[habaes corpussel]

Mrsmith, you cite a political floor speech by Senator Byrd. and I am citing Legislation. Show me LAW mrsmith. The Joint Resolution on the use of Force and military tribunals are two separate issues. The Resolution allows the President to use military force. It does NOT allow the President to decide the mechanics of Justice. It allows the President to bring to Justice "Enemy Combatants" such as Lindh and even to some degree Handi who were actual Enemy Combatants CAPTURED on foreign soil engaged in hostile acts against the United States. Even in the Lindh case as an Enemy Combatant Lindh was allowed his Right to Due Process as a Citizen of the United States. This is primarily due to Lindh being helpful to his interrogators. Handi has not yet been allowed his due process rights though he stands on US Soil. Why? Because he has been labeled non-responding. Even in these two cases, the Resolution does not allow the President to decide the mechanics of this Justice.

In the Padella case which is totally separate and very different. Padella does not fit the LEGAL discription of an Enemy Combatant by either US Law or the UCMJ. Padilla was ARRESTED on US Soil by the FBI. Padella's Status was Changed after the Government could not get an indictment. The changed was done by the President by Executive Order. Our Constitution does not give the Executive Branch this right and especially without a Declared War, by Congress. Only Congress by the Constitution has this right. The Joint Resolution does not apply at all or at any time to Padella. The Administration has not reported back to Congress explaining the actions it took and why in the Padella Case.

Unlike WWII where Congress Declared War, enabled the Military Tribunals we have done either as of this date. Nor have we followed International Law totally. In absence of a set of legally established rules set by Congress, the President has two choices. One, Detain off of US Soil, and Two, follow the law as prescribed. The President has no option to change the mechanics in mid flight without an ACT of Congress.

Now mrsmith, you show me what law supports your case that the Joint Resolution allows this or is there none?

[mrsmith]

You must give reasons for your bald assertion that the Resolution exempts Americans from military detention. All your arguments on based on that claim.
Offering more arguments based solely on this opinion of yours does not give it any more credence.
Showing that it does not authorize trials by tribunal does not address the point of whether it authorizes detention by military force.
Citing law or precedence or by looking in the congressional debate for intent- for examples- would be a constructive response.