Hoo-boy, not another one. An effective teaching method is to have a student find out where he's wrong by asking him questions, so he can resolve his mistake.
Let's start: why did the Founding Fathers think it was a good idea for Congress to "declare war", instead of the President?
On the "Declaration of War" issue, the Congress passed a resolution for the President to use all necessary means including military force under the "War Powers Act," on 18 September, 2001. It was included in the Anti-Terrorism Act that passed that day, with only one dissenting vote.
As a firm supporter of the Constitution I agree that a clearer action should have been taken. Rep. Bob Barr and six other members of the House had introduced a separate resolution that was a "Declaration of War." That resolution was tabled, and the other one, which came from the Senate, was used.
Of course, as the Constitution says, a declaration of war requires only Congressional action. They do not require any signature by the President, and cannot be vetoed by him. However, from a legal standpoint, there is no impediment to including this -- as passed by Congress -- within the text of a law, which was then signed by the President.
In short, what was done was a little sloppy, but under the Constitution we are now in a state of declared war. The press hasn't made much of this, but it is there in the official language of 18 September, 2001.
The relevance of that issue to this most interesting thread is it affects the charges, trial, and conditions on this defendant if -- and only if -- the charges get broader than rape of a child. That charge is, of course, a Florida crime only, subject to the usual Florida provisions for a criminal trial.
Congressman Billybob