Replies

Congress has had plenty of time since the sneak attack to issue a declaration of war against another country.

Twist the facts as you might, you simply cannot make the case that a SCOTUS ruling against the President on this issue would prevent our forces from taking POWs on the battlefield in war.

Congress is not limited to authorizing war against countries. It is, in fact, authorized by the people through the Constitution to "declare war".

Article I, Section 8 says:

"Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions............"

There's a lot of stuff there. Now, notice Clause 15 very closely. It doesn't even say "repel Invasions by other countries", just "repel Invasions".

Amazing!!!!!! I gotta' tell ya', it's simply amazing what the Founders could figure out so long ago.

Twist the facts as you might, you simply cannot make the case that a SCOTUS ruling against the President on this issue would prevent our forces from taking POWs on the battlefield in war.

The word "prevent" was not use until your post!

Southhack merely made the statement that IF SCOTUS rules that these so called "combatants" have "rights" under the consititution - even when fighting AGAINST us, that the military would likely cease taking prisoner's and instead make use of the "illegal" combatants clauses of the Geneva Conventions - namely outright execution on the battlefield.