Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Insisted Only He Should Decide Who Should Stand Trial Before Military Court
www.prnewswire.com (Thanks to Drudge) ^ | Nov. 18, 2001 | PRNewswire

Posted on 11/18/2001 1:30:37 PM PST by It'salmosttolate

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

Secret Legal Document Gave Bush Wartime Powers,
Including Holding Secret Tribunals

NEW YORK, Nov. 18 /PRNewswire/ -- After he signed an order allowing the use of military tribunals in terrorist cases, President George W. Bush insisted he alone should decide who goes before such a military court, his aides tell Newsweek. The tribunal document gives the government the power to try, sentence -- and even execute -- suspected foreign terrorists in secrecy, under special rules that would deny them constitutional rights and allow no chance to appeal.

(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20011118/HSSA005 ) Bush's powers to form a military court came from a secret legal memorandum, which the U.S. Justice Department began drafting in the days after Sept. 11, Newsweek has learned. The memo allows Bush to invoke his broad wartime powers, since the U.S., they concluded, was in a state of "armed conflict." Bush used the memo as the legal basis for his order to bomb Afghanistan. Weeks later, the lawyers concluded that Bush would use his expanded powers to form a military court for captured terrorists. Officials envision holding the trials on aircraft carriers or desert islands, report Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff and Contributing Editor Stuart Taylor Jr. in the November 26 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, November 19).

The idea for a secret military tribunal was first presented by William Barr, a Justice Department lawyer -- and later attorney general -- under the first President Bush, as a way to handle the terrorists responsible for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The idea didn't take back then. But Barr floated it to top White House officials in the days after Sept. 11 and this time he found allies, Newsweek reports. Barr's inspiration came when he walked by a plaque outside his office commemorating the trial of Nazi saboteurs captured during World War II. The men were tried and most were executed in secret by a special military tribunal.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: eo; gwot; militarytribunal; september12era
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 361-376 next last
To: NotTheMama
"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.

121 posted on 11/18/2001 4:34:46 PM PST by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: marajade
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).
122 posted on 11/18/2001 4:36:11 PM PST by Polonius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
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.

123 posted on 11/18/2001 4:36:25 PM PST by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Polonius
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.

124 posted on 11/18/2001 4:37:27 PM PST by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: marajade
I'm with you mara, I'm with Bush 110%, till death do us part! :-}
125 posted on 11/18/2001 4:38:03 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

Comment #126 Removed by Moderator

Comment #127 Removed by Moderator

To: jwalsh07
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.

128 posted on 11/18/2001 4:39:46 PM PST by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

Comment #129 Removed by Moderator

To: NotTheMama
"There are legitimate concerns here."

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

130 posted on 11/18/2001 4:40:56 PM PST by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: NotTheMama
"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.

131 posted on 11/18/2001 4:42:12 PM PST by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

Comment #132 Removed by Moderator

Comment #133 Removed by Moderator

To: NotTheMama
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.

134 posted on 11/18/2001 4:45:58 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: NotTheMama
"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.

135 posted on 11/18/2001 4:47:19 PM PST by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: marajade
What was said in jest?

MIssed this. The "suitably chastised" inane comment.

136 posted on 11/18/2001 4:48:07 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
That's a great picture! I cut it out a few days ago and put it on the door of my computer cabinet.
137 posted on 11/18/2001 4:48:10 PM PST by Lady In Blue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Okie dokie. Actually I enjoy reading your posts on FR and find you to be a big thinker.
138 posted on 11/18/2001 4:48:59 PM PST by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

Comment #139 Removed by Moderator

Comment #140 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 361-376 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson