[Congressman Billybob]

The sad thing about this article is it is written by a professor of law at my alma mater, and is almost right but ultimately, hopelessly wrong. The good professor makes a passing reference to a "World War II case," but dismisses its relevance.

That case, as FReepers know from my posts and from my UPI article, is In Re Quirin, 1942. In it, the Court ruled unanimously (8-0) that even an American citizen, Bruno Haupt who was born in Chicago, became an "illegal combantant" when he entered the US from a German submarine along with seven others, with plans, cash and materials to bomb various facilities. Until the Court reverses the Quirin decision, the indefinite detention of Padilla is in accord with the Constitution, with the Military Code of the US, and with the international "law of war."

Padilla should count himself lucky that he has not yet been charged and tried for "acts of war" against the United States. The eight German saboteurs were so charged, so convicted, and six of them were executed.

The professor dismisses the controlling authority of Quirin by saying that "Congress has not declared war." He has not done his homework. Contained in the Anti-Terrorism Act passed on 18 September, 2001, was a Joint Resolution that began in the Senate. That Resolution authorized the President to "use all necessary measures" to respond to 9/11, and granted him that authority under the "War Powers Act." It was not as tidy as a stand-alone document with the title, "Declaration of War." (Congressman Barr and six colleagues introduced a clean Joint Resolution to do exactly that. Theirs was tabled in favor of the Senate version.) But legally and constitutionally, it accomplished the same result.

It is sad to see people who ought to know what they are talking about, putting out discussions for the public that are fatally defective. In light of other FReepers' comments about this gentleman, I will put his instance down to incompetence, rather than bias.

Congressman Billybob

Click for: "Speaking without Talking -- Hearing without Listening."

[Dan(9698)]

As to what the "acts of war" are --- He came to do "recon" -- that is another name for "spying".

Spies are "unlawful combatants" -- They may be summarily hung.

The professor needs to read that "WWII case" he dismisses.

[William Tell]

Congressman Billybob said: "Padilla should count himself lucky that he has not yet been charged and tried for "acts of war" against the United States. "

Please explain how this would differ from treason and how Padilla would then be denied the Constitutional protections specifically addressing charges of treason.

[William Tell]

Congressman Billybob said: 'That Resolution authorized the President to "use all necessary measures" to respond to 9/11, and granted him that authority under the "War Powers Act." It was not as tidy as a stand-alone document with the title, "Declaration of War." '

The portions of the War Powers Act which I have read leads me to believe that it explicitly enumerates a situation in which power to act will be granted by resolution and that it is different from a Declaration of War. Are you of the opinion that any resolution regarding War Powers is a Declaration of War? A resolution withdrawing the authority to act would certainly not be a Declaration of War, but perhaps a Declaration of Peace.