Replies

I don't think KC makes a clear enough distinction between individuals apprehended abroad and those apprehended within the U.S.

Article III, Section 2
... The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Amendment IV
No person shall be . . .be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . .

A tribunal is simply a more formal way to make certain that the person being summarily dealt with is the person intended...nothing more, nothing less.

In the right hnds it will "make certain." In the wrong hands it will be only window dressing which serves as an excuse to execute anyone who "they" want dead.

We don't want our laws to allow secret actions which require their operation to be in honorable and trustworthy hands.

I'm glad to see the distinctions that Bob Barr makes and Always A Marine recounts at post #16. I guess my only question would then be that if Barr acknowledges the Battlefield suitability of such proceedures, why wouldn't they apply when the Battlefield is here, on our soil with non-citizen terrorists?

I think that Bush does want to have the best of both worlds on the War Declaration issue...but with the unusual circumstances of the event and the poor performance of our Legislative Branch, wherein the Power to Declare War resides when done seperately from the action taken in accordance with the War Powers Act.

Congress could craft a special animal, but the time for that has past and the leadership on both sides is too weak. Let the gripes continue, they make some valid points, but as even Barr's clarifications show, there are justifications and precidents for much of what was done.