Topics on the Table Issue 4
In September 2006, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA) which included provisions stripping non-citizens detained by the executive branch as “enemy combatants” of their right to file a
habeas corpus petition. Supporters of this law argue that the restriction of this right is essential to the security of our nation; critics have decried the action as unconstitutional and un-American. On December 5 the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the
Boumediene case, challenging the constitutionality of the MCA’s
habeas-stripping provision. What do you think is the strongest argument in defense or support of the MCA?
What Do You Think? >>
Responses:
Student: Michelle
Campus: UC – Davis
Year: Senior
Personally, I agree that the Military Commissions Act is undoubtedly unconstitutional and very un-American. Although, these detainees are considered criminals, they are still human beings, and ideally, everyone should have the right to habeas corpus. Accordingly, if an American citizen were to be detained, that individual would and should have the right to habeas corpus; however just because an individual was not fortunate enough to be a citizen, the non-citizen would be cast in a dire situation. From one perspective, that scenario does not seem to be fair at all, yet that is the reality that has become a part of the law of this great American society. Additionally, should non-citizens be considered “enemy combatants” and be stripped of the right to habeas corpus, who’s to say that Congress would not take it a step further and pass another act that mandates any one considered an “enemy combatant,” citizen or not, could be stripped of the right to habeas corpus.
