now habeus corpus is gone, no exception for citizenship

[slithers]

it is possibly troubling that this story was hidden behind a picture link without explanation on an unrelated story on the google news site.A last-minute addition to a federal spending bill at the end of the last U.S. Congress now makes civilians eligible for military courts-martial

Comments

[b_phil]

Honestly, the article doesn't give enough information for me to figure out just what the scope of the law would be. It SOUNDS like, from the one quote they had in there, that it would apply primarily to people in a warzone, ie: where a military commander would generally have any authority over them to begin with. Otherwise, specifying "Civilian government employees and journalists" is a somewhat disjointed combination of people, akin to writing a law that applies to "Federal agents and pizza delivery boys".

That said, there's a world of difference between a reporter working directly with the military, such as an imbedded reporter traveling with a group of soldiers, and a reporter who is working in the country independent of the military. This article is just too brief to give any really useful information.

[slithers]

agree it is a very odd pairing. but all this policy moving to weaken habeus corpus and press freedoms (and even passively threatening lawyers who stand up for the rights of 'enemy combatants' as was shown by the recent statements by a pentagon secretary)... it's all so much bullshit. the important point though is that citizenship no longer offers the protections it should by all accounts hold (nevermind that such protections need not even rest on citizenship). being an embedded reporter should not revoke your right to challenge your detention. and what does civilian government employee mean, does that extend to blackwater's contract mercenary's or just to the food service guys? fuck my dad (and half the nation) works in some compactity for the government. when did a government contract mean throwing away everything and being subjected to a completely different and closed legal system?? someone in the amred forces knows that going in, but civilan workers should not be subjected to such crap, unless of course that are acting in a

[b_phil]

I just assumed that civilian government employees were civilians employed more or less direclty by the government, ie: working for a government agency (CIA, Defense Department) or working for a government owned corporation (AAFES, Amtrack, US Postal Service). Whether it includes things like security companies or freight hauling companies hired to play support roles is worth learning about though.

That said, having a blog doesn't on any level make you a journalist, any more than putting a publication out on the news stands or filming stuff with a Hi-8 camcorder makes you a journalist. What's important is doing actual journalism, which many bloggers quite often don't do. You don't have to work for CNN or the Associated Press, but there are basic expectations for backing up your claims and showing journalistic integrity that many folks who fancy themselves as journalists just don't meet.

[slithers]

while this is a side argument, there have indeed been court cases where someone gatheirng info for a blog post has been able to at least make the legal argument that they had the right to protect sources etc. saying that having a blog makes you a journalist seems to be a huge leap , but it really isn't in a lot of ways. (granted this is more in the form of editorials than objective material). ((shield law applications about sources for bloggers seem to vary case to case))

http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-journalists.php
http://www.microcontentnews.com/articles/bloggingjournalism.htm