Replies

According to the article (and President Bush himself), Bush has already been given that authority by Congress. They might not have understood the ramifications of what they authorized, but that's their tough luck. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

If Congress has granted Bush that power, then they also have the authority to rescind it. If you look at the section of the Constitution regarding suspension of habeous corpus, that resides in the legislative, not the executive. Tribunals should follow the same path.

What do you do when the leadership in the Senate is blocking most every necessary anti-terrorism and national security effort? Daschle is unwilling to even form a terrorism committee, has blocked all efforts to bring the energy bill to the floor, is now supporting investigating Ashcroft over the Tribunals.

Daschle Stalls ANWR and Energy Bill, dead for the year, Nov. 27, Yahoo News.

Terror Panel Loses Support: Daschle Against Creating Committee, Nov. 26- Roll Call.

Daschle Seeks to End Probes of H. Clinton and Torricelli, Nov. 19, Roll Call.

No Time for ANWR, econ. stimulus, terrorism, but time to visit Mexico City, Nov. 17, AP.

The Daschle Delay, Larry Kudlow's piece on Daschle's economic mischief-making.

Clinton Cabinet Vets Provide Wartime Perspective to Daschle and Gephardt

Why isn't Daschle's ignoring threats to our nation's security and economy a front page scandal?

Congress is expected to recess in mid-December and return in January. This gives the President very little time to make necessary recess appointments, but of course Daschle knew that.

So now is the time to be arguing this? Let the man do what's gotta be done, all others should stand down... no, get the hell outta the way!

If anyone wants to debate the finer points and meaning of the powers vested in the presidency they shoulda' done it long before now, like during the Clinton era. How many EO's did he sign? And how many were beyond his legal right?

Before you argue GW's EO when the safety of perhaps millions of Americans are at stake, go back and argue some of Clinton's.

Dear Dirtboy,
I've done some serious research on the subject of the "Law of War," but this writer has done more homework than me. Congress already HAS acted. It gave the power to create such military tribunals to President Jefferson at the outset of the War against the Barbary Pirates (the only other war in which our enemy was not one or more nations, but was a group of armed and dangerous men located in several countries).
This law from 1806 was recognized as still in effect in 1942, when a unanimous Supreme Court let stand the convictions and sentences of eight German saboteurs by a military tribunal, as ordered by President Roosevelt in World War II.
So, I gather you withdraw your objection from the other thread that Congress SHOULD authorize such tribunals, because Congress already HAS authorized them. What are the chances that Congress will repeal this authority, which was used by Presidents Jefferson, Lincoln, perhaps Wilson, and Roosevelt in order to prevent President Bush II from using it?
Before you state an aswer to that, remember that the repeal of Congress' granted authority will have to not only pass both Houses of Congress, it will have to have enough votes to survive a veto. I put the odds of that happening -- that Congress will go soft on terrorists while we are in a war against terrorists because the left wing of the party wants that result -- at nil, nada, rien, zilch.
Do you concur?

Congressman Billybob