Permit me to laugh at David Swanson

[MFrohike]

45. That section on 1031 is pretty funny

The argument against codification is blatantly dishonest. The law on the subject of detention is not settled, as even a casual observer should know. The only settled aspect of it is the unwillingness of the executive or legislature to follow the dictates of the constitution and carry out trials in the civilian courts. The military courts end-run runs counter to Civil War era jurisprudence, which expressly states that if the civilian courts are open and unimpeded, military courts are not an option. That's black letter law. I find it hard to believe that the Civil War and Reconstruction eras were somehow less dangerous a time than the present. However, that's what the political branches would have us believe in their rush for courts martial. Yes, I realize Obama made gestures toward the constitution in this regard, but he should have made it non-negotiable. Legitimizing the use of courts martial for criminal offenses not committed by persons subject to the UCMJ or clearly contemplated in advance makes the above worries about "the military patrolling our streets" just hilarious. They're not patrolling the streets, just the courtrooms. See, that makes it all ok!

The primary reason the executive doesn't want this authority codified is that it gives Congress a voice and sets limits on executive power. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact of government. All executives argue in favor of their own power. That is to be expected. It was anticipated by the Framers, which is part of the reason we have a divided government. Arguments to the contrary should be read as examples of naked executive interest, which requires balancing from the other two branches.

I could go on, especially about the hilarity of the danger of legal challenges, but it's late. I'm not concerned about indefinite detention of citizens, just the executive trying to extend its power in a very dubious arena.