[dixierat22]

You refute your own argument:

9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.
(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

We are not engaged in a Constititutionally legal war. Congress must declare war, the President may not. Unless he has suspended the US Constitution while we weren't looking. If so, that puts us in a totally different situation.

While I don't think GWB will use the tribunals against US citizens, I think the possibility of a future POTUS doing so ('legally' or not) should be enough to cause all of us to raise he!! about GWB doing it. It's another step towards tyranny. Once there, it's a long and bloody road back.

[capitan_refugio]

You are parsing the term "war." I agree with you that Congress should have declared war outright, but given that we are fighting crimial organizations and unrecognized governments, a declaration of war against another sovereign state may not have been possible.

Then too, are you trying to tell me that there were no "prisoners of war" in Korea or Vietnam?? Korea was authorized by a UN vote as a "police action" and Vietnam was related to SEATO treaty responsibilitites and the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution."

I think a legalistic definition of the term "war" will not mean too much when a laser-guided bomb is headed toward your bunker. You will be just as dead.