Military Commissions Act of 2006

The Military Commissions Act (Law Military Commissions ) is a U.S. federal law that regulates the legal status of so-called " unlawful enemy combatants". It was adopted on 28 September 2006 by Congress and signed on 17 October 2006 by President George W. Bush, which entered into force. Because of its cuts in basic fundamental rights, the law has already been heavily criticized during its formation phase. The law allows some open, must be collected after which time against a prisoner charged. Therefore, according to the law an unlimited period of detention without charge or trial is possible. The detained person would have no right to act in any way to this treatment.

Formation

After the Supreme Court of the United States had found the treatment of prisoners in the war on terror people by the U.S. government in several precedents ( Hamdan v. Rumsfeld et al ) to be illegal, the Bush administration was in a dilemma. The law was therefore created with the purpose to provide hitherto largely driven practice of unlimited and illegal adherence as " hostile" classified alien on a legal basis. Thus, the government did in fact practice the law, which the Supreme Court had previously rated as generally illegal.

Regulatory area

Essentially, the law regulates that of the authorities as "unlawful combatants" People classified may be sentenced by military commissions. These are not the procedural rules of an ordinary criminal court subject to the Rules of Procedure of Military Courts, the Law on the uniform military jurisdiction ( Uniform Code of Military Justice, UCMJ ), is only partially modeled. In particular, the defendant is entitled to only a limited right to representation by a lawyer, and the evidence of the prosecution need only be disclosed in statements and examined by the defense. The immediacy requirement of proof is also limited by the unconditional approval by a proof by hearsay.

The recovery under torture forced statements is indeed forbidden - as the U.S. However, a proper definition of so-called " sharp interrogation techniques " ( Harsh / coercive / military interrogation techniques ) have created, which officially are not considered torture, the effectiveness of this ban is questionable. In addition, the prohibition does not apply if the defendant is suspected of even a torture crime.

Furthermore, it is stipulated that "unlawful combatants" have no right to sue in courts of general jurisdiction of the United States against their treatment or to invoke the Geneva Conventions. Is available for a decision of the Military Commission merely a special legal open:

• With regard to procedural objections, an appeal to (partially) re- negotiation may be submitted to the convening authority for military commissions, but this place can also modify or terminate an existing statement " for good reason ".
• The saying a military commission can be challenged before a military court for their own verification military commissions. This is occupied by the defense minister and is not yet established.
• In exploiting this challenging ways a revision similar appeal is admissible, and exclusively before the Federal Court of Appeals for DC only with respect to errors of law in the process or in terms of the U.S. Constitution.

Applicability to U.S. citizens

The law basically aims to persons who are not citizens of the United States. It is controversial among lawyers, the extent to which the law applies to U.S. citizens. The principal application is derived from the definition of "illegal enemy combatant ": According to Section 948a (1 ) of the Act is an " unlawful enemy combatant " (among others) defined as follows:

" (I ) a person engaged in hostilities or Who Has Who Has purpose fully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co - belligerents [ ... ] "

" A person who has been involved in hostile activities against the U.S. or its allies or those intentionally and materially support [ ... ] "

According to the prevailing view, this formulation is also applicable to U.S. citizens, what the Congress had explicitly confirmed. In addition, the term was " hostile activities " is not defined in the law itself, and therefore the government freely interpretable (so-called general clause or Undefined legal concept, colloquially rubber paragraph ). The law, therefore, allow the government to detain any persons (including U.S. citizens ) and to convict under the conditions listed above by a military court. The importance of U.S. citizens is however limited by the fact that the restriction of the right to habeas corpus ( habeas corpus ) in section 7 of the Act on foreigners ( aliens ) is limited. Therefore, a U.S. citizen would have at any stage of the right to have his detention under the law by a civil court. The applicability to U.S. citizens is for other opinions by section 948 ( b ) restricted, because the jurisdiction of military courts where it is expressly limited to foreigners. The possibility of detention of Americans as "illegal enemy combatant " was thus, however, not affected.

This aspect is particularly relevant given that the U.S. government has been detained in the past, several U.S. citizens as "unlawful combatants" (eg José Padilla and John Walker Lindh ).

Among the full scope of the law to fall - in addition to all foreigners - both about five million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. as well as green card holders because they do not have U.S. citizenship.

Practice

In practice, the law did not create the necessary legal certainty and orderly process, which is due to overlapping facts and repeatedly emerging general clauses substantially. Its application prepares lawyers consistently difficulties, so that its fulfillment is questionable by military personnel. In response to the policy decisions of the Supreme Court was unable to convict the former complainant allow. In June 2007, the first two cases were brought to trial and were rejected by the military commissions for lack of jurisdiction because the classification as a simple "enemy combatants" or "unlawful combatants " or as " combatants in conflicts " in the MCA rules is constitutive and such cases, therefore, the military courts should be withdrawn. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld See Decision.

In another case, the Fourth Federal Court of Appeal ruled that residents of the U.S. in terms of the totality of all the land properly Come persons, whether citizens or not, not just by the President as "enemy combatants ", " enemy " or "unlawful combatants" o. etc. can be named, with the result that they may be taken indefinitely in military custody and a specific package of legislation for them hereby is applicable. As subsequent legislation it sees the MCA is not applicable at least to cases with a history of domestic connection. It remanded the case to the federal district court to decide whether he should be released from custody, see al - Marri decision against Wright.

Criticism

According to a number of critics, the law is contrary to the U.S. Constitution because it involves inter alia the basic constitutional right of individuals to protection against unjustified accusation by the state ( writ of habeas corpus ) overridden. The passage of the bill was taken up in much of the American public with indignation and often referred to as a breach of the constitution: It was said in a comment of the television station MSNBC, the law fancy the " beginning of the end of America" ​​( Beginning of the end of America ). The New York Times wrote: "And it [ the law ] gives way to the pillars of the justice system in a manner to which everyone should find Americans threatening " (And it chips away at the foundations of the judicial system in ways did all Americans shoulderstand find threatening ).

According to popular belief, including by various human rights organizations, are permitted under the Military Commissions Act " special interrogation methods " to assess as torture. The law is also criticized in this context.

"So vague are the law's words did What constitutes " terrorist activity " and can be used Whether it against U. S. citizens REMAIN with the monarchical power of George W. Bush to decide. "

" The wording of the law is so vague that the definition of" terrorist activity "and whether it can be used against U.S. citizens, remains in the royal decision-making power of George W. Bush"

"It is expected that Bush will continue to abuse the September 11 to take even take us more freedoms. Our constitutional right to dissent is at serious risk. "

"We have lived as if in a trance. We have lived as people in fear. And now - our rights and our freedoms in peril - we slowly awaken to learn we did have been afraid of the wrong thing. (...) For, on this first full day did the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear- mongering: A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from. "

"We have lived as if in a trance. We have lived as people in fear. And now - because our rights and freedoms are in danger - we are beginning to awaken to realize that we have feared us the wrong thing. ( ...) For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we are now the opposite the opposite were our ancestors at other times of exaggerated fear mongering: A government that is dangerous to our liberty, than the enemy before they purports to protect us. "