Replies

Thank you so much for the time and effort!
Clarence Thomas was incorrect?

Thank you so much for your due diligence!

As you no doubt noticed from your careful reading of my response at #3602, the Clarence Thomas dissent, was overruled by a 5-3 majority at the time of its issuance.

You noted at #3596 that "Both Mark Levin and Justice Clarence Thomas were alarmed by that judicial legislation."

To be noted is that Justice Thomas' dissent had nothing to do with bringing a U.S. citizen to trial before a military tribunal. At issue was whether an alien unlawful combatant had the right to petition for habeas corpus.

This precise question was answered by the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush, Opinion of the Court, 553 U.S. 723, 732-33 (2008).

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners are aliens designated as enemy combatants and detained at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There are others detained there, also aliens, who are not parties to this suit.
Petitioners present a question not resolved by our earlier cases relating to the detention of aliens at Guantanamo: whether they have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus, a privilege not to be withdrawn except in conformance with the Suspension Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 2. We hold these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege. Congress has enacted a statute, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), 119 Stat. 2739, that provides certain procedures for review of the detainees’ status. We hold that those procedures are not an adequate and effective substitute for habeas corpus. Therefore § 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), 28 U. S. C. § 2241(e), operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ.

That is the supreme law of the land. The 2006 dissent of Justice Thomas in Hamdi is not. Moreover, the use of a military tribunal to prosecute a U.S. citizen is foreclosed by federal law.

The question of subjecting a U.S. citizen to trial by Military commission has been settled by Legislative legislation, the Military Commissions Act of 2009, as codified at 10 U.S.C. 948 thru 950.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/948c

10 U.S. Code § 948c - Persons subject to military commissions
Any alien unprivileged enemy belligerent is subject to trial by military commission as set forth in this chapter.
(Added Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XVIII, § 1802, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2576.)

The Military Commissions Act of 2009 (MCA 2009): Overview and Legal Issues Jennifer K. Elsea Legislative Attorney August 4, 2014, R41163

At page 9:

Citizens who fit the definition of “unprivileged enemy belligerent” are not amenable to trial by military commission under the MCA.

U.S. citizens are not going to be rounded up, flown to Gitmo, paraded before a military commission, and executed. Military commissions have no such jurisdiction.