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.
Ok you want a military reason?
Lets start with:
Foreign Terrorist Military Tribunal Authorization Act of 2001- Authorizes the President to convene military tribunals for the trial of individuals who are charged with offenses arising from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. Permits such a trial to be held only at a location outside the United States. Makes this Act applicable to an individual who is not a United States citizen or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence and who is apprehended outside the United States. Treats as an offense arising from such attacks an offense relating to: (1) planning, authorizing, committing, or aiding those attacks; and (2) harboring any organization or individual that planned, authorized, committed, or aided those attacks.
Bars any military order, executive order, regulation, or other directive of the executive branch from limiting the rights or privileges of any individual under provisions relating to habeas corpus. Allows the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus to be suspended only in cases of rebellion or invasion and only by law.
Additionally The Resolution Summarizes: "Authorization for Use of Military Force" - Authorizes the President 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, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.
Try the Resolution is not a Declaration of War, thus the "ARTICLES OF WAR", “The Legal Foundations” which are the governing regulations for the Military are limited in Scope. “individual” by “Legislative Intent” of the Resolution means persons other than Citizens of the United States. The Resolution give the President power to use the Military abroad not domestically. Thus there are no venues for any Military Tribunals governing US Citizens, the reason why Padella has been declared an enemy combatant by Executive Order and not by the an Act of Congress. Ask your Representative if the word “Individual” in the Joint Resolution means US Citizen. They will tell you no. The Congressional Research Service the Investigative Arm of Congress has done a lot of research on this.
The reason why the USSC upheld Quirin was because the “Articles of War” included US Citizens to be Arrested, Detained, and tried by the US Military, an “ACT” passed by Congress not an Executive Order. Simply it was spelled out. Simply the “Legislative Intent” was spelled out to include US Citizens as potential “Enemy Combatants”. The current articles of war do not nor was it the Legislative Intent of Congress to include Americans under these provisions.
Once again the Executive Order is at odds with statutory and constitutional law. Yes the Courts need to decide this. But in the meantime any “INDIVIUAL” meaning Citizen or Non-Citizen can be subjected to what mounts to be a suspension of they’re Due Process Rights.
My argument has been and will remain that Congress must “REVISE” The Legislation governing Military Tribunals and The articles of war to include US Citizen and give formality to the US Military. Otherwise there is an excessive abuse of regulatory and judicial powers by the Executive Branch. With the recent Judicial decisions in NY and NJ with regards to some of these excesses the Government is going to be hard pressed to support their case.