"And neither the U.S. Constitution nor the CFR acknowledges this bogus phrase "state of war"."
"You're making it up, and it has no meaning in either U.S. or international law. Nobody knows what it means, legally."
"Lie #2. Look it up. The actual wording of the bill is "Declaration Of War.""
"I haven't said it before but will finally say it now" you guys have been lying since post #1."
You just called me a liar. That's not a very nice thing to do. It's also not a very smart thing to do because I can back up my claims. There are two issues here. First, is the term "state of war" having legal meaning and second, were the "declarations of war" "joint resolutions".
Quoting from "The War Resolution" that declared war on Germany (WWII): "Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same."
First, you'll note that it was entitled a "War Resolution" and not a "Declaration of War".
Second, you'll note that the US Congress included that term you maintain that no one knows the meaning of, ie, "state of war". Furthermore, you'll note that they didn't "declare war" they declared "that a state of war exists". Evidently, Congress understands the meaning of this term you find so elusive.
We've already established that you like to talk about things without doing your research, but for the sake of others who prefer to know what they're talking about here's a URL with the text of the "War Resolution".
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html Now, let's consider the "declaration of war" on Japan. Here's the first paragraph:
"JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same."
Here's the URL:
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/japwar.html Gee, it's a "Joint Resolution". Gee, there's that pesky phrase "state of war". BTW, you'll note that in this case, once again, Congress didn't "declare war" they declared "that a state of war" exists".
Don't bother responding unless you include an apology. And, I would suggest that a little research prior to posting will prevent future embarassment of this nature.
I've often found that a basic misunderstanding of the relevant law has clouded a lot of the issues for both the left and the right. My compliments.
The government's position is that the Guantanamo Bay detainees are unlawful combatants. They were not wearing uniforms, and they did not obey the laws and customs of war. This prevents them from being classified as POWs, according to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention.
Even POWs do not have a right to an attorney unless they're charged with a crime. And even unlawful combatants have rights under the Geneva Convention. They have a right to "three hots and a cot," freedom of religion, medical care and freedom from torture.
In the case of Jose Padilla, the man is an American citizen accused of being an enemy combatant. The legal precedent of Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), is the controlling authority in this matter.
The ruling by the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit is vulnerable to reversal. It was not a unanimous ruling: only two justices of the three-justice panel voted to give the detainees a right to counsel, and the third dissented. Upon review by the entire Ninth Circuit en banc -- a total of 14 justices, I believe -- it may be reversed. (That's what happened to the Pledge of Allegiance case.)
Of course, if the decision survives en banc review, there's always the Supreme Court.