Truth Behind the Military Commissions Act of 2006

On October 17 of 2006 President Bush signed the US Military Commissions Act of 2006. The purpose of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is to provide the US Government the ability to try an "alien unlawful enemy combatant" that has committed any hostile acts against the US as direct violations to the law of war and/or any other offenses that are deemed triable by the military commission. The definition of an unlawful enemy combatant is as follows:

"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 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 people that are accused of being an alien unlawful enemy combatant are tried under these rules:

1) A defense attorney can only be used if that attorney has been determined eligible by the US government to have access to classified information. That means the attorney must have a classified level of Secret or higher.

2) "No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories." So, if a person is deemed to be an alien unlawful enemy combatant then that person is not allowed to appeal to court on the imprisonment of that individual, which also disallows that individual their rights to invoke the Geneva Conventions.

3) Only two-thirds vote is required from the members of the commission present to find the unlawful enemy combatant Guilty.

4) "Authorizes the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate the standards and regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Directs the President to issue such interpretations through Executive Orders." These Executive Orders issued by the President can be found on this link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/ (So at least we can see to what means the President is interpreting the Geneva Conventions)

5) Last but not least an individual tried as an alien unlawful enemy combatant can not be tried for the same offense twice unless they have the consent of the individual.

I have talked a lot about the Geneva Conventions, so for those who are not aware of them here is a brief summary. The Four Geneva Conventions and their protocols are used to give protection to war victims, both military and civilian. Also, any nation that ratifies the Geneva Conventions, in which the US has, must abide by certain humanitarian principles. So if someone is deemed to be an alien unlawful enemy combatant under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 then that individual looses their humanitarian rights that would have normally been protected by the Geneva Conventions. For more information on those rights go to this link: http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/resources/materials/rm08/aSheet1968.pdf

Controversy to the affect this Act has towards US Citizens:

A lot of people are confused as to whether US citizens can be accused and therefore loose their rights to invoke the Geneva Conventions when implementing the writ of habeas corpus or in any other civil actions. It would seem that the answer to this controversy would be "no" as stated in the purpose of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which I defined in the first paragraph. The reason is from the word "alien", which is defined as someone who is not a citizen of the United States. Therefore US citizens do not have to worry about being accused and tried under the military commissions, right? Wrong! Above I gave the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant, in which a US citizen can be accused. Now for the part of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that says a US citizen can be subject to military commissions. Subchapter 948d(c) from the Military Commissions Act of 2006 states:

"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."

So, in short, if an individual is deemed to be an unlawful enemy combatant then he/she falls under the jurisdiction for trial by military commissions. Therefore, anyone accused as being an unlawful enemy combatant undergoes the same rules as stated above for an alien unlawful enemy combatant and is therefore disallowed to "invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights". This is immoral and gives the President and the Secretary of Defense too much power! How could it be that an unlawful enemy combatant can be subject to military commissions when it clearly states in subchapter 948c that the people subject to the military commissions consist of "Any alien unlawful enemy combatant..."? US citizens should never be denied their right to invoke the Geneva Conventions, or any of their rights for that matter, nor should they be denied the right to a FAIR trial.

While it can be argued, due to the ongoing controversy of this Act, that a US citizen can not be subject to military commissions, it is a fact that if the President or Secretary of Defense wants to try anyone under military commissions they have the authority and power to do so. The reason is because the government also has the power to strip the citizenship of a US citizen, which would then make that person an alien unlawful enemy combatant if the President or Secretary of Defense (or Combatant Status Review Tribunal) so deem. So even though it might be unlikely that we will be accused, it is still immoral and unconstitutional that a US citizen can be stripped of their citizenship and denied their rights! The United States is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions and must abide by those humanitarian laws stated in the Geneva Conventions and its protocols!! But with the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 an individual can now be denied the right to invoke the Geneva Conventions!! As stated above, this gives too much power to our government, especially the President and the Secretary of Defense!

Note: I am not saying that "alien" unlawful enemy combatants should be allowed to invoke the Geneva Conventions. That is an entirely different argument. What I am concerned with is the rights of US citizens!! If a US citizen is accused then they deserve the right to a fair trial and should not be denied any of the rights they would normally have if accused of ANY other crime!!

References:

the military commissions act of 2006
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

Military Commissions Act of 2006, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

A Summary of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/resources/materials/rm08/aSheet1968.pdf