Replies

"sections 821 and 836 of title 10"

This part of the UCMJ is relevant to the order (understand that all serious offenses are tried by courts-martial):
"821. ART. 21. JURISDICTION OF COURTS-MARTIAL NOT EXCLUSIVE
The provisions of this chapter conferring jurisdiction upon courts- martial do not deprive military commissions, provost courts, or other military tribunals of concurrent jurisdiction with respect to offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be tried by military commissions, provost courts, or other military tribunals. "
"by statute or by the law of war may be tried by military commissions, provost courts, or other military tribunals."
The UCMJ blatantly states that it does not supercede other venues for trials.
Notably it allows for trial under the law of war in addition to allowing trials under statute.

The UCMJ is not, and was never meant to be, the venue for trying opponent's war crimes.
That has always been done by tribunal.

Unless the legislature enacts law for the trying of terrorist acts of war, which they have not, the commander in chief is well authorized to provide justice under the law of war, as best he can.

If one accepts that acts of war have been committed (and God help me I won't accept any other characterization of these acts) rather than dispute the President's authority to no point- since some provision must be made for trying these acts- skip this debate and go to the crux, and insist that the legislature fulfill it's duty to enact tribunals for these trials.

The Judiciary is not going to allow Congress to foist these war crimes into it's jurisdiction by whim.

The tribunals for trying alien terrorist warriors require a level of secrecy that our dear legislators don't want to be associated with enacting, but it is their duty . They can certainly provide, as they did with the "Patriot act", for a better- if not perfect- protection of civil and human rights than the President's very general order does.
I hope we all agree that it would be better that these tribunals be enacted under statute than by administrative order.

This whole debate misses the crux- which is that these are criminal acts of war, and that the Congress is failing in it's duty to provide law for the adjudication of them.

BTW: Here's why, if one assumes that the lack of a declaration of war means we are not at war (though I hope no one claims that the terrorists haven't been ) that the UCMJ does not apply:
"802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER (10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field."
The terrorists are not covered by the UCMJ except in time of war ("time of war" can be more general than "declared war" IMO- I'm merely exhibiting the mealy mouthing caused by use of the War Powers Resolution).

Our have-it-all-ways Congress has been caught on it's own petard by avoiding a declaration of war.

This blaming of the president instead of the congress reminds me of the impeachment, where the failure of the president to uphold the law was ignored, and the congress was instead criticized for it's efforts to deal with his failure.