Posted on 11/27/2001 3:25:05 PM PST by Jean S
They can simply enact their own legislation for the conduct of the tribunals.
This is their duty- to legislate where needed- and they have failed IMHO.
Yo
Congress can and does delegate execution of the laws it passes to the executive branch, like the coining of money, which power was given to Congress in the very same section of the Constitution, Art. I Sec. 8, as the power to punish Offences agains the Law of Nations. The former is just 5 paragraphs before the latter. We are not detaining and trying known soldiers, we are detaining and trying people who may or may not be "terrorists"
This is no different than the case of the German sabotours from WW-II. The only way to know if they were sabatours was to try them, which we did, by Military Tribunal. Spies and sabatours (which is pretty much what terrorists are anyway) don't carry ID cards you know, at least not foreign military ones.
that should be 5 clauses. All of them are part of the one sentence starting: "Congress shall have the power..".
If anyone wants to debate the finer points and meaning of the powers vested in the presidency they shoulda' done it long before now, like during the Clinton era. How many EO's did he sign? And how many were beyond his legal right?
Before you argue GW's EO when the safety of perhaps millions of Americans are at stake, go back and argue some of Clinton's.
This article really nails the door shut on the subject of the authority of President Bush to order military trials for alien terrorists. I hate to say this, but this layman writer did a much better job of the homework on this than Dean Kmeic of Catholic University.
The most interesting part of this article is that Congress has ALREADY APPROVED such millitary trials during wartime, in a statute passed in 1806, after we declared war on the Barbary pirates. That statute is part of the current US Code, and has never been repealed or changed.
Congress will NOT, not in a million years, repeal wartime powers granted to President Jefferson because some Democrats don't want President Bush II to use those powers. Game, set and match. Democrats lose. Bush wins. Military tribunal Order will stand.
To Senators Leahy, Schumer, etc.: BNAAAAA. But thank you for participating.
Congressman Billybob
I've done some serious research on the subject of the "Law of War," but this writer has done more homework than me. Congress already HAS acted. It gave the power to create such military tribunals to President Jefferson at the outset of the War against the Barbary Pirates (the only other war in which our enemy was not one or more nations, but was a group of armed and dangerous men located in several countries).
This law from 1806 was recognized as still in effect in 1942, when a unanimous Supreme Court let stand the convictions and sentences of eight German saboteurs by a military tribunal, as ordered by President Roosevelt in World War II.
So, I gather you withdraw your objection from the other thread that Congress SHOULD authorize such tribunals, because Congress already HAS authorized them. What are the chances that Congress will repeal this authority, which was used by Presidents Jefferson, Lincoln, perhaps Wilson, and Roosevelt in order to prevent President Bush II from using it?
Before you state an aswer to that, remember that the repeal of Congress' granted authority will have to not only pass both Houses of Congress, it will have to have enough votes to survive a veto. I put the odds of that happening -- that Congress will go soft on terrorists while we are in a war against terrorists because the left wing of the party wants that result -- at nil, nada, rien, zilch.
Do you concur?
Congressman Billybob
President Bush's Order allows military tribunals to try ALIENS, but it does NOT apply to CITIZENS. No rights possessed by any AMERICAN are compromised one whit by this Order.
As for whether such an Order is constitutional, the Supreme Court said yes, unanimousnly, in Ex Parte Quinn in 1942. And President Roosevelt's Order that was upheld in that case, DID apply to citizens as well as aliens. SO, if Roosevelt's broader Order was valid, self-evidently, Bush's narrower Order is also constitutional.
The only way that certain Democrats can push this issue is to lie about the history of such tribunals, and get gullible people to believe their lies. Don't be gullible. Get the facts, and reject the lies.
Congressman Billybob
the war is rhetorical
What does that mean?
We spent years here on FR doing just that. Your point is?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.