As the posted article pointed out the precedent has already been set. By Abraham Lincoln. By Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
One should ask why would a military tribunal be necessary at all?. Is the government's case that weak that it would be unable to pass the scrutiny of our system of Justice?
You were around for the O.J. Trial, weren't you?
In addition, do you want civilian juries being threatened with death to themselves and their families if they convict a terrorist? These terrorists have committed acts of war. The military has volunteered to risk their lives to protect this country in times of war. A civilian picked out of a jury pool has not.
Other that that, I'm still waiting for some of the government's evidence as to exactly who perpetrated the events of 9/11
Such evidence is procured by intelligence sources that are put at risk when those sources are exposed to the entire world via CNN.
Neither of these presidents created military tribunals. Congress did.
Lincoln DOES have some similarity with Bush in one respect: Like Bush, he did away with Habeas Corpus. However, if you will find that the U.S. Supreme Court declared Lincoln's actions unconstitutional and illegal in the 1856 case of Merryman.
You are correct that there is precedent. However, the precedent states that Bush's EO is a flagrant violation of the Constitution.