Well I've explained most of this already, but I don't mind addressing it again.

* * *

> Why in the world do you mention separation of powers?

Becasue it is a fundamental premise of the Constitution which is specifically intended to protect us from dictators.  Like Madison said in the quote at the top of my article:

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."


> All that phrase means is that there is a division of authority. That
> fact argues for the order, not against it.

Wrong. The Presidents order ignores and usurps the authority of both the Congress and the Supreme Court.


> As to a declaration, are you aware that it is universally recognized
> that when a country has been attacked it can defend itself.

Obvioiusly, but defending itself does not justify criminal actions.


> Are you aware that the Geneva convention reflects the same
> definitions in the court case.

Sure. I'm also aware that the definitions don't fit the facts and that it's irrelevent in any case.


> If you want the protections granted to prisoners of war you cannot
> parade around as a student and then suddenly bomb noncombatants.

It doesn't matter: everyone is entitled to basic rights and due process, to wit:


GENEVA CONVENTION

( see: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm )

Article 5:

"In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."

Article 72:

"Accused persons shall have the right to present evidence necessary to their defence and may, in particular, call witnesses. They shall have the right to be assisted by a qualified advocate or counsel of their own choice, who shall be able to visit them freely and shall enjoy the necessary facilities for preparing the defence."


Article 73

"A convicted person shall have the right of appeal provided for by the laws applied by the court. He shall be fully informed of his right to appeal or petition and of the time limit within which he may do so. The penal procedure provided in the present Section shall apply, as far as it is applicable, to appeals. Where the laws applied by the Court make no provision for appeals, the convicted person shall have the right to petition against the finding and sentence to the competent authority of the Occupying Power."

NB: the laws of the United States provide for appeals to either the Supreme Court or to the Military Court of Appeals, not the President.


INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

( see: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm )

Article 14 

1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:

(a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him;

(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing;

(c) To be tried without undue delay;

(d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it;

(e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(f) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court;

(g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.

4. In the case of juvenile persons, the procedure shall be such as will take account of their age and the desirability of promoting their rehabilitation.

5. Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.


THE HAGUE CONVENTION

( see: http://www.undcp.org/terrorism_convention_aircraft_seizure.html )

Article 7

The Contracting State in the territory of which the alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offence was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State.



UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

( see: http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm )

Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.  All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.


> Are you aware that civilians may serve on military commissions
> including federal or state judges.

Certainly: the Nuremburg Trials are an obvious example. In this case it would be a breech of legal ethics though-- members of the bar are prohibited from particpation in an illegally constituted court. That includes lynch mobs, kangaroo courts, and drum head court martials.


> What human rights are we all entitled to. Due process doesn't mean
> that government (including the military) can't act. It means that
> there be a constitutionally valid process for determining punishment
> whether it is loss of a property right or one's life. The process in
> 1942 was validated by the court, something Idi Amin can't claim.

This isn't 1942, and this case doesn't fit the facts in Ex Parte Quirin. And why wouldn't the precedent of Nuremburg in 1945 take priority over Quirin in 1942? Since when do you get to pick the legal precedents you like and ignore the ones you don't regardless of how well they conform to the facts at hand?


> And by the way, how to you deal with the court's finding that
> citizenship was no bar to being tried before a commission? Another
> inconvenient holding to be swept aside.

That particular matters not at all: the President's order is illegal; it cannot be justly applied to anyone, regardless of their nationality.