Discourse.net

I'm not a constitutional scholar, so where the hell does it say anywhere in the Constitution that the president can unilaterally and secretly assume dictatorial powers in his role as commander-in-chief? (I reference the infamous DOJ memo asserting that the commander-in-chief need honor no national or international laws, treaties, nor be bound by constitutional checks and balances if they would "impede the war effort"; i.e., dictatorship). Nor can I find it stated that such power can be bestowed by the legislative or judicial branches, assuming one might justify it via case law or legislation. That earlier CICs like Lincoln or FDR exceded their authority is irrelevant, as their precedents were illegal.

Am I reading too much into this, or have we just undergone a "shadow" coup? If so, why aren't the president and his cronies being tried for treason?

"Treason" charges would require some evidence that Mr. Bush has made war on the United States, not merely that he has betrayed the country's ideals.

A grand jury to investigate Rumsfeld for war crimes, however, would seem to be in order. In the unlikely event that Kerry grows balls, perhaps Rumsfeld could be arrested on inauguration day, and held as a illegal enemy combatant until the Republicans in Congress restore our civil liberties.

Thanks, Brian...

But why stop with Rummy--Kerry could bag the whole Republican Party along with Pat Robertson as "enemies of the state." Pat, by the way, said God told him Bush would win in a landslide, so I guess Kerry's balls are moot.