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 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 361-376 next last
To: opusmcfeely
Are you including the 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as "overblown rhetoric"?!?

No, I am accusing those that completely fail to understand what it means, not to mention your failure to grasp the difference between a foreign national operating in this country as a combatant without uniform in an “army” that we are at war with and a common domestic criminal, of using overheated rhetoric.

261 posted on 11/18/2001 8:56:16 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: TrueLiberty
You might find this interesting if you haven't seen it yet.

Trials for the Enemy by the New York Post.

262 posted on 11/18/2001 8:59:59 PM PST by GretchenEE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Yep, the NWO is upon us....Head for the hills....man the barricades.... dig the trenches....pass the spam....don't forget the stash!!!!!!!!!!

And don't forget the anti-psychotics! Sounds like folks are gonna need 'em!

263 posted on 11/18/2001 9:17:45 PM PST by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
"He is completly within his powers as a War time president acting as CIC."

There is no declaration of war. This is a WAR ON Terrorism. You have a problem with that talk to Congress.

"The Joint Resolution gave him those powers and he is using them."

The joint resolution did not give him the powers of Congress.

"Do you want a law to be passed that make the tribunals permanent?"

That is the job of Congress. That was not for the President to decide.

" Bush can cancel that EO at any time."

He can keep it too.

"I wish the Patriot Act had been implemented the same way."

Stroke of the pen law of the land was not good for other Presidents and its not good now.

"The PA is now a permanent law that will never be repealed."

I have just been on another thread with you and you just said Yes the Patriot Act was a good thing. Now you say it should have not be permanent but should have an EO by Bush. You need to READ the constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Patriot Act.

It is clear from your opinions expressed on this forum that you do not care what anyone says. Your partisanship, disregard for the constitution, and anything goes for Bush because the end justifies the means is getting old and makes you look like nothing more than a government shill.

264 posted on 11/18/2001 9:20:28 PM PST by Native American Female Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Native American Female Vet
I have just been on another thread with you and you just said Yes the Patriot Act was a good thing.

Go back to that thread and read my last response. As to the other portions of your reply you are using semantics to make a point I don't play semantic games. The Congress gave Bush full War powers as CIC under the joint resolution the constitutional requirements have been met. You don't like it but that is the fact.

265 posted on 11/18/2001 9:26:07 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: rdavis84
Here's another one of those "obvious jokes" from a Bush Advisor ---

Look, I don't know you and I don't want to insult you - but I've got two issues with this. One, George W. Bush was indeed joking when he made the remark you refer to in quotation marks above. You know that. To take it out of context, put it in print, and try to lead people to believe that he was serious is beyond irresponsible. I don't know what kind of person you are, of course, but it seems to me rather deceitful that someone would knowingly mislead people regarding something the President said.

Two, I think if you're going to quote a "Bush Advisor", you should provide context and sources for your quotes, since you have proven yourself unworthy of trust by quoting the President out of context.

Look, jr. says a LOT of stupid things, but many of us don't appreciate HIS humor. Must teach it in the S&B Society.

I think you know, also, that President Bush is not a "jr."; this, of course, serves as an indication of where you're coming from. (I will take that into consideration.) Here, you admit that you understand it was indeed a joke, albeit one you did not appreciate - so why try to make it sound like the comment was to be taken at face value? I see, also, that you're terribly worried about the Skull and Bones thing. I guess it fits.

266 posted on 11/18/2001 9:30:46 PM PST by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Go back to that thread and read my last response."

No you go back and read the thread. Your last response to someone else was the complete opposit of what you had been arguing in your replys to me.

"As to the other portions of your reply you are using semantics to make a point I don't play semantic games."

I did not use sematics with you. It is the constitution I refer to.

"The Congress gave Bush full War powers as CIC under the joint resolution the constitutional requirements have been met."

No they have not. Whatever semantics you want to use does not change that fact. Congress did not declare war.

"You don't like it but that is the fact."

The fact is Congress and the President are not following the constitution.

267 posted on 11/18/2001 9:52:54 PM PST by Native American Female Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Native American Female Vet
I did not use sematics with you. It is the constitution I refer to.

No you use the word constitution as some sort of justification for your total lack of understanding of the document. The Congress is the ONLY branch of government empowered to declare war, however the constitution is silent on how they must do it. No one in either the executive or, other than a few nut-cases, in congress and their equally ignorant fellow travelers in the population are claiming this is any thing other than a WAR.

268 posted on 11/18/2001 9:57:31 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: TrueLiberty
Like so much of this thread, I suspect you & I agree in principle regarding current events. Furthermore, there are so many areas in which I consider myself the least "pragmantic" person I know.

I disagree with a couple of your premises. I don't think George Bush has a cynical bone in his body. Also, there is little here that is unprecedented. Wasn't WWII our last "declared" war?

We're in a situation where we (at least I) won't get too bogged down on principle. Perhaps this is because I AM somewhat cynical. I don't think you will get any congress to "declare" war. That may be one of those anachronisms that IS a casualty of the modern era.

Sorry, I don't think conservatives can afford the luxury of that principle. If we do, we have to say since we can't seem to be able to delare war, perhaps we shouldn't fight it. Although from a different angle, that seems clintonesque.

Whether the war is declared or not, these terrorist cells had better be eradicated with as extreme a prejudice as can me mustered, or we'll be having this argument when the bad guys have all the advantages. We can't wait for that.

I wouldn't mind living to see the Constitution (all of it) become the supreme law of the land once again. In the meantime, I'd like to see us retain a land in which to have this discussion. They say that war is the BEST friend of the state. Unfortunately, that is likely true. There still aren't any prizes in being runner-up.

269 posted on 11/18/2001 10:07:30 PM PST by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
"No you use the word constitution as some sort of justification for your total lack of understanding of the document."

You kust keep proving you dont know the constitution very well.

"The Congress is the ONLY branch of government empowered to declare war, however the constitution is silent on how they must do it."

LOL What is so silent about "Congress shall have power to declare war? You need to read Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution.

"No one in either the executive or, other than a few nut-cases, in congress and their equally ignorant fellow travelers in the population are claiming this is any thing other than a WAR."

ROTFL Why would they? They are the ones gaining power and setting the precident for people like Bill Clinton.

Is Ron Paul a nutcase? I guess by your standards the founding fathers were nut cases.

270 posted on 11/18/2001 10:27:57 PM PST by Native American Female Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Native American Female Vet
Is Ron Paul a nutcase?

Yes.

271 posted on 11/18/2001 10:52:37 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Native American Female Vet
Now you tell me what is the difference in these two joint Resolutions oh constititutional scholar

JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.

Here is the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists adopted unanimously on Sept. 14 by the Senate and by a 420-1 vote in the House
To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
WHEREAS, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
WHEREAS, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and
WHEREAS, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and
WHEREAS, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,
WHEREAS the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.
RESOLVED by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1. Short Title
       This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force”
Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces
       (a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
       (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements
       (1) Specific Statutory Authorization — Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
       (2) Applicability of Other Requirements — Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

272 posted on 11/18/2001 10:56:18 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: lelio
I've never seen so many, "Post #xx Removed By Moderator" inserts.
I'm sorry I missed all the fun.
Damned wife, life, taxes & sleep really *cramp* my civil liberties.
273 posted on 11/19/2001 12:49:54 AM PST by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Turn it around, sir. You show me where the Constitution empowers the president to issue such an order. The way the Constitution works, any power not specifically granted is prohibited.

In what way do you think I protest too much? Are you implying that I'm a terrorist?

274 posted on 11/19/2001 12:59:03 AM PST by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Comment #275 Removed by Moderator

To: The Documentary Lady
[That makes me a terrorist, how about you?]

Under that definition, Congress and the President are definitely off the hook, along with their cheerledaers here. The rest of us seem to be fair game, don't we?

276 posted on 11/19/2001 1:15:37 AM PST by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Twodees
In what way do you think I protest too much? Are you implying that I'm a terrorist?

Allow me, I see you as a person that real deep down is saying that "yeah I can dig it. Anyone that hits the man where it hurts is ok by me". You obviously would NEVER commit a terrorist act but you have a real "understanding" of why this government could drive someone to do so.

277 posted on 11/19/2001 1:16:46 AM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: marajade
The US Supreme Court hasn't ruled that the president can issue an EO giving himself the authority to exercise war powers when war has not been declared. You keep making this assertion, so show us the cite. The name of the case will be enough.
278 posted on 11/19/2001 1:26:37 AM PST by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Twodees
The US Supreme Court hasn't ruled that the president can issue an EO giving himself the authority to exercise war powers when war has not been declared.

And they haven't ruled he can't. You are in a fit of circular reasoning and can't break out.

279 posted on 11/19/2001 1:29:14 AM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
This is hyperbole, he is not acting as judge, jury and executioner. He is acting as the DA, deciding whehter to indict or not and he becomes responsible for that indictment, not some faceless assortment of crats.

Exactly. But don't expect the chicken littles, mainly those who have always despised Bush, to listen.

280 posted on 11/19/2001 1:36:54 AM PST by razorbak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 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