Technically, of course, Paul Revere et al were committing treason against their lawful sovereign. Of course, they were committing treason (and risking death) in order to gain certain rights. Our Dear Leader is defying the constitution in order to... Well, not increase my freedom, that’s for sure...

I'm tired of trying to knock ideas into closed minds. I've refuted this sort of pathetic lefty whining a hundred times.

Anybody else want to swat?

Andrew can kvetch all he wants, but if he wants anybody to take him seriously, it would help if he'd actually, y'know, list the things that President Bush is doing that are allegedly unconstitutional.

So, how about it, Andrew? Or are you content with a blog version of Monty Python's "Argument Clinic" sketch?

No you didn’t, you came here for an argument!

More seriously, (in every sense) president Bush has declared that he is able pronounce a US citizen to be an “enemy combatant” and therefore outside the protection that US law gives to all citizens. If that isn’t a “dangerous erosion of civil liberties that may follow from such a lawless unilateral power-grab”, I don’t know what is...

Technically, of course, Paul Revere et al were committing treason against their lawful sovereign.

May I quibble? Paul Revere et al weren't rebelling against their lawful sovereign in 1775 - they were still loyal to King George III. They were fighting against what they believed were his corrupt and oppressive ministers...doesn't really affect your point, but I just wanted to keep things accurate!

Now I'll just step back and let Hale man the flyswatter!

No US citizens are being declared enemy combatants except people who are....*gasp*...enemy combatants. In which case it would not be an infringement on our civil liberties even if the President personally pulled a Colt out of his boot and solved the problem unilaterally.

This is a hard thing for leftists to understand. They don't seem to want to focus (I wonder why) on the fact that becoming an enemy of America is wicked, and cuts one off from decent society and any entitlement to treatment better than that merited by Gila Monsters and Lampreys.

John Walker Lindh just took leftism to its logical extreme.

If memory serves me correct, if an individual swears alegence to an enemy of the US, they automatically lose US Citizenship. Second, Lindh was captured in a foriegn country, by US Troops during an combat operation in a declared war zone. He was not captured in the US by police in the middle of a criminal act. Technically, according to the Geneva Conventions, Al Queda/Taliban do not qualify for the following reasons: 1) They do not represent an Internationally recognized government, 2) They do not wear a standard uniform with recognized rank, 3) They are not allowed to use schools, churches (mosques), and hospitals for military uses (i.e. weapons storage, headquarters, machine gun emplacements, etc.). They are also not allowed to attack such building unless they are attacked from such buildings, 4) Captured troops are to be given POW status and cannot be subject to mistreatment such as torture, dismemberment, or to be used for propaganda purposes. They are also required to transport all POWs away from the frontlines as soon as possible, and 5) Al Queda is not a signatory of the Conventions. Terrorists are not soldiers, and they are beyond criminals. They are in an techical limbo that is not covered by the US Criminal System, Geneva Conventions, or the UN. In years before, such people were executed almost immediately.
Now, in what way are your rights being restricted? Give proof or back away from the liftist scare tactics.

No US citizens are being declared enemy combatants except people who are....*gasp*...enemy combatants. In which case it would not be an infringement on our civil liberties even if the President personally pulled a Colt out of his boot and solved the problem unilaterally.

Who makes that determination? A finding such as that can only legally made by a properly and lawfully empanelled court of law. In this country we hold executions after trials, not in lieu of them. I fully agree that American citizens convicted of being enemy combatants ought to face execution. But I want strong safeguards to prevent the president from simply declaring his daughter’s ex-boyfriend an enemy combatant. If you think such abuses of power are impossible, I commend you to a history book...

That’s the thing I don’t get about you, John. You’re a smart guy, well conversant with history. As a conservative, you have it as an article of faith that Human Beings don’t change. As a Christian, you believe that all Humans are flawed. You don’t seem to think that president Bush will abuse his new powers; why aren’t you terrified of President Hillary Clinton? Or President yet-to-be-named...

Power corrupts sir. This president, by declaring that there are no laws which constrain him from however he wishes to prosecute this war, has given all future presidents enormous power. One of them _will_ abuse it. And soon...

hat’s the thing I don’t get about you, John. You’re a smart guy, well conversant with history. As a conservative, you have it as an article of faith that Human Beings don’t change. As a Christian, you believe that all Humans are flawed. You don’t seem to think that president Bush will abuse his new powers; why aren’t you terrified of President Hillary Clinton? Or President yet-to-be-named...

You know what I think John's problem is? He's cursed with a sense of perspective. History'll do that for you...I mean, if in a time of war, we circumscribed useful presidential authorities due to perceived, hypothetical abuses that may occur some time in the future, we wouldn't be having this chat in English, my friend.

Honestly, how about we worry about the sworn frickin' mass killers today, and the first daughter's hypothetical ex-boyfriend if and when there's some indication that's actually on someone's mind? Is that too much to ask?

Oh, and Happy Independence Day to one and all!

My god...I just read the NY Times article Instapundit linked to, and I swear it's written ironically. They talk about the back-and-forth between security and openness. When the press publishes what they ought not, it results in intelligence sources drying up and Americans being killed (such as the 241 Marines killed in Beirut in 1983); when they delay publication, horror of horrors: someone else publishes their story first! Oh, the injustice! The humanity! Our Founding Fathers didn't risk their lives, their fortunes and their honor, just so that NBC could publish the story on how we compromised a Soviet under-sea cable before the Post! There are 300 million Americans - lose a few, who cares? But a scoop like this? That's priceless!

My god, these amoral sons of bitches just disgust me.

Power corrupts sir. This president, by declaring that there are no laws which constrain him from however he wishes to prosecute this war, has given all future presidents enormous power. One of them _will_ abuse it. And soon...

A. "Power corrupts" is a stupid cliché. Giving people power often brings out the best in them.

B. The President did not declare that there are no laws that constrain him. ALL of his positions have sound support in historical precedent or law. (Which is not to say that he should win all the arguments--courts and Congress may have different views which may prevail--just that none of them are raw power-grabs.)

C. The "future presidents" argument is crap. Washington, Lincoln, Wilson and FDR ALL took on unprecedented powers and infringed grossly on civil liberties. None of those powers were wielded by future peace-time Presidents. Why? Because the American people are in charge,and they--unlike lefty soft-heads--are perfectly capable of understanding that wars require different types of actions which are no longer needed in peacetime.

Hey, Cory, the actual quote is "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- not "power corrupts." Of course, the nuances between the actual statement and your parrotting of the common short version are probably too complicated for you to understand.

Damn! Maybe we should condemn Lincoln for suspending Habius Corpus during the Civil War, or FDR for muzzling the press during WWII (remember the phrase "Loose Lips, Sinks Ships- something the NYT have frogotten?). "Safeguards to prevent the president from declaring his daughter's ex-boyfriend an enemy combatant"? OK, how about the fact that he hasn't been caught fighting US Troops overseas? Or that he hasn't been caught planning Al Queda bombings in Yemen? The boyfriends remark is like saying "What would happen if Napolean had atom bombs?", it is non-sensical BS. What prevents him is the following things called Congress, the Constitution, and the Law. I am yet to see anti-war protesters being arrested or shot during (peaceful) protests, no newspaper columnists arrested for disagreeing with the president, Muslems being pulled out of thier homes and put in internment camps, or National Guard troops enforcing curfews. Until I see such things, or other things like them (such as the constant assault on the Second Amendment by the Democrats), I am not concerned.
What does concern me is when a President takes campaign contributions from the Comunist Chinese Government via military set up front companies and employees. Then the President has some of Americas most secret nuclear technology (such as upgrades for guidance systems) declassified, transferred from the Military to the Commerce Department so that it can be easily sold to the ChiCom Government for thier missiles. Meanwhile, some still active ChiCom generals are advocating a first strike nuclear attack on the US. I am talking about Clinton.