Replies

Very well said.

In addition, the order signed by Bush establishing the right to hold military tribunals is an utterly horrifying overreach on the part of the executive branch.

The president, and the president alone, has assumed the power to declare that any foreign national may be subject to these secret tribunals if the individual may be one that is thought to: “have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy and it is in the interest of the United States that such individual be subject to this order.”

We are basically saying that it is within a nation's right to have their leader declare any citizen of another nation an enemy and execute them (after a secret trial) without presenting any evidence of guilt or even clearly enumerating the charges against that person.

It's insane.

I couldn't agree with you more. It is as amazing in it's over-reach as it is in it's scope outside the bounds of legal judicial processes.

If Bush could do this, why couldn't Laden or Saddam Hussein do the same thing to US citizens? This is a big can of worms in my opinion.

Does the President, as Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces have the authority when operating under the recently approved Congressional action, passed in harmony with the War Powers Act have the right to set Rules of Engagement with Terrorists, Spies, and people operating outside of the definition of Combatants and Non-Combantants as defined under US Code and the Rules of Land Warfare?

I would say he does.

He is waging War as defined under his Constitutional role as Commander in Chief and he can issue a shoot on sight, or accept no surrender rule on people such as these. A tribunnal is simply a more formal way to make certain that the person being summarily dealt with is the person intended...nothing more, nothing less.

An unarmed sabatour is not a non-combatant. Neither is he a proper combatant laying down his arms. The theater for this action is not the criminal theater (within the states or out) but instead the battlefield. If he can order such a war criminal, terrorist or sabatour shot-on-sight by the Military he heads(which I believe he can), he can order such a person examined and then dealt with by the Military he heads. It isn't a trial, its a tribunnal.

"We are basically saying that it is within a nation's right to have their leader declare any citizen of another nation an enemy and execute them (after a secret trial) without presenting any evidence of guilt or even clearly enumerating the charges against that person."

I haven't reached a decision on this yet. But, a 'secret' trial is still a trial isn't it?