Barr said that he agrees with Military Tribunals for bad guys captured overseas, but not (under the present circumstances) for those captured within the United States for acts committed here. Barr said that absent an official Declaration of War, which he supports by Bush opposes, those domestic acts should be tried in US courts. Barr gave historical examples of prior trials by Military Tribunal inside the United States, all of which occurred during times of declared war. He made clear that he supports Military Tribunals, but that Congress must declare War in order for the President to rightfully assume wartime powers within the borders of the United States.
As for why Bush opposes an official Declaration of War by Congress, Barr said that the administration wants to have its cake (all wartime powers) and eat it too (not trigger certain of its consequences). Barr said that the only argument that the White House gave him for opposing an official (Constitutional) declaration was that Bush doesn't want to trigger "War Clauses" within insurance policies which would deny coverage to those suffering damage from the actions of our enemies.
As usual -- and as Neal Boortz acknowledged, there is more to Bob Barr's considered positions than meets the eye (or ear). It's the Constitution...
And didn't I read somewhere that the FedGov was going to pay approximately 70% of the insurance claims for 9-11?? (I wish I could find the source--anyone else see this?)
While it's pleasing Barr has the Constitution in mind (as I expected he did); he has chosen the wrong path by declaring that the Judiciary should treat these acts of war as common crimes.
I do not think the Judicial Branch will let the Legislative Branch force it into such a disreputable act,
The Congress can take positive action, besides declaring war, by amending the UCMJ to include these alien terrorists, or amending the WPA to apply the UCMJ to the terrorists.