This may be the first time I've seen any notable writer actually put down in words the fear many of us have expressed already -- that Bush and his acolytes will find some excuse to try to stay in power after 2008, despite the U.S. Constitution's explicit instructions.

After all, if they can ignore other clear Constitutional restrictions on their power by invoking some inherent, implicit or completely fictitious "power" or "executive privilege", who's to say they won't do it when giving up the White House is facing them? All they need at most is that fifth sure vote on the Supreme Court to validate anything they want to do.

Pray -- pray HARD, patriotic Americans! -- that John Paul Stevens and his allies on the Court stay healthy and sane until at least February 2009. This country simply cannot take the loss of the last, best hope of our constitutional republic.

No one should take this as a joke -- Bush and friends are fully capable of deciding that the national or world situation is simply TOO DANGEROUS to allow a Democrat to become President. It could quite easily happen, and no one should be foolish enough to ignore the possibility.

This is what scares me more than anything.

And I think the Bushies are more than capable of doing exactly that: suspending the whole dern Constitution along with everything else and moving into their DC quarters for keeps. It raises the hair on the back of my neck.

It horrifies me even more that stuff seems to go on just the way it always did. A dictatorship? No biggie. TV newscasts get broadcast as if none of this is important. A local murder gets more attention than the rape and plunder of the most basic beliefs of our country.

Bush and his minions have not planned for a Democratic takeover of the House. I heard Rove on NPR tonight sounding like the whole mood of the country (which I'm receiving as Throw The Bastards Out) is beside the point. We haven't seen ALL the polls, he said. Not like him.

I'm inclined to think what we haven't seen is exactly how a number of shadowy figures are going to put the fix on the various voting technologies.

Dear God, I hope I'm being a flaming paranoid.

Chris Potter

While I am no admirer of Cheney, Bush, and company, this article is irresponsible to suggest that the Military Commission Act is in any way equivalent to the infamous Enabling Act. For starters, the scope of the MCA is limited to alien unlawful enemy combatants. Alien is further defined in the MCA as "non-US citizens", and whether or not a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is to be determined by a tribunal.

This may not be an optimal solution to the threat of Muslim violence, but grossly misrepresenting the facts of the MCA does no one any good. What gives, Garrison?

. . . since the Bush administration's "unitary executive theory" accomplishes pretty much by itself the change in the balance of power that the Enabling Act was designed to achieve. The only thing it's missing is federalization of the National Guard . . . and not too long ago, Bush was angling for that too.

Some parts of the act are limited to only apply to non-citizens, but others may apply to citizens or non-cite tizen alike. "Enemy combatants" may be citizens or not - the only requirement is that the president thinks they are involved in terrorism. Regardless, if you don't have the right to go before a judge or talk to a lawyer, how do you prove you're a citizen?

While I am no admirer of Cheney, Bush, and company, this article is irresponsible to suggest that the Military Commission Act is in any way equivalent to the infamous Enabling Act. For starters, the scope of the MCA is limited to alien unlawful enemy combatants. Alien is further defined in the MCA as "non-US citizens", and whether or not a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is to be determined by a tribunal.

`Sec. 948a. Definitions

` `In this chapter:

(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

Oh wait, so anyone they marked BEFORE the enactment of the law is targetable. How interesting that "alien" is removed in subsection ii. Let's see ... what if I add the following to an omnibus spending bill:

From Chapter 47A, I.948a.1.ii, strike 'on or after the date' and replace with 'on or five years after the date.'

What a harmless little change. What could be the problem with that ... oh, five years are almost up? Hmm. How irritating. Oh I have it:

From Chapter 47A, I.948a.1.ii, strike from 'who, before,' to '2006, and replace with 'who'.

Much better.

Well, now we have this irritating Combatant Status Review Tribunal. The little pissants are complaining that they aren't combatants, just innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time. Well, okay, we'll determine their status. We'll even give them a representative. Of course, the rep isn't there to act as their advocate and doesn't have to present their case in the best light. Oh, and they have to prove they aren't an unlawful combatant without knowing why the US government decided they were one in the first place because that evidence is classified and they are not cleared. Best hope they read up on the UCMJ (Unified Code of Military Justice) because there is no requirement that they receive any legal advice as to how to proceed once in the tribunal.

Sounds like that's basically taken care of.

Are you so sure that it isn't the Enabling Act, or maybe two steps from being a full blow 21st century version of it ("one step ... one step")?