to be engaged in or associated with international terrorist activity”. The 2006 MCA amended section 1004(a) of the Detainee Treatment Act to guarantee free council in the event of civil or criminal prosecution and applied the above mentioned legal defense to prosecutions for conduct that occurred during the period September 11, 2001 to December 30, 2005. Although the provision recognizes the possibility of civial and or criminal proceedings, the Center for Constitutional Rights has claimed that "The MCA retroactively immunizes some U.S. officials who have engaged in illegal actions which have been authorized by the Executive." 9 On other grounds Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said, "The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions." "Bush signs terror interrogation law", Associated Press Jonathan Turley , professor of constitutional law at George Washington University , in an interview, called the Military Commissions Act of 2006 "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 didn’t rely on their good motivations. Now we must."http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15318240/ Nat Hentoff opined in the '' Village Voice '' that ''conditions of confinement and a total lack of the due process that the Supreme Court ordered in Rasul V. Bush and Hamdan V. Rumsfeld '' makes US government officials culpable for war crimes. SUPPORT Supporters of the act say that the Constitutional provision guaranteeing Habeas Corpus does not apply to alien enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States, and that the provisions of the Act removing Habeas Corpus do not apply to United States Citizens ; they conclude that therefore the law does not conflict with the Constitution. National Review columnist Andrew McCarthy argued that since the law applies to "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" they do not have a constitutional right to habeas corpus. McCarthy also wrote that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, while not allowing a standard habeas corpus review, provides that each detainee "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 New Detainee Law Does Not Deny Habeas Corpus , Andrew McCarthy, National Review, October 3, 2006 , Opinionjournal , October 19, 2006 Formerly ; October 9, 2006 APPLICATION Immediately after Bush signed the Act into law, the U.S. Justice Department notified the U.S. Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia that the Court no longer had jurisdiction over a combined ''habeas'' case that it had been considering since 2004. A notice dated the following day listed 196 other pending habeas cases for which it made the same claim. "Court Told It Lacks Power in Detainee Cases", ''Washington Post'' First use On '', November 14 , 2006 The document begins with: :Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 27(f), respondent-appellee Commander S.L. Wright respectfully moves this Court to remand this case to the district court with instructions to dismiss it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Respondent-appellee has conferred with counsel for petitioner-appellant, and they agree with the briefing schedule proposed below. As explained below, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), Pub. L. No. 109-366 (see Attachment 1), which took effect on October 17, 2006, removes federal court jurisdiction over pending and future habeas corpus actions and any other actions filed by or on behalf of detained aliens determined by the United States to be enemy combatants, such as petitioner-appellant al- Marri, except as provided in Section 1005(e)(2) and (e)(3) of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). In plain terms, the MCA removes this Court’s jurisdiction (as well as the district court’s) over al- Marri’s habeas action. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Initial prosecutions Of the first three war crimes cases brought against Guantanamo Bay detainees under the MCA, one resulted in a Plea Bargain and the two others were dismissed on Jurisdiction al grounds. The first person prosecuted under the MCA was David Matthew Hicks , an Australia n. His case ended in March 2007 with his plea of guilty and his sentence to nine months' imprisonment, to be served in Australia. Hicks sentenced to nine months . News.com.au. March 31, 2007 On June 4 , 2007, in two separate cases, military tribunals dismissed charges against detainees who had been designated as "enemy combatants" but not as "unlawful enemy combatants". The first case was that of Omar Khadr , a Canadian who had been designated as an "enemy combatant" in 2004. Khadr was accused of throwing a grenade during a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002. Colonel Peter Brownback ruled that the military tribunals, created to deal with "unlawful enemy combatants", had no jurisdiction over detainees who had been designated only as "enemy combatants". He dismissed without prejudice all charges against Khadr. Also on June 4 , Captain Keith J. Allred reached the same conclusion in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan . The United States Department Of Defense responded by stating: "We believe that Congress intended to grant jurisdiction under the Military Commissions Act to individuals, like Mr. Khadr, who are being held as enemy combatants under existing C.S.R.T. procedures." That position was called "dead wrong" by Specter. COURT CHALLENGE On December 13 2006 , Salim Ahmed Hamdan tried to challenge the MCA's declination of habeas corpus to "alien unlawful enemy combatants" in the United States District Court For The District Of Columbia . Judge James Robertson , who ruled in favor of Hamdan in the ''Hamdan v. Rumsfeld'' case, refused to rule in favor of Hamdan in this case regarding habeas corpus, writing: :"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". Judge Rejects Detention Challenge of Bin Laden's Driver , '' Washington Post '' December 14 , 2006 In '' June 29 , 2007 SEE ALSO
REFERENCES EXTERNAL LINKS Government documents
Media articles/press releases
Commentary
|
|
|