I'm with you here.
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 have to enumerate what principle Bush violated. Constitutional Scholars as diverse as Lawerence Tribe, Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz all acknowledge that military tribunals are constitutional.
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.
Simply not true, the tribunals will be conducted in accordance with the UCMJ and nobody is interested in trying your mother-in-law. Thats hyperbole, it makes no sense, Americans would not stand still for such gross violations.
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.
What powers? Bush is exercising his authority by order of Congress' authorization pursuant to the War Powers Act in accordance with the UCMJ which was codified by Congress. He is CIC, and therefore in a military tribunal, he can and should act as the district attorney deciding who should be indicted. Who would you have do this?
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?
It is written to give the CIC the widest latitutde possible in dealing with the "unlawful belligerents" who attacked and killed almost 5 thousand of our brothers and sisters. There are beaucoups checks and balances. The American people being the prime example.
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.
Habeus corpus has not been suspended and they will be able to present a defense.at the tribunal. I find it amazing that you are so distrustful of President Bush in using discretion while at the same time endorsing the killing of all such combatants in Afghanistan. Does Private GI Joe have better judgement than the CIC?
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.
No, it is good business, We have the example of the one eyed mullah being tried in New York. Eight years later they are convicted but not executed and in the interim, loads of classified data pertaining to the enginneering of the WTC found its way to the public and bin Laden.
No they will not. This is a military tribunal, not a trial. There are no rules for it as of this moment, they will be created by the Executive branch. If it were a military trial according to the UCMJ, I would have no problem with it.