Sharon, where have you been? Every study since the election has shown that Bush would have won every recount that Gore attempted, unconstitutional as they were. I notice you don't mention what the recount results would have been if Gore had been successful in his attempts to throw out about 9,000 more military ballots. (He'd have won by a bunch...why didn't you point that out?) No mention either of the ten thousand or so voters in Florida's more conservative central time zone who turned around and went home en route to the polls, because the major media outlets called the election with an hour of voting still remaining. If that's not disenfrancisement, I don't know what is! I also notice there's no mention of the claim that black voters were prevented from voting...perhaps because Jesse "the candle-moth" Jackson could never find ONE PERSON who'd come foward and back up his allegations. The only disenfrancisement of black voters that's been proven invloved REPUBLICAN blacks (They do exist--about 22,000 in Florida), whose votes were FIFTY (50) times more likely to be thrown out than others.

As for the oft-regurgitated argument "Gore won the popular vote, so he should be president," I present the 1960 World Series. The Yankees outscored the Pirates by about 20 runs in the series, but the Pirates won 4 games, the Yankees won 3. By your system, the Yankees are the champs, right? It's about states won, not votes won.

Back to the main topic: I'm not for using a military tribunal for every suspected terrorist out there. But for the masterminds, I have no problem with war crimes being tried by a military court. (It's good enough for the members of our own military...They can be tried for acts of treason, and it's done in a military court! How kooky is that?) Why shouldn't members of a foreign military (which is what the Al Qaida is, for all practical purposes) be given the same treatment?