Why does the bold print only apply to FDR? I have seen nothing yet that states Congress specifically authorized those tribunals in 1942.
As for your analysis, I've heard many others from both ends of the spectrum come to the opposite conclusion. Yours is an informed opinion but thats it, you're not the final arbiter. From what I have seen and heard you will end up helping write the minority opinion.
By the way, I think Dukes is a more compelling argument. But then again, I have an agenda. I want as many terrorists dead as possible
If by secret you mean closed to the public, I have no problem with that. This country has had secret-trials for national security reasons for well over 200 years.
Why does the bold print only apply to FDR? I have seen nothing yet that states Congress specifically authorized those tribunals in 1942.
I cited that passage becasue it is a good summary of the Articles of War passed by Congress which authorized the military tribunal system utilized by FDR. The statutes themselves are found at 10 U.S.C. 1471-1593. (They were repealed after the war, of course, but you should be able to find a copy on the internet.)
With all due respect, I sense a basic confusion as to how the three branches of government work in relation to a judicial system.
Congress doesn't convene a trial. It doesn't 'authorize' the Executive branch to move forward with a trial in a particular case. That is, FDR did not have to ask Congress for permission to try those particular Germans.
Rather, our Legislative branch passes LAWS setting forth the procedures and rules pertaining to trials. Every Federal Court in this country was created by Congress. All the rules -- how many jurors, what kind of evidence comes in, what the penalties are, what the accused may and may not do during the trial, etc., etc. -- are LAWS and passed by Congress.
Now... The Judicial branch is the branch in charge of actually hearing the case. They decide how Congress' laws are to be interpreted and applied to the particular case at hand. Congress can create quasi-courts -- such as administrative courts or military tribunals -- which aren't technically organs of the Judicial branch. However, at the end of the day, an Article III judge must have the final say.
The Executive branch serves as the prosecutor. It's job is to convince the Judicial branch that a law was broken. The Executive branch can do NOTHING to the accused without first having the Judicial branch OK it. Does the Executive branch want to execute a terrorist? It's first gotta have the Judicial branch's permission. This is what is meant by "due process."
Returning to FDR -- the tribunal, its basic procedures, and its organization was created by Congress. The Judicial branch had the ultimate authority to determine if the verdict was correct. And, the Executive branch (FDR) had the job of prosecuting the accused.
But then again, I have an agenda. I want as many terrorists dead as possible
A laudable goal perhaps.
And one that can easily be accomplished without gutting the Constitution.