I can only wish all the best to all the bloggers and others trying to support Chris Dodd's efforts to stymie the bill to grant immunity for FISA violations to the Telecoms and administration officials. It is encouraging to hear of the groundswell of support by people supporting the traditional view of the Constitution.

At some point, if the immunity bill fails, there will need to be an investigation of the misdeeds for which immunity is being sought. There will need to be a principled Special Prosecutor to do this so as to counteract the unitary executive theory so dear to Cheney, Yoo, and Addington, and the inherent conflict of interest present in this administration on this matter. I would suggest that Congress appoint Bruce Fein to this role.

As to Senator Dodd, he deserves political support in his run for the presidency. If none of the other candidates are willing to stand up and defend basic constitutional rights they are unfit for the office of president.

O Anonymous liberal,how right you are!

President Bush claims to want to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world, yet no president has done more to bring the American version of freedom and democracy into disrepute.

It is necessary to confront this phenomenon in order to end it. Democrats and liberals are going to have to start calling a spade a spade, not in terms of polite equivocation, but in terms ordinary Americans can understand- That is a LIE, A DIRTY, SCHEMING, MANIPULATIVE LIE!

Until such bold and direct language is used in political discourse to counter right wing dishonesty, the level of public discourse will continue to deteriorate into a form so distanced from nuanced reality as to be a form of virtual insanity, just like former Soviet Union propaganda about history and current events.

One of the most distressing things to me about the course of conduct of this administration is how it may affect acknowledged international legal norms and standards. The use of torture is one example, together with indefinite confinement of foreign and domestic suspects as enemy combatants without access to the federal court system, and especially, the attempt to evade the Geneva Convention rights of combatants.

Usually, the authority cited for these measures is the Article II constitutional power of the president to wage war as Commander in Chief. A truly unfettered constitutional power of the president to wage war would mean that ,as a matter of constitutional law and prerogative, any measure the president might choose to use in time of war is mandated by the constitution and can not be restrained or limited by any treaty, domestic law, or action, of either of the other branches of the federal government.

In its broadest terms, this would mean that any action commonly accepted as being a war crime in the international community would be a legitimate exercise by the president of his war making power, the use of genocide might be legitimate, for example, in the president's absolute and unassailable discretion.

In addition, it could be argued that the war making power granted to the president necessarily contains all ancillary powers needed to give effect to that power, including the power to raise taxes or borrow money to wage war, or to carry out the activities of the unitary executive.

Further, any attempt to restrain the actions of the president by the federal courts, or by Congress, including the attempted exercise of the Congressional power of impeachment of the president because of his use of these powers would be utterly unconstitutional, and beyond the powers of the Courts and Congress.

Tyrannosaurus President.

This is the broadest possible interpretation of the Article II powers of the president, and is much further along the continuum of powers than those which this administration has advocated, but the seeds of such an interpretation, and the expansion of the presidency into an American Dictatorship are clearly seen in the utter contempt for established norms prevalent in their actions to date.

If the United States has been unable to limit the expansion of presidential powers and curtailment of civil liberties we have already seen in the aftermath of 9/11, what would prevent something like the above nightmare scenario from emerging in a time of real conflict and real danger?

Hey Bill, don't just dress up as a melting polar ice cap, man. Go do something useful like clubbing some seals to help the poor, starving, polar bears in Alaska.

They can't get food stamps anymore!

In a former letter I defended the honor and integrity of General Petraeus against the sharp and inflammatory ad run by Moveon.org calling him General Betrayus. I did so on the basis that officers of the United States military are non partisan, professional people, seeking to do their jobs for the benefit of the people of the United States pursuant to the civilian chain of command set forth in the Constitution. This matter, together with other posts and articles indicating a deterioration of professionalism and an inappropriate partisanship in the military in Iraq, indicates I was probably wrong to defend him. I apologize to the people at Moveon.org. Perhaps he really is General Betrayus.

As to Colonel Boylan, he lacks all credibility on the basis of his current actions in respect of Glenn and his postings.