Huh?!

Okay. So Bush's "justification" for putting wiretaps on US citizens within the US is essentially that, as commander in chief of the armed forces, he has that power. Perhaps I have forgotten my civics lessons, but the job of the president is to uphold/ enforce the law and command the armed forces. If he wanted to wiretap the people in the armed forces (over whom he has Constitutional control), go for it. But not all Americans are in the armed forces and, thus, he is not their commander in chief. Instead, his job over these people is to uphold the law, which includes FISA, which says that if you want to spy on US citizens in the US, you have to have a warrant or get one from a special court within a few days. Now, this court is stacked with judges who will allow the wiretaps - very few requests have been denied - so why the hell can't he go there? Is the evidence *that* flimsy? Or does he just not care, and honestly thinks he has the power to do whatever he wants, as long as he can kind of justify it as being part of the "war on terror"? Sadly, I think it's the latter, since I've read that he has some ridiculous "unitary executive theory" of presidential power (for more, see www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=50038). At least I can say I've never voted for that monkey.