Posted on 12/01/2009 5:09:17 PM PST by La Enchiladita
In the uproar caused by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr.'s announcement that the alleged planners of the 9/11 attacks are to be tried in U.S. District Court in New York City, and the suspects in the attack on the U.S. destroyer Cole will go on trial before military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the public discourse has lost sight of the fundamental principles that guide the government when it makes such decisions. Unfortunately, the government has lost sight of the principles as well.
When President George W. Bush spoke to Congress shortly after 9/11, he did not ask for a declaration of war. Instead, Republican leaders offered and Congress enacted an Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The authorization was open-ended as to its targets and its conclusion, and basically told the president and his successors that they could pursue whomever they wanted, wherever their pursuits took them, so long as they believed that the people they pursued had engaged in acts of terrorism against the United States. Thus was born the "war" on terror.
Tellingly, and perhaps because we did not know at the time precisely who had planned the 9/11 attacks, Congress did not declare war. But the use of the word "war" persisted nonetheless. Even after he learned what countries had sponsored terrorism against us and our allies with governmental assistance, Bush did not seek a declaration of war against them. Since 9/11, American agents have captured and seized nearly 800 people from all over the globe in connection with the attacks, and now five have been charged with planning them.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Shoot them in the head and feed the bodies to the sharks instead.
Napolitano makes a typical lawyer’s argument which of course looks for slight details to twist into something other than reality. Has anyone ever looked at an LSAT? It’s logic taken to the point where what’s clear and right is legally wrong. The problem with government is too many lawyers running the show looking for loopholes.
Napolitano makes the stupid argument that because there wasn’t a “declaration of war” everything is a policing action. Idiotic and just plain wrong.
If congress authorizes military force, and funds those forces, and the president commands those forces, we’re at war.
I am looking for the politician, the statesman either Republican or Democrat, with the grit to stand up and demand Holder’s removal from office.
Stand up. Put an end to this clown circus.
Below is the short form of my answer. The long form is like a legal opinion and way too long to post. However, I can offer this quote from the Federalist Papers, which places me firmly among potential right-wing terrorists.
FEDERALIST PAPERS:
Alexander said in Federalist Paper 23, “These powers ought to exist without limitation, because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can be wisely imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. This power ought to be co-extensive with all the possible combinations of circumstances; and ought to be under the direction of the same councils which are appointed to preside over the common defense”.
Note powers must exist without limitation in relation to capabilities and intentions. They do not depend upon a formal declaration of war and they do not emerge after reflection over damage suffered.
LETTER:
Barack Obama’s and Eric Holder’s trial decision exhibits consequences of Supreme Court malpractice. Notwithstanding catastrophic dangers justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, and John Stevens eviscerated the political departments’ Constitutional authority regarding defense.
Legislative and Executive branches hold all defense powers. Congress has power to declare war. The President, as Commander in Chief, directs military operations, including armed force application, intelligence gathering, and disposition of captured enemies. These branches, most sensitive to citizen accountability, receive tasking for the most momentous issue concerning national viability.
The Constitution places no defense powers within the unelected Judiciary. Yet the justices disabled national defense in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld by fabricating an association of terrorists with Common Article Three of Geneva Conventions. False because terrorists do participate in international armed conflict, lack pacific character, and do not meet definitions for legitimate armed forces.
These justices also improperly intruded with Bonemediene vs. Bush. They rejected guidelines developed from Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld and applied Habeas Corpus to enemy aliens contravening U.S. practice, Common Law, and Constitution.
These justices perpetrated judicial malpractice. Terrorists became citizens entering a legal conduit and backdoor into our society where their present and prospective unsurpassed butchery was equated to a civil murder. The judicial actions compare to surgical malpractice leaving a festering rag inside a body cavity. As those doctors should forfeit practice of medicine, these justices by impeachment should forfeit practice of law.
Now politicians shelter within these rulings and indulge personal moral orthodoxies forcing America into harm’s way.
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.