General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I'm astonished so many DUers are cool with ending Habeas Corpus [View all]bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)First, section 1031 describes the conditions for the authorization of military force and detention in the current war against the Taliban and Al-qaeda. "Covered persons" are defined as those involved with the Taliban and Al-qaeda in war against the US, and are required to be held in military detention under military law (as opposed to the civilian justice system).
Exemptions are then listed in section 1032 - if a "covered person" is a US citizen or legal resident, then that person is detained under the civilian criminal justice system, and not the military.
Habeas corpus isn't referred to, because it doesn't come into play at all. Military detention for non-citizen combatants comes under the usual "law of war", which hold to the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war, and has a variety of protections and provisions for recourse. Some of that is detailed in section 1036. As far as the civilian courts, habeas corpus is inherent, and I don't think it has been under any threat or question since the bush era.