[74dodgedart]

it is the one thing separates innocent civilians from foreign nationals who commit or plot to commit an act of war against this country.

Innocent until proven guilty. It wouldn't be the first time the FBI or the CIA screwed up and wrongly accused someone.

Congress has not declared war (its exclusive right, see constitution). Who would they declare war against ? Al-queda is not specific to one nation.

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist who attacked a fed gov't building, should he have been tried by a military tribunal ?

If an American national was picked up in a foriegn country and dragged before a military tribunal where evidence against him was kept secret, he wasn't able to select his own lawyer, there was no jury, etc. The US gov't would strongly disapprove, there would be sanctions, presidential phone calls, etc.

Why should we be any different ?

There are three equal branches of gov't Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. None can over ride the other.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Timothy McVeigh was an American citizen who commited an act of terrorism against this country. He could not have been tried by military tribunal. Don't confuse facts with spin (lie). Why would you mislead others into thinking a military tribunal would affects the judical rights of citizens? However, he has already been authorized by Congress to do this.

I have yet to see a specific reference (i.e. proof) that what the President has done is unconstitutional. In other words, show me the money.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES September 14, 2001 Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. LOTT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed [bold mine]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens;

Whereas such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad;

Whereas in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;

Whereas such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

==============

Sometimes a rose is a rose. Congress seems to be surprised he is using the power they granted him.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

BTW, listening to C-Span 3, I find it interesting the witness is dealing in fact & law while the most Senate members ( even GOP) are dealing in opinion and opining (love that word) about being "left out" boo-hoo. But no one has pointed to the law saying "This mandates our inclusion", instead it is all "should" as in " We should have been told."