[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.

[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.

[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?

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

bmp for later reading.....

[Gimlet]

No way. We have not declared war. This is part of an orchestrated attack on the Constitution. Wake up America! You want a President Clinton to have these powers???

[Congressman Billybob]

Phil,

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

[fliberman]

Somebody needs to sort out whether or not the UN has any viable function. Armed response was authorized by congress, the war is rhetorical. If it's a war, the Geneva convention applies, ala Viet Nam.

The selective use of force is going to erode the US credibility and standing in the international arena, sooner or later.

You can't blame Bush for going after Biin Laden & associates, but the Star Chamber business is a nightmare.

By definition, drug dealers meet the test, but that leads back to the CIA.