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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 361-376 next last
Comment #241 Removed by Moderator
To: TrueLiberty
Then every POW we captured in WW2 would have been entitled to a court in Wichita Kansas or any other court in the country. Get a grip.
To: teenager
I agree with you. The power grab has no limits it seems.
If the President had followed his oath of office, used his ability to give Congress Information of the State of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he judged neccessary and expedient and asked Congress to use the power given to them in the constitution to constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme court and did not usurp the power of congress by using an EO and making up the rules of the tribunal himself, no on would have anything to say about this.
To: Texasforever
I will not respond to an ad hominem response. If you disagree with what I said, state your case. Asking or "credentials" or saying that I used a word incorrectly, or resorted to hyperbole doe not further your case. You might be interested in another message I posted in this thread, where I quoted the fifth and sixth ammedments of the US Constitution verbatim.
To: Texasforever
You failed to include the two items following the colon I included the section in total previously.
Do you have a source for the information you posted?
Care to speculate why an EO was needed for this matter and how you feel about it in light of seperation of powers?
To: Native American Female Vet
Tribunals inferior to the supreme court and did not usurp the power of congress by using an EO and making up the rules of the tribunal himself, no on would have anything to say about this. He is completly within his powers as a War time president acting as CIC. The Joint Resolution gave him those powers and he is using them. Do you want a law to be passed that make the tribunals permanent? Bush can cancel that EO at any time. I wish the Patriot Act had been implemented the same way. The PA is now a permanent law that will never be repealed.
To: Texasforever
Find a new tactic. This one doesn't work.
To: nunya bidness
seperation=separation, Doh.
To: nunya bidness
Care to speculate why an EO was needed for this matter and how you feel about it in light of seperation of powers? Yes I will provide the link in a later post. As to the EO, it makes these tribunals temporary. Bush can cancel the EO at any time. Congress would pass a law that would make them permanent until repealed by a future congress if ever. He is working within the authority the joint resolution gave him and if Congress does not like the EO they can challenge him on it.
To: TrueLiberty
State your justification for trying bin Laden under our Constitution.
250
posted on
11/18/2001 8:45:27 PM PST
by
rdb3
To: nunya bidness
Comment #252 Removed by Moderator
To: TrueLiberty
Find a new tactic. This one doesn't work. I know, facts never work as a tactic with the irrational.
To: opusmcfeely
I'd love to hear what it is then, if that's not the case. When is a criminal trial, not a criminal trial? When the "crime" is an act of war.
To: TrueLiberty
Check that. Nevermind.
TrueLiberty |
member since November 15th, 2001 |
|
|
255
posted on
11/18/2001 8:50:05 PM PST
by
rdb3
To: Texasforever
As to the EO, it makes these tribunals temporary.So does a sunset clause but we've seen how they can go on with funding (ESA comes to mind).
In short, I'm less concerned with Bush writing this EO than the Patriot Act. However, I'm watching him.
Someone once said, "trust but verify."
Comment #257 Removed by Moderator
To: nunya bidness
Someone once said, "trust but verify." And good advice it was.
To: Texasforever
>If we were a neutral nation
>>And so the agenda is discovered. You need to go forthwith to Switzerland.
Good eye.
259
posted on
11/18/2001 8:53:40 PM PST
by
rdb3
To: TrueLiberty
I do believe the gents at the Constitutional Convention were referring to citizens when they wrote "persons," and that this thinking is born out in the laws subsequent to the signing of the Consittution, else we would not have any need for an immigration department with all of the laws it is bound by. Immigrants, whether legal or illegal, do not get the same protections citizens get. Just ask Elian.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson