Michael over at Pundit Nation has been talking about this issue for the last week, and I've been dropping comments occasionally.  I figured it was worthwhile bringing it forward on my blog here, just to make myself very clear.  First of all, he's been talking about the Military Commission Act of 2006.  The claim is that it applies to both citizens and non-citizens alike.  This claim is clearly false.  While the definition of Unlawful Enemy Combatant is overly broad:

(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

The usage of Unlawful Enemy Combatant in the remainder of the bill is always tied with the term Alien:

The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

So clearly, this act means that only non-citizen unlawful enemy combatants may be tried using military tribunals.  While I do have some issues with the determination of who is and who is not an unlawful enemy combatant, on the whole, I do not find the idea of military tribunals for terrorist to be wrong.  It merely takes into the account the reality that this enemy doesn't wear a uniform while they fight us.

With all that said, the act modifies the rules of Habeas Corpus as it applies to alien unlawful enemy combatants:

(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.''.

This I have a problem with.  Essentially what this allows the government to do is to take someone into custody that they believe to be an alien, and hold them without a hearing.  This is bad.  What if the government takes the wrong person into custody, and that mistaken detainee is a citizen?  A person... any person... who is detained within the jurisdiction of the civilian government of the United States of America should always have the right to challenge that determination before a neutral party.  This is necessary, if for no other reason than to allow a person to stand before a judge and say, I'm not the person they say I am, and here is my identification to prove it.  Those are Constitutionally guaranteed rights... period.  Those rights are so important, that we must assume that anyone taken into custody is a citizen with those rights, until the government has proven otherwise to a judge.  The framework of the courts, and the Constitution, has always made the assumption that the government is wrong until they prove otherwise!  That is the whole point of habeas corpus.

To provide a loophole, where the government can simply say they thought a person was alien, and allow them to not prove it before a judge, is disastrous.