Leigh Meyers
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
^^^^^ CB: I skipped a lot of steps because I was sort of ...well...yelling. Padilla and Al Queda can't be at war, because they are not countries. They can be charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder, but not waging war on the U.S.
The U.S. can declare war because it's a country. However, part of the reason Congress can't declare war in this case is that a country can only declare war on a country. There's no country to declare war on. They want to create a new category which doesn't exist legally: Individuals and bands of "combatants" who are treated like countries. That's not a legal category.
Another part is that if the U.S. were at war, it might be a basis for suspending Habeas Corpus like Lincoln did during the Civil War, although that is not judge made precedent, I don't think.
Overall, they don't want to bust Bush on the fact that there is no such thing as a "war" on terror, because terror is not a country.
I don't think Congress constitutionally declared war on Iraq ! ( I'm starting to yell again. sorry). They probably didn't do that because they know that they might be liable under the "Nuremberg" laws/UN anti-aggressive war ("pre-emptive" war is a big no no)convention. They , Congress, might be liable for a Crime Against Peace ( they capitalize it,not me). So, Congress' lawyers probably told them not to actually declare war. Let Bush take the fall for the Crime Against Peace. They don't have the courage of their shanaigans to come right out and declare it.
I don't even think they had the courage their scheming to declare war on Afghanistan. ( Grenada, Panama, Viet Nam). Unconstituional wars are standard operating procedure for forty years.
^^^^^^
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. <...>
^^^^^^^^^^ CB: The district court judge is a lawyer. She probably explains it better than I.