What part of this am I not getting across to you? The central focus of this issue is not just that the Military now has custody illegally of a US Citizen. That is just one point of contention. The focus is that a US Citizen ARRESTED NOT CAPTURED on US Soil by a US Federal Law Enforcement Agency, not the US Military, read M-I-R-A-N-D-A imprisoned, then had his status changed by the Executive Branch citing only EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) not any Congressional Authority, including the motion to quash the habeas corpus petition, all while and currently being denied the due rights provisions as provided for by M-I-R-A-N-D-A, and the US Constitution.
There are two Central themes.
(a) One of substantive due process and the excessive violation of such on a United States Citizen, and
(b) Executive authority to change the status, detain, capture and try Americans captured, detained or arrested on US Soil without charge by a Military Tribunal.
Show me where either the Congress has suspended this clause on any US Citizen? Show me where the Congress and even the Executive Branch has given the authority to try, detain or even capture Americans on US Soil by the militay with or without charge in this case?
Explain how A US Citizen can be arrested, read Miranda, and then legally denied the rights provided by Miranda and the US Constitution? Show me any legal precedence to support your assumptions? Tell me what the process is of a Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus? Lastly don’t be insulting even in kindness.
The plain language of the Resolution- "persons"- indicates to a reasonable person that it does apply- by definition.
You must give reasons for your bald assertion that the Resolution exempts Americans. All your arguments on based on that claim.
Offering two more arguments based solely on this opinion of yours does not give it any more credence.
Citing law or precedence or by looking in the congressional debate for intent- for examples- would be a constructive response.
The public record shows that Padilla has exercised his Constitutional right to Habeas Corpus.
One was properly denied, as usually is done, because the petitioner was no longer in the jurisdiction of that court.
The other is presently under consideration. The administration has responded that it should not be considered for the same standard reason.
This court IMHO will and should rule on it anyway, in the interest of justice, since one has already been denied for that reason.
IMHO, again at the risk of insulting you by trying to be helpful, is that the point you wish to argue is not that the present process is unconstitutional but that using one based on the UCMJ would be better.