Who are these people?
And how the hell did they wind up in control of the country?
Josh Marshall dissects this WSJ article now available here that deals with the Abu Ghraib scandal and the idea that--and I quote--authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."
To paraphrase Jon Stewart, "Wha?" (Imagine me rubbing my eyes in disbelief right here--it's about what's happened.) Authority to set aside laws is inherent in the president? Let's make sure we fully understand what's being argued here--that the president has the power to set aside any law he or she doesn't like and there's nothing that any of the other branches of the government can do about it.
To hell with the 2000 election--this is a Constitutional crisis. If these people are actually going to argue this and get away with it, then the system of checks and balances that has served us well for the last 200+ years is gone. Kaput. Dead as the proverbial doornail.
I've always been loathe to use the word treason--it has a very specific definition in the Constitution and it's overused by loudmouthed Manchurian Candidate wannabes (Ann Coulter, Tom DeLay--make your own list), but I'm ready now. This is the kind of action that--especially in conjunction with the arguments put forth in the Padilla case--borders on treason. It's an attempt to overthrow the current system of government and replace it with a dictatorship--even constitutional monarchs have less power than the Bush administration is claiming here.