Robert Parry: Who Is "ANY PERSON" in Tribunal Law?-Is It You-Is It Me?

[kpete]

Who Is 'Any Person' in Tribunal Law?
By Robert Parry
October 19, 2006


The New York Times lead editorial gives false comfort to American citizens by assuring them that they will not be victims of George W. Bush’s new draconian system for prosecuting enemies of the U.S. government in military tribunals outside constitutional protections.

“This law does not apply to American citizens,” the Times editorial stated, “but it does apply to other legal United States residents. And it chips away at the foundations of the judicial system in ways that all Americans should find threatening.” NYT, Oct. 19, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/opinion/19thu1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

However, the Times analysis appears to be far too gentle. While it’s true that some parts of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 target non-citizens, other sections clearly apply to U.S. citizens as well, putting citizens inside the same tribunal system with resident aliens and foreigners.

“Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission,” according to the law, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in September and signed by Bush on Oct. 17.

Another provision of the law states that “any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy , shall be punished as a military commission … may direct.”

If the Times is correct that “this law does not apply to American citizens,” why does it contain language referring to “any person” and then adding in an adjacent context a reference to people acting “in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States”?


more at:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/101906.html

[ThomCat]

1. I am Furious that the media is either too lazy, too incompetent

or too corrupt to report on this accurately.
x(

[blm]

2. I haven't heard ONE indepth news report from Corpmedia.

Some print, but not much.

[nam78_two]

3. Is this the same Rob Parry

who generates conspiracy "theorys" ;)?

Edit: Btw I think Bob Parry is one of the last of a dying breed -real investigative journalists. I am sorry that his excellent work gets so little play in the corporate media. I am referencing a ridiculous post someone made this morning claiming that Bob Parry's site consists of conspiracy "theorys".

[blm]

4. Dare the poster to post Robert Parry is a conspiracy theorist thread here

at DU.

Then let nature take its course.

Really - anyone who accuses Parry of being a conspiracy theorist has to be a Republican or UNBELIEVABLY STUPID.

[onenote]

5. flawed analysis

The first provision quoted ("Any person is punishable...) is part of a subchapter of the legislation that expressly states that it codifies existing crimes for trial by military commissions. The separate provision establishing military commissions limits their jurisdiction to alien unlawful enemy combatants, so any person must be read in that context: any person subject to the jurisdiction of the military commissions.

This is even more clear by the second provision quoted, which conveniently fails to highlight the words "subject to this chapter" -- again, the jurisdiction of the military commission under "this chapter" is limited to aliens.

[Hosnon]

6. Keep spreading the truth onenote...it will sink in eventually (I think).nt

[BeFree]

7. The truth?

Well, if you don't have papers that clearly describe you as an American citizen, and it just so happens you don't 'look' American, then your ass is grass.

Heck, even if you do have the look but no papers, your ass is grass. That's the truth.

[Hosnon]

8. The truth is that the MCA does not legally deny habeas corpus to any

U.S. citizen.

[BeFree]

21. You don't get it

If you can't prove your citizenship you're a goner. Even if you did, they take your papers and then off ya go.

Wait, maybe you trust that they won't misuse this law?

[Hosnon]

22. Of course I don't trust them...I don't trust anybody in a position of

power.

Read some of onenote's posts in this thread.

Edit: Specifically post #10.

[BeFree]

25. Well

I see you have been all over the board trying to make it seem like this law will not effect innocent people. But I wonder, will you be there to keep the long arm of the law off the future Padilla's of the world?

I didn't think so.

On edit: I don't think onenote will be there either. Heck, his post makes little sense. This is a constitutional law? I think not.

[Hosnon]

26. I have been all over this board trying to figure out exactly what this

statute means.

And I don't know what relevance your second sentence has...but yes, I am about to graduate with my J.D. so perhaps...

[BeFree]

27. Good luck with that JD

But I doubt I'd hire ya, not based on what I've seen. Just my opinion, don't get hot about it. But really, after one or two of your comments I didn't read the rest.

[Hosnon]

28. Haha ok. Try reading a little further. Most people I have been discussing

this with seem to think otherwise.

I've gone the whole night discussing this without anything going negative and there's no need to start now.

Have a good night.

[BeFree]

30. I read THEIR comments

But it seems you didn't.

'Cause they shot you down time and again without any recognizance from you.

[onenote]

10. thanks. there is a specific reason why its important

The MCA is a terrible and hopefully constitutional law. However, it serves no purpose to attack on grounds that can be rebutted. Indeed, it harms our efforts to educate people as to how bad this law is if we undermine our own credibility by overreaching in our arguments.

[Hosnon]

11. I agree. We are screaming about a building that is not actually burning

while ignoring the one that actually is.

[BelgianMadCow]

18. what is the burning building then?

the aliens who are concerned by this law?

A government spying on peace groups as some kind of terrorists, coupled with this law is a burning building for sure. No saying in how they will apply it.
But I'm sure you agree with that, that was not the point of the debate.

[Hosnon]

23. We don't need to go crazy over something that is not happening. U.S.

citizens have not lost any habeas corpus rights. There are plenty of other things about this statute that are REAL and ACTUALLY threatening...

Torture, denial of habeas to aliens, determination of who is an enemy combatant solely by the President, etc.

[springhill]

32. That's funny.........

because when I listened to Jonathan Turley on Countdown with Keith Olberman (a constitutional lawyer by the way) he very plainly stated that no habeus corpus could also apply to American citizens.

Excerpt from interview:

OLBERMANN: I want to start by asking you about a specific part of this act, that lists one of the definitions of 'unlawful enemy combatant' as "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 at Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld's say-so anybody in this country, enemy or not, citizen or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?

TURLEY: It certainly does. And, in fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the President deems is connected to one of these groups, you, too, can be an enemy combatant. And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless. 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 you appoint someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who's gonna be putting on this board.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2420699

[onenote]

33. where does turley mention habeas corpus?

He doesn't. The issue isn't whether a citizen can be named an unlawful enemy combatant, its whether a citizen so designated has the right to trial in civilian court with all of the ordinary due process protections. The answer to that question is unequivocally yes.

[nam78_two]

12. delete

ok you answered my question in the other thread.

[BelgianMadCow]

14. Good one

engineers cheer to you!

[nam78_two]

15. back at ya

;) :toast:

[BelgianMadCow]

16. Link to the "other thread" where you asked about link with Patriot Act II

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2436763&mesg_id=2436763

Cause it's interesting & for completeness

[nam78_two]

17. Yeah good to have all the threads cross posted-thanks/nt

[BelgianMadCow]

13. I agree with your entire post

now both of you go eat :-)

[Hosnon]

20. I caved and got fast food:(. I'm so ashamed. But I'm eating now and will

hit up the habeas process thing soon. It is going to be a little detailed so I'm going to wait until the food is gone:)

[onenote]

29. correction to my earlier post -- too late to edit

After reading BeFree's post I re-read my post and realized that I typed "hopefully constitutional" when I meant "hopefully unconstitutional". My bad. I'd edit, but I didn't notice until too late.

[BelgianMadCow]

9. Permanent cross-link to the other current debate thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2434725&mesg_id=2434725

[truth2power]

19. As I posted in that thread..

The way I read it, it applies to all of us. Waiting for someone to explain to me why it doesn't.

[BeFree]

24. Well lets face it

If you are a rich person with friends galore, pretty much whatever you do, this law will never directly apply to you.

[Maven]

31. This is not entirely correct.

Please see my post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2894955&mesg_id=2894955

Thanks.