Talk:Detainee Treatment Act

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition A 2005 Congressional act specifying explicit standards for prisoners in the custody of the U.S. military [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Law, Military and Politics [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

move to talk page...

Cheney's comments are moot, since the Obama administration has rejected the argument that extended interrogation is permissible.(missed earlier signing) Howard C. Berkowitz


This covers current and changing issues and has not been kept up to date. Please see,2563.0.html. The same concern is expressed for multiple issues and is a matter of policy. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The introduction and early discussion needs to say what the Act says, not what politicians or lawyers said about it, how it's been tested, etc. Start by answering the question of what the subject is. Howard C. Berkowitz 06:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fact checking; moved out a good deal of material that is not specific to this topic; to be moved or deleted

Since the requested checks and edits have not been made, I reviewed the language of the Act, as well as some of the stories about it. Substantial errors were corrected.

  1. The Act never refers to war on terror. It prescribes limits on interrogation techniques for all prisoners in U.S. military custody at all locations.
  2. It is specific to Guantanamo only with respect to restricting petitions that can be filed; it does not address petitions from detainees at other locations
  3. The quoted New York Times article never refers to habeas corpus, but does talk about concerns in making intelligence information public.

Removed section ==The DTA and the Military Commissions Act of 2006== because the discussion is not on the subject of the article, but properly in the articles Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Military Commissions Act

One of the habeas corpus petitions that continued to proceed after the passage of the DTA was Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Executive Branch lacked the constitutional authority to authorize military commissions. It ruled that this authority lay with Congress.
Subsequently, in the fall of 2006, the United States Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). The MCA authorized Military Commissions very similar to those set up by the Presidency. It also specified that all the captive's outstanding habeas corpus petitions would be stayed.

Removed section ==Appeals in Federal court== because the discussion, in that section, deals with the specific case of Huzaifa Parhat, without proper framework of the relevant Supreme Court decisions since the DTA was passed, as well as additional legislation.

On June 23, 2008, it was announced that a three judge Federal court of appeal had overturned the determination of Huzaifa Parhat's Combatant Status Review Tribunal on Friday June 20 2008.<ref name=Wapo20080623> {{cite news | url= | title=Appeals court rules for Guantanamo prisoner | publisher=[[Washington Post]] | author=James Vicini | date=2008-06-23 | accessdate=2008-06-23 }} [ mirror] </ref>
Parhat's was the first case to ruled on since the Supreme Court's ruling in Boumediene v. Bush.
However, the appeals court's ruling was under the section of the Detainee Treatment Act that allowed captives to challenge their Combatant Status Review Tribunal's determination that they were "enemy combatants" -- not due to the Supreme Court's restoration of their right to mount habeas corpus petitions.
The Los Angeles Times quoted comments on the ruling from David Cole, the author of two books on military law:
"Now all of these cases have been revived and this is the first case to move forward. And here is somebody that the military has been holding on to for six years and the federal court now says he shouldn't have been held in the first place. "Absent this independent judicial review, he might have been sitting there for another 10 to 15 years. Now he has a chance to find freedom.<ref name=LosAngelesTimes20080624> {{cite news | url=,0,6727416.story | title=Court rules for Guantanamo inmate | publisher=Los Angeles Times | author=Josh Meyer | date=2008-06-24 }} [ mirror] </ref>