[mrsmith]

Now you claim that Public Law 107-40 isn't an act of congress.

So that makes what, the twelth time you've avoided defnding your claim that Americans are exempt from the resolution?

Are you trying to set a record for avoiding a point?

If someone else pings me to this thread, I'll come back.

[habaes corpussel]

If you do not understand the difference and history of a Joint Resolution for the use of Force (We have done this a few times in the last ten years, try Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia just to name a few.) compared to a Declaration Of War. Or you do not understand what the Articles of War mean or you do not understand the importance of the INTENT of the Legislation is or INTENT of the Public Law, then there is not much else I can tell you.

The Act would have to spell out the Judicial changes for it to apply. Now lets see if you can get this. The Bush Administration has NOT even implied that this power is derived from the Resolution. If the Administration is NOT using this to make its case, then what is your problem? Even so, the UCMJ has provisions similar to the 5th and 14th Amendments are being violated.

Finally, call your Representative and ask them if they voted for the Resolution so that an American Citizen can be captured on American Soil and held by the US Military as an Enemy Combatant cite Padella? The answer may surprise you. Again I have spoken to the Senate Judicary Republicans and they have said the same.

If this is going to be your position then your not much on protecting the Constitution.