[backup]

Here, by the way, is a link to the Supreme Court's unanimous decision approving FDR's trial of the 1942 German saboteurs by military commission, EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) . I do not believe the present situation can be effectively distinguished from the situation that the Supreme Court approved in that decision.

The tibunal at issue in Quinn was created by Congress and the Judicial branch served as the final arbitor.

The Bush tribunal was created by the Executive Branch and the Executive Branch acts as the final arbiter. (In addition, the EO abolishes Habeas Corpus -- something only the Legislative branch can do.)

If you still fail to appreciate the difference, I'd give up trying.

[Southack]

"The Bush tribunal was created by the Executive Branch and the Executive Branch acts as the final arbiter. (In addition, the EO abolishes Habeas Corpus -- something only the Legislative branch can do.)"

To abolish Habeas Corpus, it must exist in the first place. Sure, Habeas Corpus exists for U.S. citizens, but where and when did foreign beligerents gain the right of Habeas Corpus?

President Bush has created military tribunals for trying foreign beligerents under his authority as supreme military commander in chief. This is within his authority, and abolishes nothing (certainly not habeas corpus, as you and I still retain that right - ergo it can't have been "abolished" by definition).

[aristeides]

The tribunal at issue in Quirin was established by FDR's executive branch in accordance with a provision of the congressionally passed Articles of War. The tribunals that would be established by President Bush's order would be established by his executive branch in accordance with an identical provision of the equally congressionally passed Uniform Code of Military Justice, the successor of the Articles of War. There is no difference.