Replies

"The actual text is" "...authorize the use of United States Armed Forces ...the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons""

The use of "FORCE" means ARMED FORCE......Were there any articles or provisions? Was the war powers act enabled? This was a resolution not a "Declaration of War" Did it place all resources at the disposal of the President? If it was this simple there would be NO arguement. But it's not this simple and if it were the White House would have responded by such. It has never done such.

"The Government then without due process or legal authority changed his status to a unlawful combatant ...Did it place all resources at the disposal of the President? "

"all resources "?????
Again you avoid the issue at hand- if it authorizes captures and detentions by the military.

Did the resolution "authorize the use of United States Armed Forces ..against those ... persons he determines..."
Does the "use of use of United States Armed Forces" include captures and detentions?
Again, if you do not think so say why it doesn't.

Do you truly claim that people in jail are Constitutionally immune from capture?

The totality of Padilla's Constitutional complaint is that his habeas corpus petition has been delayed by a month- I'll grant him that- but that's hardly a significant denial of his rights considering the circumstances.