[gatorman]

John Valentine said . . . "At the same rime, a formal Declaration of War would not be out of order."

The ability to declare war against a non-nation has been the subject of much controversy. But many Congress critters want to be able to give President Bush the congressional authority to carry out hostilities against terrorist groups as he sees fit.

A Declaration of War would automatically invoke the War Powers Act and allow him to effectively use military tribunals as one measure, however, he would not be limited to just that means. Marshall Law could delegate those powers to civilian, government elected or appointed officials.

I am for the use of military tribunals - give 'em a fair trial, then go out and shoot the bas*ards (if found guilty).

FReeregards . . .

[Sabertooth]

Put me down as one who welcomes the idea of military tribunals in principle, but opposes it until war is formally declared.

I understand the the need may arise during wartime to suspend some civil liberties. Hence the need to formally declare a beginning and and end to that state of war.

If anyone wants to accuse me of unnecessary quibbling, my response would be, "Why the unnecessary quibbling over a formal Declaration of War?"