He said it would be necessary for the military to foil any plot using a weapon of mass destruction. Under current law, for instance, if an Arab terrorist were attempting to detonate a suitcase bomb in the Lincoln Tunnel, and the military were the first to arrive, they would not be authorized to either detain or shoot at the terrorist because the military lacks the proper police powers under such circumstances. In a war, the military does not "arrest" the enemy. The enemy is "captured". Also, in a war, the military is allowed to shoot the enemy without without giving him a fair trial or reading him his Miranda rights.
I'm all for it... but there has been no formal declaration of war... moreover, legally these foriegn nationals must first be categorized a combatants... they are foriegn nationals from soveriegn states who we are not at war with. So it is complicated.
I said "detained" not "arrest", there is a difference. Semantics aside I hope our military would shoot first and seek the proper authorization later, as a previous poster suggested.