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
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.
For a conservative you sure appear to love the liberal line. Look, it is no secret that a number of JBS nut cases are running around here spouting off and you sound very like them.
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..." --Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect
So now we're taking obvious jokes completely out of context, and using them to imply that George W. Bush is a power-hungry wanna-be dictator?
You guys have GOT to be kidding. (You are, right?) If you're not, consider me officially afraid of you.
Friend, before you start waving the constitution as your talisman you had better bone up on the subject. Right now you are digging a hole you can't get out of so here is some advice...stop digging.
I completely agree with you. Congress could easily have declared war on Afghanistan. I'm not sure that would work so well if chasing terrorists takes us to allied nations. What happens when the Taliban is completely passified.
I think I read somewhere that we have advisors in the Philippines. What happens if these "force multipliers" encounter terrorists near Manila? The Philippinos probably would like them out as much as we. Afghanistan is done. Do we declare war on the Philippines?
This is a moot point. The Congress isn't going to declare war on any of these countries. It still doesn't make sense to turn the War on Terrorism, which is every bit as real as any of the other undeclared wars you listed, into an Alan Derschowitz circus. Laden is not a US citizen. He has no claim to US Constitutional protections.
It shouldn't matter if Laden has the guts to follow through on self. He has apparently vowed never to be taken alive. Better that he dies. Better for him. Better for us. Plus he has all those virgins waiting for him.
Oh no, you will say. That will threaten security. Please prove that to me.
Hell I don't have to "prove" anything to you. The fact is that you have backed yourself into a corner and now are resorting to bluff and bluster. I have historical precedent on my side and you have well....nothing.
This is NOT a big deal at all.
Boy, have you been sucked in! Must be a Republican.
He's a politician for God's sake! We have a Constitution for a reason - to keep politicians from enslaving us. Thanks to Republicans and DemocRats, we're pretty far along the road to enslavement but we're not there quite yet.
With attitudes like yours, though, we'll get there. Bah.
Geeze, NO the Philippine Government is NOT giving aid, comfort and protection to them. Try logic sometime it is really a great tool for debate.
Let me re-phrase: Should the president be able to use extraordinary powers, like convening secret military courts that could be used to try citizens without appeal, without a declaration of war? And if the answer to the first question is yes, doesn't that set a precedent that the president would be able to do so during peacetime at his own discretion (in other words, whenever he feels there is a suitable threat), and would you agree with such a broad presidential power (no matter who is president, since this precedent will remain once set)?
Well that may be true. FDR and Pearl Harbor is a great example of how secrecy has hurt this country.
1. Bush has a right to respond militarily in self defense;
2. The US Supreme Court has already ruled that military trials are appropriate.
Well first of all your scenario is not possible. US citizens are protected by the Constitution period, No such attempt would survive USSC challenge and very likely lead to impeachment of the President.
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.