[A.J.Armitage]

That's a tall order. There's the whole weird separation of powers argument (and you obviously know nothing about the topic except the phrase and your sophistic argument). Your claim that Bush's military tribunals are in any meaningful sense the same as UCMJ courts. Your whole argument rests on BS. See the following:

But what you and other chicken littles ARE calling is for is an unConstitutional shift of jurisdiction from military tribunals under the Executive Branch to civilian trials under the Judicial Branch

Of course, out here in the real world, Bush created military tribunals that didn't exist before, so actually, cases are shifted away from regular courts to the tribunals. There's probably more. Just rest assured, you're wrong.

[Southack]

"Of course, out here in the real world, Bush created military tribunals that didn't exist before, so actually, cases are shifted away from regular courts to the tribunals. There's probably more. Just rest assured, you're wrong."

President Bush can create new courts-martial at his leisure, just as he can create other forms of similar military tribunals.

You are incorrect, however, when you claim that merely creating new tribunals would shift cases from "regular" (one presumes you mean "civilian") courts to military tribunals. The Executive Branch has first jurisdiction over military affairs, so it would be more accurate to say that President Bush is exercising his option to retain such military cases in military tribunals.

Further, what you advocate (i.e., shifting jurisdiction of military cases to civilian courts) could VIOLATE our Constitution's assignment of powers. Our Judicial Branch is not assigned ultimate control over military affairs, after all.