Replies

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.

I think the crux of the argument is that some people, like yourselves, truly believe that this order will be used only against guilty terrorists. Others, like me, are more skeptical.

And I really don't like the idea that the decision about whom to use this against lies solely with one man, with no avenue for appeal.

I think the fact that you trust President Bush to use this power wisely, obscures the fact that it is not a power he should command. Unless it is a power that you believe should belong to every president, and every other nation's leader, I don't see why you think we should entrust it to Bush.

To claim this power as our sole perogative weakens our claim that we are a lawful, just and free nation.