Now That You Could be Labeled an Enemy Combatant...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

by Heather Wokusch

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1004-35.htm

<snip>

Since Congress recently handed Bush the power to identify American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" and detain them indefinitely without charge, it's worth examining the administration's record of prisoner abuse as well as the building of stateside detention centers.

As Texas governor (from 1995-2000) Bush oversaw the executions of 152 prisoners, and thus became the most-killing governor in the history of the United States. Ethnic minorities, many of whom did not have access to proper legal representation, comprised a large percentage of those Bush put to death, and in one particularly egregious example, Bush executed an immigrant who hadn't even seen a consular official from his own country (as is required by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which the US was a signatory). Bush's explanation: "Texas did not sign the Vienna Convention, so why should we be subject to it?"

Governor Bush also flouted the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by choosing to execute juvenile offenders, a practice shared at the time only by Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Significantly, in 1998 a full 92% of the juvenile offenders on Bush's death row were ethnic minorities.

Conditions inside Texan prisons during Bush's reign were so notorious that federal Judge William Wayne Justice wrote, "Many inmates credibly testified to the existence of violence, rape and extortion in the prison system and about their own suffering from such abysmal conditions.". . .

[onenote]

1. we've been through this before ...

I'm as sickened by the Military Commissions bill as anyone, but claiming that it poses great risks to US citizens is a loser of an argument. The legislation clearly defines the jurisdiction of the military commissions as cases involving "alien" unlawful enemy combatants and also clearly applies the restrictions on habeas corpus to aliens. Why throw softballs that the other side can knock down, thereby undercutting the clear and valid arguments against this horrific legislation: namely that it is inconsistent with American principles of fairness and due process, International norms regarding the treatment of prisoners, and ultimately puts our military at risk and makes the nation less, rather than more, safe.

Put another way, would you support this legislation if it contained a sentence saying: No part of this law applies to US citizens? I wouldn't.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

2. I could not find any language in the MCA of '06...

...stating that a U.S. citizen cannot be given "unlawful enemy combatant" status. Maybe I missed that part:

http://66.102.7.104/custom?q=cache:Z1aDw3wb2g4J:balkin.blogspot.com/Bush.Military.Commissions.Bill.pdf+Military+Commission+Act+2006&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=pub-1415334591037307

In any case, I don't think Jose Padilla would find your remarks particularly reassuring:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28alleged_terrorist%29

To answer your question, I would not support this legislation even if it explicitly claimed U.S. citizens were completely exempt.

Here's a question for you. If they have no intention of applying MCA '06 to U.S. citizens, why not explicitly state so in clear, unambiguous terms right in the Act?