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

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

[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.

[Twodees]

Show me where the Constitution empowers Congress to pass a joint resolution which confers war powers on the President without declaring war. While you're at it, post your own credentials as a Constitutional scholar. That should be good for a real belly laugh.

If Clinton had done the same thing you would be screaming about it.

[Texasforever]

Show me where the Constitution empowers Congress to pass a joint resolution which confers war powers on the President without declaring war

The constitution is silent on how congress "declares war" I defy you to produce a boilerplate constitutional "declaration of war" And don't give me that Clinton Bull sh$T I expect better from you.

[Twodees]

This is between Southhack and me, boy. Butt out of this one and answer the response I posted to you.

[Texasforever]

This is between Southhack and me, boy. Butt out of this one and answer the response I posted to you.

Friend the last idiot that called me "boy" left limping. You want to address me you do it man to man.

[Twodees]

[And they haven't ruled he can't.]

Mara keeps stating that the SCOTUS has already ruled that Bush is acting properly here. I asked her for a cite. You don't have a cite either, but you feel impelled to put your oar in the water anyway by claiming that the President may do whatever he likes until the SCOTUS rules against him. That's the purest sort of ignorance.

We have a Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. If anyone in government may do anything not expressly prohibited in the document, then our Constitution isn't the magnificent work that millions of people have admired, but instead just a set of comments fit to be printed on a roll of toilet paper.

I do wish that you would stop huffing glue before posting. It makes you look too much like what you are.

[Twodees]

Sure, you're going to make me limp via internet posts. I'll clue you in on something, boy. Southerners don't take offense at being called boy. Only yankee liberals do. I suspect that you're the same kind of "Texan" that GWBush is, born and educated in the north with two yankee parents.

If you want to answer for someone else, then ahve an answer ready when you do so. Otherwise, butt out. Boy.

[Texasforever]

We have a Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.

I posted two joint Resolutions by congress, the first being the formal DOW on Japan and the one authorizing Bush to act against international terrorism. BOTH are constitutionally sound and BOTH are two different methods of "skinning" the same cat. I have backed up my interpretation with facts, all you and others have done is stomp you feet and whined that it does not fit your argument. I stand by my assertion, in many ways you agree with the rationale used by those that flew those planes into the buildings on Sept. 11. You have shown it over and over again on this forum..

[Texasforever]

Sure, you're going to make me limp via internet posts. I'll clue you in on something, boy. Southerners don't take offense at being called boy. Only yankee liberals do. I suspect that you're the same kind of "Texan" that GWBush is, born and educated in the north with two yankee parents.

With that post I have to wonder if your parents are also your aunt and uncle.

[It'salmosttolate]

"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."

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
Comment #57 Removed by Moderator
Comment #59 Removed by Moderator
Comment #65 Removed by Moderator
Comment #72 Removed by Moderator
Comment #81 Removed by Moderator
Comment #85 Removed by Moderator
Comment #90 Removed by Moderator
Comment #91 Removed by Moderator
Comment #92 Removed by Moderator
Comment #100 Removed by Moderator
Comment #106 Removed by Moderator
Comment #112 Removed by Moderator
Comment #115 Removed by Moderator
Comment #126 Removed by Moderator
Comment #127 Removed by Moderator
Comment #129 Removed by Moderator
Comment #132 Removed by Moderator
Comment #133 Removed by Moderator
Comment #140 Removed by Moderator
Comment #143 Removed by Moderator
Comment #145 Removed by Moderator
Comment #153 Removed by Moderator
Comment #157 Removed by Moderator
Comment #165 Removed by Moderator
Comment #182 Removed by Moderator
Comment #204 Removed by Moderator
Comment #233 Removed by Moderator
Comment #241 Removed by Moderator
Comment #252 Removed by Moderator
Comment #257 Removed by Moderator

[Twodees]

You keep saying that Congress has legitimized this nonsense with their ridiculous joint resolution, but you can't provide the Article of the Constitution which empowers Congress to do this. As usual, you're just blustering and blathering and you can't back up a single thing you post. Go read the US Constitution. I have no expectation at all of your being able to understand it, but read it and try to make some sense of it.

If all you can do is make dimwitted statements, then claim that you've made your point when called on your nonsense, you may as well save keystrokes and bandwidth. Nobody but one of your fellow republican socialists is impressed with your profound ignorance of the Constitution.

What you've done is to repeat what some talking head on TV has told you, and then claimed to have backed up your interpretation with facts. Nonsense. Try backing up your interpretation with cites from the text of the US Constitution. I'll wait while you order a copy and spend a year or two trying to decipher it if that's what you need.

You have to bring some to get some, boy. Until you have a fact or two to rub together, don't try to sell your snake oil to people who can read. You're defending the actions of people in government who are violating their oaths of office. Their party affiliation shouldn't make you give them a free pass for that crime.

[Destructor]

GOOD! Since when do foreign criminals enjoy the constitutional rights of a citizen? I think this is more of the bleeding heart factor trying to creep in. Personally, I want the President to decide the fate of the Terrorists that perpetrated the 9-11 atrocity. President Bust WILL do the right thing!! President Bush will see to it that justice is served!!!

[It'salmosttolate]

I agree, except it should be public, No secrecy.

[Landru]

*32* posts deleted, IA2L...what's it mean?
I must make sense of it all...

32 divided by 2 (much vitrol) = *16*.
Hmmmm...
Now add 3 (for how many times I've posted to this thread)?
Ohmygawd -- *19*!!!
Whoa... >?<

There it is...
It's Monday, November 19th.

...should be perfectly clear to *all* reasonable people, including, FR's august & esteemed Libertarian contingent, of the diabolical scheme at work here.

:o)

[Southack]

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

Your claim is unsubstantiated.

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

[Southack]

"You keep saying that Congress has legitimized this nonsense with their ridiculous joint resolution, but you can't provide the Article of the Constitution which empowers Congress to do this. As usual, you're just blustering and blathering and you can't back up a single thing you post. Go read the US Constitution."

That was an interesting reply (above) that you made to TexasForever, considering your own failure to support your Constitutional claims on this very thread.

Hypocrisy, thy name is...

[Twodees]

The Constitution doesn't grant the President the power to issue Executive Orders which carry the force of law. See Article II of the document for the full range of Constitutional Presidential powers.

[Southack]

In your version of the Constitution, just what power is the President given over military matters in foreign lands?

[Twodees]

Southack, anyone who claims that the President is acting constitutionally without citing the Article which empowers the action they're referring to carries the burden of proof for their assertion. Since I was not the one claiming the the President had the power, granted in the Constitution, to issue such an EO then I was not the one remiss in failing to cite from Article II.

Article I (the legislative Article) details (among other powers of Congress) everything that Congress may do in regard to declaring war. If I assume that people who want to claim that the Constitution provides powers not mentioned within the articles haven't read the document, that's hardly hypocrisy. It's simply an accurate conclusion.

Article I, section 8 mentions that Congress shall have the power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal and to make rules concerning captures on land and water. It omits any power of Congress to delegate lawmaking powers to any other branch, as well as any power of Congress to empower the President to assume wartime powers absent a declaration of war.

That same section empowers Congress to establish tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, but fails to empower Congress to delegate that power to the President. According to the 10th Amendment, the only powers the federal government has are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. If it ain't listed, it ain't a federal power.

When discussing the Constitution, I tend to assume that anyone can get out their copy of the document and look up the relevant Article and section. If I'm giving people too much credit by assuming that anyone who holds forth on the Constitution actually has a copy of the document, just say so. If I wait to be asked for a cite, that doesn't make me a hypocrite for observing that others have ignored my request for a cite.

Did you overlook the question I asked you in response to what you posted to me earlier?