Military Tribunals: Constitutional, Legal and Just

Human Events ^ | The Week of November 26, 2001 | Terence P. Jeffrey

[dirtboy]

Tribunals are Constitutional. But I question whether Bush has the authority to create them by executive order - IMO they should be created by Congress instead.

[Gordian Blade]

But I question whether Bush has the authority to create them by executive order.

According to the article (and President Bush himself), Bush has already been given that authority by Congress. They might not have understood the ramifications of what they authorized, but that's their tough luck. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

[ex-Texan]

Bush did what was Constitutional, just and proper ....

By the way, who would volunteer for "jury duty" for a terrorist trial?

[dirtboy]

According to the article (and President Bush himself), Bush has already been given that authority by Congress. They might not have understood the ramifications of what they authorized, but that's their tough luck. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

If Congress has granted Bush that power, then they also have the authority to rescind it. If you look at the section of the Constitution regarding suspension of habeous corpus, that resides in the legislative, not the executive. Tribunals should follow the same path.

[dirtboy]

By the way, who would volunteer for "jury duty" for a terrorist trial?

I would in a NY minute. But, once again, I am not arguing that tribunals are unconstitutional. I instead think that the power to establish them should not reside in the executive - that is an easy springboard towards dictatorship.

[Gordian Blade]

Yes, I have to agree that Congress can rescind the authority for a military tribunal. I'd just love to see them bring that up for a vote.

[dirtboy]

Yes, I have to agree that Congress can rescind the authority for a military tribunal. I'd just love to see them bring that up for a vote.

Well, I think it proper that Congress exercises oversight over the process. Just as we never get a declaration of war any more, I doubt we'll get a vote on the matter - but Congress still needs to participate in the process so they can establish the authority to rescind tribunals if a future president abuses them. We gotta look past the current crisis and contemplate the types of people (i.e., HRC) who would love to have these powers and no Congressional authority to stop them because Congress abrogated their powers...

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

What do you do when the leadership in the Senate is blocking most every necessary anti-terrorism and national security effort? Daschle is unwilling to even form a terrorism committee, has blocked all efforts to bring the energy bill to the floor, is now supporting investigating Ashcroft over the Tribunals.

Daschle Stalls ANWR and Energy Bill, dead for the year, Nov. 27, Yahoo News.

Terror Panel Loses Support: Daschle Against Creating Committee, Nov. 26- Roll Call.

Daschle Seeks to End Probes of H. Clinton and Torricelli, Nov. 19, Roll Call.

No Time for ANWR, econ. stimulus, terrorism, but time to visit Mexico City, Nov. 17, AP.

The Daschle Delay, Larry Kudlow's piece on Daschle's economic mischief-making.

Clinton Cabinet Vets Provide Wartime Perspective to Daschle and Gephardt

Why isn't Daschle's ignoring threats to our nation's security and economy a front page scandal?

Congress is expected to recess in mid-December and return in January. This gives the President very little time to make necessary recess appointments, but of course Daschle knew that.

[zlala]

Good post ... I agree. Power corrupts, .... absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[dirtboy]

Well, Daschle's politics and this issue are, IMO, two distinct issues - consider that Bob Barr signed the letter - and he's on the right side of Constitutional issues 90 percent of the time...

[texlok]

There does need to be a seperation of powers. That's one of the reasons why the USA exists in almost the same form as it did 200 years ago.

I don't think GWB is going to do anything to hurt the nation or our civil liberties, and I understand Ashcroft not releasing the names of those who are/could be innocent who are in the middle of this.

The problem is not GWB and Ashcroft, it's if they set a precedent that somewhere down the road gets extended a little further and a little further.

Military Tribunals do have one big problem, the evidence that can be admitted (included hearsay) does not have to hold upto the same standards that civilian courts do - in other words, they could get the wrong people and not know it and then we'd be screwed.

[beckett]

So far I have been unable to satisfy myself entirely that these tribunals are good idea, but today I came a long way towards favoring them after watching a debate between Anthony Lewis and San Diego Union-Tribune columnist Joseph Perkins.

Perkins carried his pro-military tribunal argument very ably, and made the especially compelling point that two crucial pieces of evidence became known to al-Qaeda terrorists as a direct result of open testimony from prior trials:

1. testimony that ground level bombs could not bring down the WTC. It was even suggested by an explosives expert that something like a fully fueled jet would be the only thing that could do real damage.
2. testimony that the CIA was able to listen in on Bin Laden's cell phone conversations, causing him to desist permanently from using cell phones.

Disclosures like these put at risk the national security of the United States, arming terrorists with invaluable information. Military tribunals eliminate that problem.

[borntodiefree]

It is amazing to me that the truth is right there in front of peoples face yet they can only believe the nonsense that is fed to them.

We the Sovereign People created the Constitution and told our public Servants what they have the priveledge of doing. And we said that

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 states: "Congress shall have power . . . To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations."

We didn't say that "Well, thats only if you want to do it that way"!!!!

Congress can no more give this power to the Executive Branch any more than it can give the coining of money to the Judicial Branch.(We won't even get into the illegality of the Federal Reserve)

We are not detaining and trying known soldiers, we are detaining and trying people who may or may not be "terrorists"

Now if these people are not soldiers, and we find through lawful obtained evidence that they are "terrorists", then and ONLY then can they be turned over to the appropriate group to be dealt with as spies.

[desertcry]

It's legal, and freindly to the Taxpayers. Good for your longivity also.

[ZOOKER]

Good discussion on this issue.

I get really nervous when my right to trial by a jury of my peers is in danger.

Can we limit the application of military tribunals to non-citizens only? I believe that there needs to be a clear distinction between US citizens and foreign nationals; the Constitution can't apply to everyone on the planet.

As for Congress rescinding this power, I discount their ability to legislate ANYTHING in a timely manner, other than stupid gestures like letters of support to friendly countries or pay raises for themselves.

[ex-snook]

After all the gobblygook, what are we afraid bin Laden might say that it is preferable that we kill him first?

[Jay W]

Washington would have none of it. He sent word to the British Gen. Henry Clinton

Minor point: Notice the name of the enemy general?

[ex-Texan]

But remember that Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus for Americans during the Civil War ..... If that were happening right now CNN (and all the other alphabet net works) would be having a hissy fit.

The President has enormous emergency War Powers granted him by the Constitution as the Commander in Chief.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

bmp for later reading.....