[mrsmith]

"Ok, lets take her for example. Say some group aggravates her. The NRA might, but they're too big to all throw in jail. Say she wants to pick on the Tyranny Response Team. They're small, unknowns with less resources so they'll do just fine.

She points her fat finger at them and says they're a bunch of terrorists. She has them rounded up in the middle of the night as domestic terrorists and traitors. The ones that live through the raid are jailed. "

Your example points out just what is wrong with this ruling.
The congress authorized military force against the Al Queda, under it's war power.

Padilla, unlike your example, is (allegedly) subject to military law by act of congress.

The court cravenly did not answer the important question that was before it- how a court should determine whether a citizen is properly held as a renegade- instead it bizarrely pretended that miltary force does not include military detention.

[tcuoohjohn]

Ah...Federal Felony Renegade

Just where in 18 USC would I find that?

[jwalsh07]

The court cravenly did not answer the important question that was before it- how a court should determine whether a citizen is properly held as a renegade- instead it bizarrely pretended that miltary force does not include military detention

There may be 3 or 4 people on this thread who understand that.

[Lazamataz]

instead it bizarrely pretended that miltary force does not include military detention.

Authorising multary force by Congress certainly does not allow the US military or it's assigns to round up American citizens.

The court was correct in it's ruling.

Posse Comatitus might apply here.