Distorting the Military Commissions Act II

Alas, another Rhode Island blogger has lost herself in the progressive fever-swamps because of the Military Commissions Act. Now Sheila Lennon of the Projo?s Subterranean Homepage News is claiming that the Military Commissions Act can be used to prevent American citizens from petitioning for a writ of Habeas Corpus…

Yes, anyone can not (sic, I think Ms. Lennon meant “now”) be “disappeared” at the pleasure of the President. This abrogation of the most basic right to challenge the legality of your detention is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court must overturn it.
Her fears are based on Keith Olbermann’s inaccurate MSNBC rant against the MCA. But despite Olbermann’s delusions, it is not true that the MCA means that anyone can be made to disappear at the pleasure of the President, because…
  1. The MCA does not apply to American citizens.
  2. Everyone — even aliens — detained under the MCA has an express right to be represented by a defense counsel of their own choosing. This is from section 949c of the MCA
    (3) The accused may be represented by civilian counsel if retained by the accused, but only if such civilian counsel
    (A) is a United States citizen;
    (B) is admitted to the practice of law in a State, district, or possession of the United States or before a Federal court;
    (C) has not been the subject of any sanction of disciplinary action by any court, bar, or other competent governmental authority for relevant misconduct;
    (D) has been determined to be eligible for access to classified information that is classified at the level Secret or higher; and
    (E) has signed a written agreement to comply with all applicable regulations or instructions for counsel, including any rules of court for conduct during the proceedings.
  3. And nothing in the MCA prevents someone improperly detained under the MCA from challenging the claim (with the help of his or her defense counsel) that he or she is not an American citizen in a regular civilian court, outside of the MCA system.
Furthermore, Ms. Lennon’s claim that the MCA is unconstitutional makes no sense. As Adam J. White explained in the Weekly Standard, all that the MCA does is restore the scope of Habeas Corpus to the scope established in the 1950 case of Johnson v. Eisentrager, a precedent ignored by the Court its 2004 Rasul v. Bush ruling. Because you disagree with something doesn’t make it unconstitutional. What exactly is the argument that the Supreme Court was “wrong” in interpreting existing Habeas Corpus statutes one way in 1950, but “right” when interpreting them differently in 2004?
I hope liberals are beginning to realize how much the hysteria over the MCA undercuts the claim that they are the reality-based community. But there is always hope! If bloggers like Ms. Lennon would pay more attention to the right-blogosphere, they would be less likely to make such gross errors of fact.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
10 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mrh
mrh
15 years ago

If bloggers like Ms. Lennon would pay more attention to the right-blogosphere, they would be less likely to make such gross errors of fact.
Dude, I’m sorry, really, I don’t mean to troll, but this is the funniest thing I’ve read so far today.
On a more substantive note, I truly don’t understand why it baffles you that we’re freaked out by statements like this:

In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that “no court, justice, or judge” can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.

mrh
mrh
15 years ago

I don’t know how many of them are American citizens. The phrase “anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future” frightens me.
That aside, do you think it’s ok to strip habeus from non-citizens?

Greg
Greg
15 years ago

“That aside, do you think it’s ok to strip habeus from non-citizens?”
Yes. Yes I do. Next we need to strip their legal right to access to health care, welfare, schooling, bank accounts, mortgages, etc.. and stop giving them incentives to be here.

mrh
mrh
15 years ago

Eek. Creepy nativist anti-immigrant alert! Y’all come over on the Mayflower, Greg?

Greg
Greg
15 years ago

I’m not a nativist. I’m just not a bleeding-heart liberal that believes that everyone who happens to be inside our borders should be entitled to services that used to be reserved for legal citizens of the United States.
If we disincentivise the illegal aliens by taking away their perceived ‘rights’ to services they don’t pay for they’ll stop coming over here.

jay
jay
15 years ago

Catch a Canadian citizen at JFK Airport
and send him to Syria for a one year sabbatical.

mrh
mrh
15 years ago

Greg is confusing things a bit. Loving the false dichotomy between nativism and bleeding hearts, the idea that habeus is a “service” immigrants aren’t paying for, and the idea that eliminating habeus is actually a way to control (or at least disincentivise) immigration.
Delightful!

Greg
Greg
15 years ago

No, habeus is a RIGHT only applicable to citizens. I’d prefer that illegal aliens of any race, color or creed caught committing crimes in our country simply be taken out back and shot instead of wasting our time in court, deporting them, and having them waltz back across the border again.

mrh
mrh
15 years ago

Justin, that’s fair enough, and I’ve come to be reassured about about the MCA with regard to US citizens and habeus.
Of course, I think the law is disastrous enough without exaggeration.

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.