It applies to the federal government – and is a strict set of limitations on actions of the federal government.

The preamble? That is a statement only and holds no legal authority, unless of course you subscribe to the pelosi/reid version of the constitution and not the founders. What does it do?

It states that the people of the U.S….created a government….and what follows is what that government is authorized to do.

period.

Let's see, which part of the Preamble shall we toss in order to subscribe to the notion that the Constitution applies to everyone the federal government comes in contact with…toss out that domestic tranquility part…the posterity part…and change the last phrase to make it apply to everyone. What a senseless notion this is. So disappointed in the Tenth Amendment Center for promulgating such clap-trap.

I agree with Connor. —Not because I have a bleeding-heart for the terrorists in Gitmo (I don't think about them at all, and most of you don't either, on a daily basis, and I DON'T CARE about them personally, whatsoever). I'm more concerned about the powers which our government makes for itself to prosecute (or whatever you might call it) our enemies, which it NEVER relinquishes once our enemies have been dealt with (which, if you are hoping for a war-to-end-all-wars in response to terrorism, prepare yourself for disappointment; in that sense, these powers are permanent, already).

Nothing our government does is without precedent. Proceed with caution.

The treaty's we made on toucher specially exclude non-uniformed combatants. Therefore baring the congressional law on torches as it apply to the rules of our military operations, we could do it and there is no constitutional issues to be had.

Its only if you think they are committing a crime and this is some kind of punishment then do you have a plausible problem. But we are not trying to "punish them" we are trying to get information out of them.

The idea that Congress could make a law restricting the speech of a non-citizen resident or visitor – but cannot with a citizen – would be an interesting thing to study from the founding generation. My understanding is that they could not do either, but might be wrong. It certainly IS worthy some additional research, in my opinion.

Those would define the benefits of citizenship (which, as you know, did not exist at the time of the founding).

But, limitations on government power and action are limitations across the board in their jurisdiction. That does not mean that in the theater of war, for example, that habeas needs to be provided. But, it also does not mean that they can simply sweep people outside the country and, for example, torture them.