[jwalsh07]

A most important point that the court makes is that the Non-Detention Act was non-existent during Quirin, yet nevertheless the President had Congressional authorization for the ww2 citizen detentions.

4001(a) post dates Quirin but the Joint Resolution post dates both and pesumably Congress considered that prior to the resolution.

Surely the language in the resolution referring to "all necessary and appropriate force" includes detention.

But even more to the point, Congress has had 18 months to reconsider and amend the reolution and has not done so. Evidently they are satisfied that President Bush is executing the war on terror within the parameters they set forth. <

[Torie]

I have not read the decision, and am just spamming here really. But if this case is purely statutory, then it is not particularly interesting. It will be dealt with, without much fuss. But there are Constitutional issues lurking out there, when it comes to perpetual wars. Trust me.

[Sandy]

Surely the language in the resolution referring to "all necessary and appropriate force" includes detention.

Well, I guess it doesn't.

Evidently [Congress is] satisfied that President Bush is executing the war on terror within the parameters they set forth.

If that's the case, they shouldn't have any problem passing specific legislation allowing Padilla-like citizen detentions. Personally, I don't think that's too much to ask. I like checks and balances.