Case against 9/11 defendant starts to emerge at Guantanamo :: WRAL.com

Why are you trolling me, Capt? Boumediene v Bush came to the WRONG conclusion. The left-leaning SCOTUS at the time wrongly ruled in a split decision that Gitmo was essentially US territory, yet in fact it is not. And although the decision allowed detainees to question their detainment they were not given habeas corpus, per se. The 2009 MCA was absolutely an Obama creation. The 2006 MCA was even an abomination with relation to the Law of Land Warfare, a certainly legitimate and binding guideline for US forces, as it is essentially the Geneva Convention SOP. You sound like an Islamist apologist. The 2009 MCA is in fact virtually US federal court rights for detainees accused of war crimes. If it were not the trials would have concluded over a decade ago. In 1942, within 8 weeks of their capture, 6 of 8 German saboteurs were executed after being caught dry-foot in the US. They were denied habeas corpus and lawful military commissions were established. They were found guilty of spying with the intent and means to kill and to destroy property. They had not in fact hurt a fly nor did they destroy any property, they simply had broken the Geneva Conventions (and the Law of Land Warfare) and were found not to be lawful combatants, therefore not entitled to the protections and privileges of Geneva or the Law of War. What's different now? In the Bush era it was a desire to project fairness, too much fairness. In the Obama era it was to equalize the rights of the detainees within a hairs breadth of what US citizens enjoy. It was all wrongheaded. IAW Geneva and Law of War, accused war criminals are entitled to only the same rights a US soldier would enjoy via the UCMJ, no more, no less. There was no precedent for the MCA's, 2006 or 2009, and certainly no precedent or common law or case law to support the SCOTUS' decision in Boumediene v Bush. All conjured up to put up a face of political correctness where none was needed. Virtually all Gitmo detainees could have lawfully been shot dead on the battlefield. Only by the benevolence of the United States did they live, and 730 RELEASED, and NONE beheaded, executed, blown up, hacked to death, dragged naked and lifeless through the streets, drowned or burned alive, all things our enemies have done to us and/or our allies. Now you'll probably say something about torture and we will be off again! Where DO your loyalties lie, Capt?

MAJ Montgomery Granger - My loyalties lie with the Constitution of the United States and with the rule of law.

You are so tied up with politics and political hatred that it influences your writing to the point that it is not only inaccurate, but completely wrong. Our constitution established the judicial power in the Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as may be established. SCOTUS first ruled that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals established by DOD under the Bush administration were unconstitutional (in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)), so Congress passed the 2006 MCA.

This is where you really get off of the track. You see, in the Constitution, legislative power is outlined under Article I, in Congress. You speak of precedent, but you clearly don't understand that Congress is the body that enacts legislation, including legislation involving the Law of War. In Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, it states that Congress has the power to "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water..."

Are you trying to deny that Congress has the authority to enact such legislation, or is it just that you don't agree with the legislation? Because Congress clearly has the right and authority to put whatever rules in place that they see fit. Once they have enacted such laws, "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

Next, you misstate the decisions by SCOTUS as being left-leaning. Hamdi was a 8-1 plurality decision, with only J. Thomas opposing the decision. J. Scalia, that far-left, ultraliberal justice said that the government could either 1) suspend habeas, or 2) try him in a civilian court. Thankfully the less liberal justices prevailed. So Congress passed the 2006 MCA, under its powers described above (Art. I, §8, cl. 11) and SCOTUS tossed it as unconstitutional in Boumediene. Boumediene was 5-4, but the difference was not as clear as you purport--J. Scalia's dissent (joined by the remain 3 justices) was that the 2006 MCA provided "the essential protections that habeas corpus guarantees; there has thus been no suspension of the writ..." In other words, all nine of the justices agreed that habeas applied to the detainees, they just disagreed on whether the 2006 MCA provided that right or not. So Congress (not Obama) passed the 2009 MCA to correct the problems identified by SCOTUS in the 2006 version.

Finally, to deal with your argumentum ad hominem issues. First, I am not an apologist for Islam, or Islamists. I think that they are just as delusional as fundamentalist Christians, and I think that both are dangerous to society in general. But in general, your argument is a form of Bulverism, and I reject it. Look, I get that with your background, the idea that civilian leaders in Congress can control how our military handles both combatants and detainees may be uncomfortable and scary for you. That's how our system is designed to work.