I can't wait.

And, to think, this is the guy Cheney told: "Go f' yourself." on the Senate floor.  I wonder whether Deadeye ever realized his own mouth  might turn around to bite him in the behind.  Arrogance.

I'd love to see some hearings starring DoD G.C. Haymes, he of the pending 4th Cir. nomination, and of Peter Kiesler, he of the losing side in Hamdan and 2 weeks after that loss nomination to the D.C. Cir.

Extended hearings.

Discussing what was said when they, and Gonzo, and Yoo, and Addington went down to Gitmo.  And the legal reasoning supporting their claims.

This is wrong. It is unconstitutional.  It is un-American.  It is designed to ensure that the Bush-Cheney Administration will never again be embarrassed by a United States Supreme Court decision reviewing its unlawful abuses of power.
...
This bill gives up the ghost.  This bill is not a check on the Administration but a voucher for future wrongdoing.
...
Abolishing habeas corpus for anyone who the Government thinks might have assisted enemies of the United States is unnecessary and morally wrong.  It is a betrayal of the most basic values of freedom for which America stands.  It makes a mockery of the Bush-Cheney Administration's lofty rhetoric about exporting freedom across the globe.

It would also be nice if the appeals court rules it unconstitutional this year too. Hit it with both barrels.

One more time, I'll repost my "US Habeas Corpus for Dummies" comment (with updates!) just for the "slow learners" among us.  (I ::heart:: Edger.)

The Article I restriction only applies to Congressional acts. For quite some time, this section was only applied to those prisoners in federal (that is, Executive) custody. Even at the federal level, there were two exceptions: "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." The right for state prisoners to apply for habeas corpus in federal courts was created by statute (now codified as 28 USC 2241).

During the Civil War President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for certain regions when he felt it necessary to take quick action. The Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Milligan that the suspension of habeas corpus was constitutional because the civilian courts had been forced closed. The Court noted that only when such was the case could a suspension of habeas corpus by the Executive in wartime be constitutional. It also noted that even when habeas had been properly suspended, subjecting citizens to military tribunals could not be done without the approval of Congress.

In short, suspension of habeas corpus merely means a prisoner can be held, it does not mean the prisoner can be tried by some other ad hoc proceeding (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a recent Supreme Court case upheld the general principle applied in Milligan that the right of citizens to habeas corpus cannot be removed).

After World War II the Court again was asked to consider habeas corpus, only this time the question was what right non-citizens being held in military detention had to invoke habeas. In Ex parte Quirin the Court ruled that Germans being held as unlawful combatants (as contrasted to legitimate POWs) had no right to invoke habeas corpus and were subject to military tribunals.

The ruling was based on the notion that Congress had authorized Executive action with regard to unlawful combatants.

Moreover, the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager ruled specifically on the topic of habeas corpus that military prisoners are not "constitutionally entitled to the writ" where "(a) he is an enemy alien; (b) has never been or resided in the United States; (c) was captured outside of our territory and there held in military custody as a prisoner of war; (d) was tried and convicted by a Military Commission sitting outside the United States; (e) for offenses against laws of war committed outside the United States; (f) and is at all times imprisoned outside the United States."

Which brings us to the War on Terror. There has been, as yet, no extension of habeas to alien enemy comabatants, even under the two anti-Administration cases Hamdi and Hamdan.

At most, Hamdi required that citizen -detainees (and presumably alien-detainees, but that's just dicta) have a 5th Amendment due process right to a "meaningful hearing" reviewing their status. The Court, through O'Connor, noted that the hearing could take the form of a military proceeding. From this the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were created.

Hamdan actually addressed the rules under which alien enemy combatants would be tried. The Bush Administration attempted to follow the Quirin precedent by issuing an Executive Order establishing military tribunals for alien unlawful combatants. The administration believed it had received sufficient authorization from Congress and the executive's Article II power.

However, the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that Congress would have to specifically address the question of military tribunals for alien unlawful combatants. (Again, note that POWs are handled differently.)

And that's why Congress just passed the MCA. It applies to alien enemy combatants. It makes explicit the rule that has been consistently followed since the founding: aliens do not get habeas corpus.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 -- The Bush administration's successful effort to have Congress eliminate the right of Guantánamo prisoners to challenge their detentions before federal judges is now moving toward what may be an epic battle in the courts.
...
That court has been considering for three years whether the hundreds of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have the right of habeas corpus -- that is, the ability to ask a federal judge to review the reasons for their detention.

But the law passed by Congress last month eliminating the habeas right supersedes almost all of the arguments that have gone before and is now the focus of the legal confrontation, government and civil liberties lawyers agree.

In a ruling last June, the Supreme Court had said that an earlier measure did not eliminate habeas lawsuits that were already in the courts. However, in October, the administration used more explicit language, saying the new law retroactively blocked federal courts from entertaining habeas lawsuits by Guantánamo detainees.
...
Whatever resolution is reached [...] -- it will almost certainly end up before the Supreme Court. A decision could come from the appeals court before the end of the year.

there has been no invasion, by a foreign army, nor is the country in either a state of rebellion or war.

further, as a signatore to the geneva conventions, we're obligated to provide a qualified forum, for those arguing their status as "enemy combatants". this has yet to be accomplished, intentionally, by the bush administration. this would hold true, regardless of where we're warehousing them.

as a practical matter, "enemy combatants" are almost always going to be aliens. that's why the geneva conventions exist, to provide a formal framework to handle them. of course, we know what the current administration thinks of the geneva conventions.

further, you assume, wrongly, that only aliens are being held incommunicado, and only aliens fall under the prez's desire to remove any ability of them to demand a hearing, before a judge.  

as i read it, it can apply to anyone, anywhere, regardless of citizen status. that's one of the inherent dangers of an imperial presidency: the king is above the law.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

draws no distinction between citizens and non-citizens. further, it fails to limit the privilege of the writ to a specific geographic location, ie: solely those held in the confines of the continental united states or its territories.

based solely on a reading of the plain language of the statute, any reasonable person would be forced to conclude that, in the absence of rebellion or invasion, neither the executive, legislative or judicial branches of government have the lawful authority to suspend habeas corpus.

since there is no rebellion, we've not been invaded, and congress hasn't voted a formal declaration of war, any legislation attempting to suppress habeas corpus is illegal on its face.