In 1942, the Supreme Court ruled UNANIMOUSLY (in the Quirin case) that the trial court was wrong, habeas corpus DID apply to eight German saboteurs who had been tried and convicted by a military tribunal, and six sentenced to death. Having taken jurisdiction, the Court then ruled that use of the military tribunal was constitutional, even for saboteur who was an American citizen.
In short, even those this Act is now in place, there will STILL be judicial review. Habeas corpus is still there. What they will NOT have -- just as in Quirin -- are all the guarantees of the Bill of Rights in ordinary "Article III" federal courts.
Sheesh. Get it straight.
Please see my most recent statement on running for Congress, here.
This claim raised my eyebrow:
Turley points out that even giving "material support" (such as a donation) to an organization that has been deemed "terrorist" can get you designated an enemy combatant as well. And who determines which organizations are associated with terrorism? The president alone.
The question "What would (or could) Hillary Do?" should automatically apply to any assessment.
How does this stand in your view from this vantage point? I'm just seeking reassurance; I'd feel better if these things automatically ended within a designated period.
Assuming that's true, and supposing it's challenged, I expect the SC will overrule that as an unconstitutional encroachment on their authority and on the rights of the petitioners, aliens though they be. The Geneva Conventions are part of our law and to exclude it from consideration is a fundamental diminution of the habeas right.
IMO, the Act should have instead established a secret court to consider habeas claims of detained combatants.