[Silly]

WHO PUT WHAT IN BOB BARR'S CHEERIOS?

Best thread title of the day, by the way.

The grandstanding and opportunism has already started. Barr is probably jockeying for power and attention.

[DoughtyOne]

I don't so much have a problem with a military tribunal, as with a closed military tribunal. I don't have a problem with convicting any of the Taliban and executing them. But we should allow the world to see why we execute anyone that we decide to.

We have been told that there is direct evidence against Laden. Most of us have accepted that on faith. If he is captured, that should be proven in a court, be that federal or military.

We expect our justice to be fair. We expect the evidence to be overwhelming. If these are true, why not allow the world to see? In my opinion, closing the proceedings would lead just about every nation but our own to suspect the proceedings. I think we do our nation more harm than good by closing these hearings.

I read the other day where these types of military hearings were actually proposed for McVeigh and Nichols. If that is accurate, would we really have wanted them held behind closed doors?

We need to be careful what we sign onto in our name, and more importantly in the name of our nation.

Yes I know, WWII and yada yada. Well the premise holds true, that the light of day promotes truth and understanding.

[MissAmericanPie]

Given the way power is expanded rather than contracted what is unnerving is the possibility of abuse in including prosecution of civilian citizens along with foreign terrorists by the military.

While President Bush will use the ability with integrity he will not always be president, our last president used the IRS as a club to bash detractors over the head with. Hate crimes and hate speech means what ever the law wants it to mean at any given time. It is no stretch to see hate speech being redefined as incitement to terrorism, will that happen? Who knows but it is best not to have any precedents set that allows a military tribunal to be called up at the drop of a hat to serve a function of any president who wants to silence critics.

[mrsmith]

If Barr is serious, and I believe he is, he will admit that this controversy is the fault of the Legislature- not the President.
Congress has been caught on it's own petard by avoiding a declaration of war.
The terrorists are not covered by the UCMJ except in time of war.

Congress must either declare that a state of war exists within the meaning of the UCMJ, or pass new legislation to supersede Bush's tribunals order.

Or try to force the Judiciary to treat an obvious act of war as a common crime.

The War Powers Resolution has been a Constitutional minefield long overdue to be traversed, Barr is to be commended for making the Congress take that trip- if he does.

[Freedom of Speech Wins]

Barr wanted a full declaration of war against all terrorism from the outset here.

[Digger]

What would happen if a trial were put on & we, the sheeple, had access & see the connections between bin Laden & the Bushes. See why that will NEVER happen.

[patent]

The best option? Kill the SOB. A gut shot, not one of those Special Forces headshots. Let the bastard suffer.

I absolutely positively disagree. If you let him suffer there is always the slight possibility he could somehow live. Give him a gut shot, then a head shot, a couple more gut shots. Make him dead, that is the primary objective and don’t let emotion get in the way. Then take some pictures, cut off a finger for DNA proof, and drop a daisy cutter on top of him so that they don’t have a casket to parade around.

Otherwise I agree with the article. Anything other than a military trial would be bad for American and good for terrorists, whether of the leftist or muslim variety.

patent

[Croooow]

"Also, have you ever paid attention to the UN’s signature document when it comes to human rights? This human rights treaty was touted by Bill Clinton as the finest document in support of freedom in the history of the world. Others might feel that honor belongs to the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. But, no. Clinton says the UN Human Rights Declaration is Numero Uno! Without belaboring this point – you might be interested to know that the UN Human Rights Declaration clearly states that humans have NO rights when it comes to the goals and purposes of the United Nations."

Be it resolved that the die-hard Clinton defenders have NO right to complain about military tribunals.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Bob Barr does not need anything in his Cheerios. One of the reasons I respect him is he says what he believes. I suspect this ties into the report I heard on the radio today. Bob Barr wants a declaration of War. I happen to agree with him. This is a war. A declaration of war removes any ambiguity.

[aculeus]

But how does [one] explain Bob Barr?

Two words: Law School.

Yes, I know Boortz is a lawyer but most people do not survive the mental lobotomy performed on them by the professors.

[Junior]

Look, the young men and women we sent over there in the American uniforms don’t get full constitutional protection if they commit a crime while in our armed services.

Hell they don't. A military defendent has the right to an attorney, he has the right to confront his accuser, et al. What do you think the Judge Advocate General Corps is for? If things were the way Mr. Boortz seems to think they are, there would be no need for military lawyers.

[Iwo Jima]

The Bush Administration has successfully made this issue of military tribunals in the view of most people all about Osama bin Laden and his people. But no one who opposes this order (at least none that I have heard about) is saying that bin Laden, Al Qaida, the Taliban or other combatants in any other country should be brought to this country for any reason, much less to be given a trial with full constitutional safeguards. Those people should be hunted down and killed where they are found as is proper and necessary in war or similar hostilities. No trial, nowhere, by anybody.

What Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and many defenders of liberty and the Constitution posting on this website find unforgivable is the usurpation of powers by Bush to do what no branch of the government could legally do -- violate the most basic Constitutional principles which he and many of us are sworn to uphold, not destroy.

You seem to read Bush's Executive Order and think "bin Laden" and that nothing is too vile to wish on him. Others like myself read the order and think about their spouse or mother-in-law from Mexico or Canada who has never had anything to do with any terrorists or terrorism, but based on the non-reviewable whim of one man can be tried and put to death in secret by hand-picked "judges" with no right of appeal or much of anything which gives a trial moral legitimacy in the eyes of Americans. This makes us a nation of men (or, even worse, MAN), not laws. It doesn't matter who the man is, our founders fought, died, and made tremendous sacrifices to insure that in this country NO PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS had powers like these.

Before you state that "That's not what the order is intended to do," let me go ahead and reply that intentions are debatable, subject to change, and not really all that meaningful, whereas the plain meaning of the words of the order clearly "allows" for these and a multitude of other injustices. If the order is not meant to apply to each and every non-citizen, then why is it written that way?

To those who claim that the order only applies to "terrorists," I would say that that is a classic example of "question-begging" -- it assumes what is sought to be proven. How does someone challenge being tried as a terrorist on the grounds that they are not a terrorist? Of course, they can't, and that is by design.

This is a bad, bad business, and totally unncessary. Those who love and have fought for the Constitution and the principles upon which this country was founded should cry tears of sorrow. And rage.

[bert]

Once a lawyer, always a lawer.

The military tribunal is hated by feather bedding lawers who want the wealth producung work.

[jackbill]

While I agree with much of what Barr "stands for", I don't agree with him on military tribunals. Actually, I've always considered him to be a not to well tied down cannon on deck.

[Parmy]

I LIKE BOB BARR!!!!!!!!

[lds23]

I like Congressman Barr. And the idea of military tribunals.

Maybe President Bush and the generals should just not tell anybody anything. It seems every little thing gets this dripping "oh my gosh, how could they do this" coverage from the press, even such things as not having the White House tour this Christmas. It's like they look for little specks to turn into mountains. Meanwhile, when slick willie was in charge, they tried to make molehills out of the mountains of crud oozing from Washington.

[Demidog]

Everyone is entitled their rights. The consitution does not provide priveleges it enumerates rights that every human being is born with. I am sorry that this makes it inconvenient for you wannabe tyrants.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Barr is a trial lawyer, need I say more?