Military Commission Act of 2006

Military Commission Act 2006 was passed by the U.S. government to provide the law enforces additional powers and certain immunities while dealing with terrorists. However, this law has drawn severe criticism as well as a fair share of support from various sections of the society. The main argument against the law is that it has the potential for the government to suspend the right of habeas corpus for non-citizens which includes legal permanent residents who are in the U.S. custody. The president of the United States or the law enforcement agencies have gained the right to detain anyone in the U.S. - including U.S. citizens, and not assign any charge against them. This power has been awarded the designation of such individuals as enemy combatants or enemy combatants who are unlawful. The law also allows the president to decide what would constitute torture. Evidence that is obtained by coercion and the use of hearsay are also authorized by the law. For those law enforcement officials of the U.S. military and the intelligence agencies who resort to these tactics, the law provides them retroactive immunity from abuses that had occurred at detention sites like Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram and the secret CIA facilities.

The arguments against the law are definitely led by the suspension of the right of non-citizens every opportunity to challenge the legality of their detention. Critics against this clause in the law argue that this provision is in direct violation of the 6th Amendment of the constitution of U.S. which allows an accused access in summary to classified evidence. Critics also argue that the law violates the 4th Amendment by allowing law enforcers to obtain evidence by coercion or without any valid warrant or without a probable cause. Critics also argue that the humanitarian law protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions are also violated.

The arguments of the critics of the law often sound very convincing, especially when talking about the suspension of habeas corpus and the right to brand anyone as "enemy combatants" or as "unlawful enemy combatants." Even U.S. citizens can be branded such if the law enforcers feel that the individual has "materially supported" hostilities against the U.S., for example, this clause would allow an American citizen who donates money to charity in Afghanistan and that money somehow turns up in the hands of the Taliban fighting against the U.S. forces there, can be immediately identified as "unlawful enemy combatants." "

Many of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Gitmo are charged with having terrorist links in one way or the other. This law essentially would validate the holding of such detainees without charge and takes away the right of the detainees to file a case in the court of law in the U.S. to check on the validity of their detention or arrest. Since the definition of torture would be subjective and at the discretion of the President under this law, therefore the use of force and torture of these detainees on the pretext of extracting information from them can now become legal. Therefore, many argue that such detainees would lose all their rights as a human being under this law.