Bush Insisted Only He Should Decide Who Should Stand Trial Before Military Court

www.prnewswire.com (Thanks to Drudge) ^ | Nov. 18, 2001 | PRNewswire

[marajade]

"but with the way they are mixing and matching unconstitutional authority, we may never know, hence the suspicion will always be there."

The US Supreme Court has already ruled that it was Constitutional.

[Polonius]

The problem, I'd say, is that the president should not be able to take such extraordinary measures except in the most extraordinary of circumstances. A declared war would undoubtedly be such a case. However, if the president is allowed to use such power when there is no declared war, it seemingly sets the precedent that these kinds of courts can be set up as the president sees fit. Considering the nature of these courts, that would be a terrible idea, and fundamentally unbalance the system of checks and balances in regard to the executive, especially if the jurisdiction of these military courts included U.S. citizens (which, considering the U.S. citizen tried as a spy during WWII mentioned above, would seem to be the precedent).

[marajade]

What was said in jest?

I just get sick of the Dems being so concerned about this and that when it comes to Bush when they need to look in their dang mirror first.

[marajade]

It really doesn't matter what you think (sorry).

Bush has the right to respond military in self defense of a threat to this country.

[jwalsh07]

I'm with you mara, I'm with Bush 110%, till death do us part! :-}

[marajade]

I also get sick of so called Republicans who seem to take everything with such drama when Bush is following precedents already set as well.

When someone can prove to me where Bush is in the wrong then I'll get upset.

[marajade]

"There are legitimate concerns here."

There are not. Please specifically cite where Bush is doing something illegal in relation to his executive order.

[marajade]

"Yes, I know...the same people who were appointed by the same people who want to do this. It is a great flaw in the two-party system."

Hey I guess you can get off FR and start working to change the Constitution if you don't like it. Good luck.

[jwalsh07]

jwaslsh01,

07 Mama, 07.

You have already made up your mind. There really isn't any need to discuss it with you further.

Correct, I have, and the law is well settled as well. You are wrong, I am right.

There are legitimate concerns here. It appears that many people will not blindly follow this gerrymandering, simply because a Republican is in charge now.

Yeah, you and Alan Dershowitz and even he recognises that the military tribunal is constitutional without war being declared.

I, for one, am among that number...legal scholars or no.

Soldier on! Adios.

[marajade]

"If it were followed there would not be any problem."

There has to be some judicial overview in place otherwise there would no checks and balance in the system.

I think abortion should be a states right issue too but it isn't. I guess I'd have the same option I presented earlier: to work to change it.

[jwalsh07]

What was said in jest?

MIssed this. The "suitably chastised" inane comment.

[Lady In Blue]

That's a great picture! I cut it out a few days ago and put it on the door of my computer cabinet.

[marajade]

Okie dokie. Actually I enjoy reading your posts on FR and find you to be a big thinker.