On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:22:01 -0500, "John Gaquin"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message

The rationale behind the Court of Appeals ruling regarding Jose Padilla
was
that, "The president's inherent constitutional powers do not extend to the
detention as an enemy combatant of American citizens without express
congressional authorization." (Washington Post, December 19)

John.....

Point of accuracy, here, ref your quote above. According to the 2nd Circuit
ruling the statement should read "...the detention as an enemy combatant of
American citizens *seized on US soil*..." , an important distinction that
the Court specified. The Court specifically excepted this ruling from
applying to cases of US citizens seized on foreign soil as enemy combatants.
Frankly, I'm not surprised that the Post would see fit to overlook this
detail.

JG

Thanks for the clarification. I checked the Washington Post again, just to be
sure I hadn't misquoted. They did leave that out of what they called the
conclusion in the decision. This was on the front page too.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD