Replies

"There's nothing in the Constitution creating military tribunals in the first place, let alone requiring them, let alone stating that certain groups must be tried by the executive."

There doesn't have to be anything specific about military tribunals in the Constitution, just as there doesn't have to be anything specific about the use of nuclear weapons in the Constitution, but in both instances the creation, deployment, and use of those tools falls underneath the assignment by our Constitution of control over our military by the Executive Branch. Your argument is a red herring.

The Executive Branch is over our entire military and its affairs. Moving part of those affairs from the Executive Branch to the Judicial Branch would VIOLATE the assignment of powers as laid forth in our Constitution.

Those who argue, as you do, for the use of civilian (i.e., Judicial Branch) trials for foreign warriors/terrorists, are advocating the abrogation of our Constitution with a direct attack on our foundation of national laws.

Nuclear weapons are weapons. Military tribunals are courts, not "tools".

Cite the clause(s) supporting what you say. Not general principles you obviously don't understand, but the actual clauses.

Unless you can do that, your argument is just meaningless electrons.

You don't know anything about the foundations of our laws. The Constitution is not a list of ill-defined slogans. It's a legal document.

You didn't answer my question. Do you have even a clue?