Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Aliens or Citizens: Van Erp

Peter van Erp writes:


' From: Peter van Erp Sent: Thu 10/19/2006 11:14 AM To: Juan Cole Subject: Your lettre de cachet is coming...

Dear Professor Cole,

I just noted an error in your post yesterday regarding the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

The original version of the House bill (HR 6166) included a definition of Illegal Enemy Combatants as:

“(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); or

`(ii) 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.”

The original Senate Version (S 3930) as introduced applied only to aliens:


' “In this chapter:

`(1) ALIEN- The term `alien' means an individual who is not a citizen of the United States.

`(2) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- The term `classified information' means the following:

`(A) Any information or material that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to statute, Executive order, or regulation to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.

`(B) Any restricted data, as that term is defined in section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)).

`(3) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means an individual who is--

`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;

`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or

`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

`(4) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant.”


When the Senate version originally passed, the version published in Thomas as “Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate” ( http://thomas.loc.gov/) included that language. That has lead to most of the media stating, as you did, that the Military Commissions Act does not apply to American citizens.

In the past two weeks since the Senate passed S 3930, the published version has been changed to align with the House.

I can only speculate that the language in the published version of S 3930 was not changed immediately after passage in order to mislead the media. The other possibility is that the Senate passed the bill as originally written, and persons unknown changed the published version in order to avoid the need for a reconciliation vote where the import of the bill could be revisited. In any case, the various efforts of the ACLU and others to correct the public perception are lost in the general furor, and the media keep repeating that the bill only applies to them. We have met the enemy and he is us.

See you in Gitmo! I’ll be the un-named guy in the un-numbered cell. '

Peter Van Erp

5 Comments:

At 8:09 AM, Blogger Sulayman said...

The Third Geneva Convention clearly lays out POW protocols for any militias or insurgents in a state. Why is the Taliban denied POW status by this law? Won't the UK and NATO forces protest if we deny POW status to any further prisoners?

It should therefore be unconstitutional, because it violates the Senate-ratified treaty. I'm hoping the law is overturned by the Supreme Court for simple blatant unconstitutionality (or can they somehow ignore the blatant errors?).

 
At 9:42 AM, Blogger Tom Marshall said...

not that it makes much difference, because, like everything else the bush administration does, the bush will say that it means whatever he says it means.

But Mr Van Erp is right. Everybody comes under the jurisdiction of this law. Including the repeal of habeus corpus. Once a person is declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" they lose the protections of the civilian courts.

 
At 2:17 PM, Blogger DanChay said...

I have been confused about this. Now, I look at HR 6166 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:2:./temp/~c10997mgG8:e2819:) and I see:
>>
`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
<<

Looking at S3930 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./temp/~c109ZO4OOQ:e2789:), I see the same language.

Is there a "published" version somewhere else that reads differently?

 
At 4:33 PM, Blogger Tom Chappell said...

Wait a minute - while the joint final bill, named in www.thomas.gov as...

"Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[S.3930.ENR]"

...does allow citizens to be defined as Unlawful Enemy Combatants, it seems to limit the commisions to be covering alien Unlawful Enemy Combatants:

`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.


I mean, it's bad enough, but it seems that the media is correct in reporting that it doesn't apply to citizens, and doesn't apply to alien "lawful enemy combatants"?

 
At 5:42 PM, Blogger Chris Nandor said...

This is a little confusing, but the definitions are not what matters most here, because as Tom says, "alien" is applied anywhere "UEC" is mentioned in terms of military commissions, or the amendments to the DTA regarding habeas corpus and other appeals (i.e., "No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination"). "Alien" is specifically mentioned in each place.

Whether or not the Padilla case said citizen UEC can be detained indefinitely is not important in this context since this law is specific to aliens, and I know of no other law that allows such citizen UECs to be thus detained.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home