[mrsmith]

"Note that this definition (much broader than previously-used definitions) contains NO exception for American citizens."

Much of this lying crap can be answered by looking at the floor debate:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s092706.html

Mr. WARNER."We expanded this definition of ``unlawful enemy combatant'' ... It is wrong to say that this provision captures any U.S. citizens. It does not. It is only directed at aliens--aliens, not U.S. citizens-- bomb-makers, wherever they are in the world; those who provide the money to carry out the terrorism, wherever they are--again, only aliens and those who are preparing and using so many false documents."

[Carry_Okie]

Much of this lying crap can be answered by looking at the floor debate:

Given the extent to which the the Federal Convention debate has been ignored in interpreting the Constitution, what makes you so bloody confident as to call this "lying crap"?

The distinction in the legislation between citizens and aliens is either explicit or it isn't. The distinction between persons apprehended and held without trial on US soil versus abroad should be equally explicit. If they aren't the law should be nixed or fixed. So please explain why relying upon floor debate to interpret of these provisions is sufficiently explicit.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

It isn't lying crap. If JPFO can interpret the law to include U.S. citizens, then so can some opportunistic politician or bureaucrat.