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

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

[CommiesOut]

#6
hehe! I remember that statement.

[Clinton's a rapist]

We should have been under martial law from 9/11. Because of PC, the administration had to take a stealth approach. I'm glad at least that we are moving in the right direction. I think we can consider ourselves fortunate, if that is the right word, that it is most likely Saddam who controls the anthrax, and not OBL: he would not have had much motivation to hold back. That does at least give us some time to get our ducks in a row.

[Cultural Jihad]

Nice picture

[another1]

If it were so easily and concisely defined, why wasn't a better job of same done in recent legislation, executive orders and general proclamations?

[onyx]

WTG, Bravo!

[Azzurri]

This thread demonstrates how dangerous it would be to have Libertarians in charge. On some issues, their naiveity is equal to that of liberals.

[lelio]

I would like to add that I'm not against military courts, in fact I think would be the best area to have one. The jurors are professionals that aren't going to be swayed like the ones at the OJ case, for example.
What I do have a problem with is if they are held in secret, which it sounds like they would like to do. That goes against what the US stands for: open and free justice for all.

[Twodees]

No, you're absolutely wrong. Anytime anyone in government uses powers no specifically granted them in the Constitution, it's a very big deal. Either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land or it's not. Bush just showed himself to be a Constitutional illiterate or a corrupt President. Take your pick.

[Southack]

"Bush just showed himself to be a Constitutional illiterate or a corrupt President."

How does using military tribunals for non-U.S. Citizen terrorists violate our Constitution, specifically?

Methinks thou dost protest too much...

[KeepTheEdge]

How about going back a little further with your references to history, and read the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

[D-fendr]

They need to be held in secret because you don't want to have to tell, in open court, Ahmed that Usef turned him in along with the next three guys you're planning to attack next week.

These courts are for foreign agents trying to kill American citizens. These "defendants" have no rights as Americans, they are not Americans, they are armed enemies of Americans.

If you care about your "rights" as an American citizen, you should support the military that is protecting your most basic ones: life and freedom.

[KeepTheEdge]

I do support the Military, so why is it that they are not protecting our borders right now?

[desertcry]

GWB is President is he not, and it will be a military court will it not? So who else should decide, daschle, clinton, the rats?

[Azzurri]

What specifically are you asserting the Libertarians are wrong on? Blanket insults don't say much.

The fact that they are wringing their hands about the Bill of Rights and Constitution, which do not apply to foreign subversives. Our very survival is at stake.