> andie nachgeborenen :
>
>
> "Because, like Hamdi, Padilla is an enemy combatant,
> and because
> his detention is no less necessary than was Hamdi's in
> order to
> prevent his return to the battlefield, the President
> is
> authorized by the AUMF (Authorization for Use of
> Military Force Joint Resolution) to detain Padilla as
> a fundamental
> incident to the conduct of war".
>
> ^^^^
> War ? Judge Luttig, did Congress _declare_ war as required by the
> Constitution.
> (Citation omitted :>))
>
> ^^^
>
> The opinion does in fact state that the Court thinks
> that in view of the facts it believes to have been
> established in the record, that this is a good idea --
> Padilla's detention is militarily necessary, or he
> will escape to wage war on the U.S. again.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: I'd sure like to know if Judge Wittig thinks that the U.S. is
> constitutionally at war. Factually everybody seems to agree that the
> U.S. is at war. But , maybe I missed it, but I don't recall a
> Congressional declaration of war that anyone claimed meets the
> requirements of the Constitution. That would make this factually
> actual war an unconstitutional and I'd say, I don't know, criminal
> war.
>
>
There's an authorization for the war, and it went through congress without a clause that would allow them to vote to recind the authorization... It's a problem
As far as I can tell, the ruling was based on the legitimacy of the authorization, which patently allows for Padilla's detention, not the constitutional issues surrounding indeterminate sentences or habeus corpus... others.
Note the wording: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/09/breaking-news-federal-appeals-court.php
The Congress of the United States, in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution, provided the President all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist acts by those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. <...>
The detention of petitioner being fully authorized by Act of Congress, the judgment of the district court that the detention of petitioner by the President of the United States is without support in law is hereby reversed. <...>
Leigh www.leighm.net
Have you seen my newsfeeds?: http://leighmdotnet.blogspot.com/ Got RSS?: http://www.furl.net/members/leighm/rss.xml