We are Unlawful Enemy Combatants

Since there are no more tinfoil hats -- submitted for your consideration:

The law.  According to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, an unlawful enemy combatant is:

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

Fact-finding below the fold.

The facts:

According to President Bush, as we all know:

However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses.

Dick Cheney told Fox News:

Whether it's al Qaeda or the other elements that are active in Iraq, they are betting on the proposition they can break the will of the American people. They're very sensitive to the fact that we've got an election scheduled.

In other words, by voting against the Republicans to hold them accountable for the disaster in Iraq, we are assisting the terrorists to

engage in hostilities ... against the United States.

Question of legal interpretation:  Does such assistance constitute "material support" meeting the criteria of the Military Commissions Act?  

The word "material" might be construed to mean physical assistance, such as the provision of weapons or money.  In legal terms such as "material representation" or "material witness", however, the word "material" means "relevant" or "related to."  Therefore, whether such an act constitutes "material" support seems to hinge on a finding as to whether the act of support makes those engaged in the hostilities significantly more likely to achieve their hostile objectives.

Based on the findings of fact expressed by the President and Vice-President, there is certainly a prima facie case that anyone voting for a Democratic candidate, and a fortiori, anyone standing as a Democratic candidate, may well be an unlawful enemy combatant.

Note that the Military Commissions Act does not limit unlawful enemy combatants to "aliens."  Citizens may be unlawful enemy combatants.  A person alleged by the "unitary executive branch" to be an "unlawful enemy combatant" may have his status reviewed by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, consisting of three military officers.  

Once a person is determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant, that person does not enjoy the protection of the Geneva Conventions, including Common Article Three, and therefore may be subjected to "cruel treatment," "outrages upon human dignity," and "humiliating and degrading treatment," as long as such treatment stops short of torture, that is sustained pain leaving permanent bodily or mental harm.  

U.S. citizens detained as unlawful enemy combatants retain the right to file petitions of habeas corpus and may not be tried by Military Commissions.  

Some might argue that this act may not be construed to abridge rights otherwise protected by the constitution, such as the rights to freedom of speech, assembly, association, petition for redress of grievances, and the right to vote.

Hence it should be possible to find grounds to appeal our detentions to the Supreme Court! All is not lost!  Unless the administration can drag this out until another justice has to be replaced.  After all, "The constitution is not a suicide pact."  

IANAL.  How's my reasoning?  Does it sound like Orthodox Yoo?  

•  I am incredibly Proud to stand as a Lawful enemy

  combatant of this president, and his administration. The Military Commissions Act is unconstitutional, and therefore null and void. But according to the legislation as it stands, I have probably made a case for my own round-up and transport to whereabouts unknown.

  by TheGardener on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 08:00:57 AM PDT

  •  Millions of us are enemy combatants against

    this anti-Consitutional administration. Too bad for them, we're winning the war they waged on us with their anti-American legislation.

    We are all suspects also, all 300,000,000 of us which is why they have to spy on the entire country. You can't make that many enemies and win any war. Everyone needs allies.

    They thought they could 'go it alone' never understanding that alienating such diverse groups of people, would unite them all in the end. One truth Bush told, he really is a uniter, but we've known that for a while now.

    Good analysis of the Military Commissions Act in the diary.

    by Catrina on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 08:21:57 AM PDT

•  Purposefully?

  I neglected in the diary to add an analysis of the word "purposefully."  Aid to the hostilities must be both "material" and "purposeful."  This is two exempt innocent grannies who give money to charities to help orphans who turn out to be terrorists or orphans of suicide bombers.  By saying that his opponents who are helping terrorists are wrong rather than unpatriotic, President Bush might be generously exempting us from the provisions of this Act.  The question is whether the exemption applies to ALL political opponents or only some.  For instance, what if some opponents are providing material aid to hostilities (opposing administration policy) for political gain, with willful disregard for the consequent victory for terrorists?  Such considerations would have to be carefully weighed by a competent tribunal, though since Common Article Three does not apply, such a tribunal would not have to be a "regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

  by BRRubin on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 08:32:26 AM PDT

•  Although I have not

  sworn an oath, I consider myself loyal to the U.S. Constitution (as written, not as interpreted by George W. Bush). I stand in lawful opposition to the Bush Administration. So, I guess I am a member of the loyal opposition.

  by jayatRI on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 08:33:09 AM PDT