Replies

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.

habaes corpussel:"The Intent of Congress under the Current Resolution was never and is still today NOT to include US Citizens in any form of Military Tribunals. Nor was it ever to allow the President this power. Since you have been most insistent I have taken the opportunity to CALL the Senate Committee on Judiciary to confirm this. IT IS THE FULL INTENT OF CONGRESS AS OF THIS WRITING TO HAVE US CITIZENS TRIED UNDER US LAW> "
I appreciate and commend your contacting the committee.

Your question had no bearing to our discussion : I have never said the resolution authorized trying Americans by tribunal.

What is this- the tenth time you haven't offered any support for your opinion? Why keep pretending that you are?
Either defend it or drop it.

Mrsmith, you now beginning to bore me. Your contention is the Resolution of Force gives the President to power to capture enemy combatants. Your contention is that the Joint Resolution allows the Presient this power. You sir, are now mixing apples with watermelons. There are three points of contention here. a). Does the Joint Resolution give the power to the President to capture enemy combatants. b). Does Padella fit the legal definition of an Enemy Combatant and c) Does the Resolution allow the President to take the action he has in the Padella case. TITLE 50, United States Code, Chapter 22, Chapter 33 Sec, 1542 to 1548, and Chapter 34 Sec. 1651. Is the founding law on the War Powers Resolution. I have cited law to support my opinion. Either read the laws or shut me up by citing law that supports your claim. Nothing in the war powers resolution allows the President to capture American Citizens on US Soil, changing they're status to enemy combatants and detaining them by use of the US Military. It also does not allow the President to establish such laws or regulations governing such actions or Military Tribunals without the consultation of Congress. The President has issued an Executive Order without Consultation of Congress.

Once again Mrsmith I offer:

Authority under the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, which gives to the Congress the responsibility and authority "To define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations."

TITLE 50, United States Code, Chapter 22, Chapter 33 Sec, 1542 to 1548, Chapter 34 Sec. 1651.

Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 802. ART. 2, 831 ART. 31. 832. ART. 32, 838. ART. 38.

Title 18, United States Code and sections 113 (a), (b), (c), or (f), 114, 1111, 1112, 1201, or 1363.

Military Order--Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, November 13, 2001

Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. Adopted by General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988

1949 Geneva Conventions and 1977 Additional Protocols

Now either dispute these citations as meaningless or show me what legal precedence allows the Joint Resolution on the use of Force that set the standard to allow the President to do what he has done in the Padella case.

One last time Mrsmith. The Intent of Congress in passing Joint Resolution has nothing to do with the actions taken by the President in the Padella case. That sir, is the point.

Lastly, Mrsmith nowhere on this thread have you posted any legal precedence to support your case either. All you have done is cite your opinion. Now respectively shut me up.