The point is that the resolution did not include American Citizens arrested on US Soil nor did it include foreign nationals arrested on US Soil. It maintained the procedure as outlined in the 1950 ruling in Johnson v. Eisentrager again which holds that enemy aliens who have not entered the United States are not entitled to access to our courts and will be tried by a Military Tribunal. The President did the same. Congress’s Declaration of War during WWII, provided for such cases. As In Quirin the Bench held that the Tribunals were lawfully constituted. That petitioners were held in lawful custody, for trial before the military commission. In this case unless you can show me where Congress provided for such legal authority on US Soil, one does not exist. A point you seem to be stuck on. The President cannot unilaterally make these judicial rulings. What the President seems to have done is mask the scary thought of suspending habeas corpus in these cases and one can even make the argument that in certain cases declared Martial Law. Again before you can cite the Law of War, a lawfully construed military tribunal has to be convened to judicate over it. It has been done only for foreign nationals not on US Soil and also not US Citizens arrested on US Soil. What legal authority is judicating over the Law of war right now? What are the bounds of the authority? If this were not fact then the use of GITMO would not be necessary.
I believe that a military tribunal should try any persons foreign or domestic under the present circumstance. I believe at most Americans will understand this as they did during WWII. Lets stop being so PC and subverting the Constitution.
For the last time, by authorizing "military force" the congress has unarguably authorized the capture of combatants.
That's just the facts: "military force" includes captures.
It authorizes military force against "anyone..."- that's the plain language of the act, and there is no indication that congress intended to exempt actions, or combatants on US soil.
In fact congress specifically states in the resolution that it's intent is "to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad".
As we all know it was attacks on US soil that precipated the resolution and the great reasonable desire we, and our congress, all had for the military to protect us from such attacks. It is beyond absurd to claim the authority does not extend to US soil!