Harvard is so nice to Dershowitz. Letting him off of his busy schedule of teaching classes to assist O.J., sue tobacco companies, lecture about the impeached president, yack on TV endlessly, and now hold court on the tribunal issue. It must be hard for him to teach at Harvard. Oh, he actually does not teach?

Nevermind! /sarcasm off

"Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda neat." Dipshitowitz, take note.

Dersh would never support this, no matter what the circumstances were. Wartime needs are different from peacetime ones. I heard someone on the FOX say that the Constitution is not a "suicide pact." In other words, we have to take actions to protect ourselves that may not be the delight of ultra-leftists like Dersh and co. While should these people have constitutional rights anyway? Is bin Laden a US citizen? The left always comes up with something that either 1) makes no sense whatsoever, or 2) is a contrarian position, based on a conservative position ("the right has taken this position, so out of spite let's take the opposite position"), as all of us conservatives know from years of experience.....

Here's another lawyers' view of trying Al-Qaeda by military tribunal.

A further opinion with some history.

"Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda neat."

Hehe. Shoe's on the other foot now, when it REALLY matters, when American lives are at stake.

"Do you think this is both constitutional and desirable, as applied to an American with a family here in America who's lived here for five or 10 years, who has a green card, who regards himself as an American in every way but having citizenship..."

Only Dershowitz would consider a foreigner an "American." There are foreign terrorists who enter and reside in our country legally, but that surely wouldn't exempt them from trial by military tribunal, were they to abet our enemies while we are under attack.

Who would want to listen to Dershoshitz in the first place? My guess is that Tony Snow had him on for comic relief.

Actually, a foreigner on our soil does enjoy a constitutional right to due process in civilian court, but not if he abets our enemies when we are under foreign attack, ie. at war.

"Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda neat."

Hehe. Shoe's on the other foot now, when it REALLY matters, when American lives are at stake.

You are no less a hypocrite than Dershowitz.

Or sure pick on me when I only bumped another poster. (-:

Dershowitz: We ought to have more faith in American justice, and I'm concerned that President Bush's order shows lack of faith in the American system of justice.

It because of slime like Dershowitz that I have no faith in the American system of justice in these matters. Militay Tribunals should handle trials of all foreigners when it comes to terrorism, whether it be Al Queda, or Hamas, or Hezbollah. We don't need members of the American Bar Association grinding things to a halt on a whim as is their wont to do. At times like this the ABA has no interest in justice.

More on military trial of terrorists.

We don't need members of the American Bar Association grinding things to a halt on a whim as is their wont to do. At times like this the ABA has no interest in justice.

Hell, let's just get rid of lawyers altogether!

Could you imagine how long it would have taken Stalin to execute 20 million enemies of the state if each of them had been given a trial?

Hitler would still be tied up with pre-trial motions for the first dozen or so Jews...

Summary justice is a fact of life in wartime. The President's executive order broke no new ground but simply acknowledged factually what is going to be meted out in due course to our enemies. Alan Dershowitz is the last person on earth to lecture to us about how the President's establishing military commissions to try terrorists doesn't fit in with the rule of law. He was President Clinton's most prominent defender when impeachment arose and he argued the President's crimes weren't a serious assault on the Constitution and our system of justice. But now he says terrorists should be accorded Miranda warnings and the benefits of our system of justice. This is so typical of liberals in that they believe they get to decide to whom the rules apply. Now if our President takes Dershowitz and the liberal legal commentariat seriously rest assured that Osama Bin Laden and every terrorist in the world will be laughing their heads off at America's foolishness in granting them mercy they certainly haven't extended to Americans in response. What Dershowitz's comments illustrate above all is the necessity of executing terrorists quickly before our whining liberals and so-called human rights organizations can bring pressure to protect them. After one considers terrorists by definition are dishonorable scum who commit atrocities against innocents in stealth and secrecy heck summary justice is exactly the deterrent needed to keep their ilk from doing more of the same in the future. Think of summary justice as keeping liberty and the rule of law safe from those who seek to undermine and destroy it. That's why its an essential tool in making sure that we win this war over the enemies of America.

Summary justice is a fact of life in wartime.

Everything after that sentence was B.S.

Congress can declare War. When they do, Congress can enact procedures for dealing with priosners of war and war criminals. Congress can create special courts for this purpose if they so desire. The Constitution specifically gives it this authority. Congress -- OUR representatives -- have chosen not to go down this road.

The Executive branch is not given the authority to try criminals, set up courts, or draft legal procedures.

This country survived the Germans, Japanese, Mexicans, British, and Russians without the President issuing such flagrantly unconstituional decrees. And yet, you expect us to believe that 14 guys in a few jet-liners justify tossing out the Constitution?

Baaaaaahhhhhh. Baaaaaahhhhh.

Get your facts straight... the use if military tribunals in time of war, constituted by order of the President, not Congress, have consistently been found to be Constitutional. Regardless of what Dershowitz implied, even US citizens could be tried by those tribunals if found to be an unlawful combatant. Remember that the people tried by the tribunal in re: the Lincoln assasination were ALL citizens, and two of the Germans in 1942 held US citizenship.

Get your facts straight... the use if military tribunals in time of war, constituted by order of the President, not Congress

You are incorrect.

The military tribunals during WWII, for instance, were authorized by Congress in the Articles of War. They were NOT created by the order of the President.

Likewise, the military tribunals in the Balkans were created by Treaty (i.e., ratified by the Legislative branch) and are not the creation of the President.

Not a bad debate, actually. Both sides made some reasonable points. FWIW, I'd give Dersh the edge on strawman arguments, while Starr held his own on points of law and was as usual politely and quietly effective. Dershowitz is a bit of an enigma sometimes. I mean, there's no question that he's a Clintonoid bootlicker and sychophant without peer, but sometimes he gets it right, like condemning the Reno-Meissner pogrom in Little Havana. OTOH, they say the sun sometimes shines up a dog's ...