{ "id": "RL33688", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL33688", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 348263, "date": "2007-09-27", "retrieved": "2016-04-07T17:52:59.231029", "title": "The Military Commissions Act of 2006: Analysis of Procedural Rules and Comparison with Previous DOD Rules and the Uniform Code of Military Justice", "summary": "On November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Military Order (M.O.) pertaining to the detention, treatment, and trial of certain non-citizens in the war against terrorism. Military commissions pursuant to the M.O. began in November 2004 against four persons declared eligible for trial, but proceedings were suspended after a federal district court found that one of the defendants could not be tried under the rules established by the Department of Defense (DOD). The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision in Rumsfeld v. Hamdan, but the Supreme Court granted review and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. To permit military commissions to go forward, Congress approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), conferring authority to promulgate rules that depart from the strictures of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and possibly U.S. international obligations. DOD published regulations to govern military commissions pursuant to the MCA.\nThe Court of Military Commissions Review (CMCR), created by the MCA, issued its first decision on September 24, 2007, reversing a dismissal of charges based on lack of jurisdiction and ordering the military judge to determine whether the accused is an \u201cunlawful enemy combatant\u201d subject to the military commission\u2019s jurisdiction. The CMCR rejected the government\u2019s argument that the determination by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) that a detainee is an \u201cenemy combatant\u201d was a sufficient basis for jurisdiction, but also rejected the military judge\u2019s finding that the military commission was not empowered to make the appropriate determination.\nThis report provides a background and analysis comparing military commissions as envisioned under the MCA to the rules that had been established by DOD for military commissions and to general military courts-martial conducted under the UCMJ. After reviewing the history of the implementation of military commissions in the \u201cglobal war on terrorism,\u201d the report provides an overview of the procedural safeguards provided in the MCA. The report identifies pending legislation, including H.R. 267, H.R. 1585, H.R. 2543, H.R. 2826, S. 1547, S. 1548, H.R. 1416, S. 1876, S. 185, S. 576, S. 447, H.R. 1415 and H.R. 2710. Finally, the report provides two tables comparing the MCA with regulations that had been issued by the Department of Defense pursuant to the President\u2019s Military Order with standard procedures for general courts-martial under the Manual for Courts-Martial. The first table describes the composition and powers of the military tribunals, as well as their jurisdiction. The second chart, which compares procedural safeguards required by the MCA with those that had been incorporated in the DOD regulations and the established procedures in courts-martial, follows the same order and format used in CRS Report RL31262, Selected Procedural Safeguards in Federal, Military, and International Courts, by Jennifer K. Elsea, to facilitate comparison with safeguards provided in federal court and international criminal tribunals.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33688", "sha1": "5c8ec1cecbff4e8c66f5cd44188a365fa37c6074", "filename": "files/20070927_RL33688_5c8ec1cecbff4e8c66f5cd44188a365fa37c6074.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33688", "sha1": "3668fab28f3db0871b20f0df0c8e8fb4e9a65f99", "filename": "files/20070927_RL33688_3668fab28f3db0871b20f0df0c8e8fb4e9a65f99.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc821017/", "id": "RL33688_2007Jan26", "date": "2007-01-26", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "The Military Commissions Act of 2006: Analysis of Procedural Rules and Comparison with Previous DOD Rules and the Uniform Code of Military Justice", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20070126_RL33688_e23883b5a5e6521cbbba7723600a608a0aa87f43.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20070126_RL33688_e23883b5a5e6521cbbba7723600a608a0aa87f43.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc810506/", "id": "RL33688_2006Oct12", "date": "2006-10-12", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "The Military Commissions Act of 2006: Analysis of Procedural Rules and Comparison with Previous DOD Rules and the Uniform Code of Military Justice", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20061012_RL33688_aff98add6fb4a84b96e3878c58bf76156e3ff1a1.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20061012_RL33688_aff98add6fb4a84b96e3878c58bf76156e3ff1a1.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Health Policy", "Intelligence and National Security", "National Defense" ] }