that I might change my mind about how "dangerous" it is. But add
another one, I might also change your mind (if you mind is open to
being changed) about how dangerous it is as well if we both go into the
substance of it together - are you up for that?

The debates
around the legislation tell us something about the states of mind of
the representatives that passed the legislation. I recall that Arlin
Spectre, a Republican, was quite adamant that the Constitution was
explicit that hebeas corpus not be suspended except in particular
circumstances - circumstances that have not in fact arisen. I recall
that the Military Commissions Act was not the first attempt to find a
legal solution to a new problem (terrorism etc) but a reaction after
the courts had said that the Bush admininstration had gone to far.

Whether
habeas corpus has been removed, in fact, rather than in allegation will
depend on what the legislation actually says - I do grant you
that. Are you up for going into the legislation - or will
you disappear without conceeding anything when I make the effort to
show you you are wrong with specific quotes etc?

I can't take Islamo-fascism seriously as a term because I literally
don't know what you are talking about - I'm not a religious person - I
take religious extremism seriously including christian extremism, and I
take fascism seriously, but associate it with governments.

"The issue in habeas corpus comes down to proof and evidence."

Okay,
I am talking from just general knowledge now not from sources, but
actually, I think habeaus corpus comes down to something even more
fundamental than proof and evidence. There are standards of proof -
"beyond a reasonable doubt"/"on the balance of probabilities" that are
used in different circumstances (criminal/civil) and there are rules of
evidence that sensible legal systems require in order to make the
systems work. But habeus corpus comes out of English law for around the
15th century when Barons were wrestling with the power of the King and
didn't want to be just disappeared from the face of the Earth without
getting a chance to be seen alive again or to have a chance to put any
sort of appeal or defence on their own behalf to anyone. As I
understand it habeas corpus comes down to "produce the body". Because
if you don't have the legal right to be shown before a court of law,
you don't have any rights at law that a sovereign can't take from you
at his whim. Not even the basic right to correct the perhaps honest
error of having been detained by pure case of mistaken identity.
Without habeas corpus an all powerful monarch might throw you in jail
or kill you on mere suspicion that you might be the person that might
have been plotting against him - even if you weren't either plotting or
the person. Habeas corpus corrals that one right away from the
sovereign. And good sense seems to demand that if a people are to be
free at all they need to be free to present themselves to an
independent third party not under the power of the soverign - such as
say the courts.

"Under any system of law, states can’t detain individuals without proper
cause. The question is what counts as proper. You need a standard."

The question also (and more fundamentally is) is the
sovereign to be denied the power to detain, torture and disappear at
his potentially erroneous whim or is there to be a separation of
judicial from executive power that is at least strong enough to allow
an accused by the sovereign or his delegate to get to appear alive and
still able to say - hey I'm mistakenly detained, to a impartial third
party.

But yes, you do need a standard for detaining with
cause. You also need for even the sovereign (or the President even) to
have to reasonably show some cause for the detaining.

"Current law has two standards; you’re either a criminal or a soldier.

By current law do you mean US law, international law (UN Charter, Geneva Conventions etc) or both?

• We can’t treat terrorists as criminals, because
  that would mean we’d have to gather evidence against them in places
  over which we have no jurisdiction. After all, if we suspect a
  terrorist in Pakistan, by what legal authority could we subpoena
  potential witnesses? Would you allow Serbian police to subpoena
  Australians? Of course not.

If country X has a treaty with county Y then an international legal
basis either exists or could be made to exists given time. The UN
Charter is a hub of multinational international law - any treaty
between country X and Y properly made and registered under the UN which
is headquartered in the US could have the force of both US law (if the
US was a party, and the US doesn't allow the President to cut out the
SCOTUS) and UN law behind it.

IF Australia had a treaty with
Serbia that allowed Serbia to subpoena Australians - that would mean
that Australia respected Serbia enough to have formed a treaty with it,
and yes I would allow it. IF.

• 
  But terrorists don’t belong to recognized states, either, and therefore we can’t prove they belong to a military.

A detainee under the Geneva Convention is required to give name,
rank and serial number and if they are wearing the uniform of a
national army they are clearly off that nation. The US has only to ask
and perhaps search a detainee what his nationality is to classify him
either by his passport or his word checked with his claimed country of
nationality to determine he is either of that country or has
nationality unknown (this might arise in the case of a spy). Then
you have a different set of procedures for handling a detainee that's
nationality can be determined - and that can be appropriately strict
and cautionary especially if that detainee is in the United States say.

A person (including an actual or
presumed terrorist) does belong to a recognised state if the US/UN
recognizes their claimed state and they can be matched to it as above.
If they are stateless and the US has them, then they are whatever
protections and obligations US law requires and affords them at a
minimum. The US law should (I argue) at a minimum give them habeas
corpus because they are human beings and the sovereign (the President
or his delegates) might make mistakes genuine or otherwise in picking
them up.

"What are we supposed to do? Give up? Should we chuckle and compliment
the terrorists for being clever enough to exploit the loopholes?
Obviously, we need a different category."

9-11, in my opinion, fairly illustrates at least the possibility of a new category - I accept that.

"That’s what that “unlawful enemy combatant” thing is all about."

I
have reservations about the word all. I accept that that may be what
the new category is partly about. I am not sure that it is not ALSO
about a broader philsophy of a unitary executive president that is able
to operate outside of the SCOTUS with respect to how foreigners are
dealt with. I think there are some Americans that don't want the
President of the United States to have to conceed even habeus corpus to
the humanity of foreigners. (These Americans could include Americans
with an interest in the commercial exploitation of foreigners and their
assets.)

"Bush and the Pentagon created military tribunals as a way to address
the loophole. Unfortunately, neither the international community nor
the ABA nor the Supreme Court has accepted that. That’s to be expected,
because you don’t just make up laws on your own. You need a process of
review and ratification before the law becomes binding."

I
say as a foreigner and "an alien", that that was fortunate not
unfortunate. I am glad you seem to think that even the President (the
executive branch) should not be allowed to make up laws on his own. I
am pleased that you personally agree that a process of review and
ratification is needed to make the law binding.

"But just because the collective legal community hasn’t come to an
agreement on how to treat terrorists, do you really expect Bush to sit
and wait?"

I did not expect Bush to sit and wait no.

9-11 required the American President to respond because the
President has a duty to the people of the United States. As President
Bush had to respond to the new threat of sophisticated terrorism and I
have said that I agreed essentially with the invasion of Afghanistan in
hot pursuit of the terrorist training bases.

I did expect
the President of the United States would uphold the law and not use
9-11 as a part of a pretext to invade Iraq against UN resolution 1441.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

"Should we allow terrorists to continue to exploit loopholes and leave ourselves exposed … while we wait for lawyers to agree with each other? No way."

We?
The world doesn't divide into US citizens and terrorists - most of the
population like me are in neither category. And we are entitled to
expect that Americans will not break treaties that we derive benefits
from.

More Americans have died in Iraq than died on 9-11.
Tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. Iraq has increased
not decreased the likelihood of terrorism against the United States. Al
quaida is in Iraq now when it wasn't before. Australians like me are at
more danger from terrorism than we were before Bush gave the order to
invade Iraq with John Howard and Tony Blair supporting him. Add to that
the suspension of habeas corpus for foreigners that Bush (and future
Presidents or their delegates) deems unlawful enemy combatants and we
non-American, non-terrorists have another threat, the threat to our
lives and our liberty.

By saying "no way" you are accepting no
additional risk to you whilst at the same time transferring increased
risks to me! Little wonder anti-American sentiment is rising around the
world ! Its like you guys got hit once in a barroom and you've decided
that you have a right to hit back at everyone else in the barroom
including other patrons that just happened to be there minding their
own business just as you were.

"Bush has plainly said that he’s not going to endanger Americans. If the
lawyers and the Democrats want to scream at Bush for choosing safe than
sorry, Bush has chosen safety."

I
am talking to you not to Bush. But as a matter of fact as I said more
Americans have died in Iraq than on 9-11. Al quaida is now in Iraq when
it wasn't before. I understand the CIA has reported that the threat of
terrorism is greater now than before the invasion of Iraq.

Bush
has not chosen safety for people who are non-American, non-terrorists
like me. He has objectively harmed our interests and we did nothing to
deserve that!

"Now, predictably, the Democrats saw a chance to make hysterical
accusations of fascism, and for partisan purposes they started
shrieking about Bush having dictatorial power. That’s ridiculous, so
let’s ridicule it, shall we?"

I
am not a Democrat. If as a result of the Military Commissions Act I as
a foreigner have no habeas corpus right in the United States now unless
Bush or his delegates permit me it, when I did before, then Bush has
acquired an additional dictatorial power.

The TREND is
certainly towards rather than away from dictatorial power. Bush is not
yet a dictator. But his successor that may wish to be will inherent any
powers and precedents not repudiated.

"given the choice between an unworkable legal straitjacket and restricting habeas corpus, Bush has chosen the latter."

There are other possible choices as I suggest above. It isn't necessary to remove habeas corpus.

I am talking to you. Can't you see that the choices are wider than (a) unworkable legal straightjacket and

(b) restricting habeas corpus at the President and his delegates discretion.

Can't
you see that the US courts can be trusted to provide a safety check on
Presidential overreaching without thwarting the need to detain possible
terrorists ? Can't you see that that is a reasonable concession
to make to non-American, non-terrorists, that might, be mistaken for
terrorists or in future under future Presidents might be misrepresented
as being terrorists because they are political enemies or because a
future President or his supporters wants that person out of the way
perhaps to get their assets?

"As far as Iran and Sudan are concerned, that’s the logic behind Bush’s
doctrine that if you harbor or support terrorists, you’re as liable as
they are. The fact is, we have plenty of evidence that these states
support terrorists. So why don’t we attack them? Well, you can’t attack
everyone..."

Some people in the world regard a US President that can detain them mistakenly as terrifying.

Indeed
the US can't attack everyone. Everytime the US attacks when it should
not it runs the risks of creating terrorists - creating people with
strong anti-American feeling (rightly) who have no recourse to US law,
and so have no other choice but to pursue politics through force.
Terrorism is a political act.

If the US was behaving like
a responsible member of the global community it would have more allies
standing beside it and could take on terrorism more effectively - but
Bush blew that opportunity with Iraq and American will not in my
opinion get it back unless Bush is impeached and repudiated or until an
unapologetic exceptionist America is eventually defeated by increasing
numbers of antagonists (nations and individuals) created by its
self-destructive foreign policy.

"while our attack against the Taliban went well, the attack against Iraq
hasn’t gone so great. We’re not omnipotent. We don’t have unlimited
resources."

I agree, obviously.

"You do what you can, when you can, realistically. And if we can negate these enemies without open warfare, so much the better."

I
think you underestimate the strength of anti-American sentiment around
the world. Whilst America walks its talk and upholds its values it has
friends. When America breaks its word on treaties and behaves baddly it
makes enemies and alienates friends. There is absolutely no chance of
America winning a war on terror because a war on terror can't be won.
The problem has to be restated in realistic and operational terms not
terms that produce unending war.

I think you
as a citizen should recognize that enemies can be domestic ones as
well. It is possible for a President to be an enemy of the country and
the founding fathers knew that and placed impeachment in the
constitution as a remedy. Congressional representatives take an oath to
support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND
DOMESTIC.

"You wouldn't want to mock the US for not going to war, would you?"

No. I am not a pasifist. Because violence is always
a route open to other countries and other people it behoves us to be
ready to meet that threat. Peace is won not by pasifists but by those
with a recognition of the need to fight sometimes and the recognition
that more is to be gained from cooperation than from conflict.

Never
in my life prior to the Bush Presidency did I consider that I might one
day find myself in conflict with Americans fighting under the authority
of their government.

You posted a thoughtful reply to my
post and I have responded with a long reply but you did not really
answer the question I asked you at the end of my previous post.