msummo:

Yes, and when is the last time you can remember where Congress denied such a request by the President?

Well, now, let's see. It's only happened twice. Once during the Civil War and once during WWII. During the Civil War, Lincoln tried to suspend it on his own and was taken to court. The SCOTUS overruled him and he went to Congress like he should have done in the first place.

In WWII, it was done in Hawaii after the attack on Pearl Harbor, but the Hawaii Organic Act was later ruled not to close civilian courts.

msummo:

When a crisis erupts everyone lines up behind the patriotic rhetoric and does whatever they have to so as not to look weak (post-9/11 for example).

So your solution to preventing this is to encourage it?

msummo:

The first WTC was not a catastrophic attack.

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you? Someone tries to collapse the World Trade Center and it isn't a "catastrophic attack"? Are you saying it is only "catastrophic" if it succeeds?

msummo:

Its major planners were only killed or captured during the "War on Terror"

Incorrect. Four who carried it out were convicted in 1994. And in 1997, the mastermind and the driver were convicted.

msummo:

and Al Qaeda has been all but crippled.

On the contrary. They are stronger than ever. That's why places like London and Madrid get bombed.

msummo:

The only reason there are "more attacks" is because US forces are in places like Afghanistan and Iraq where Al Qaeda is fighting.

Ahem: Al Qaida isn't in Iraq. They aren't now and they never have been. "Al Qaida in Iraq" is not Al Qaida any more than a KISS tribute band is KISS.

msummo:

Notice how there hasn't been a major terrorist attack in the US since 9/11?

Not because of anything we've done. The ports are still wide open, the chemcial and nuclear plants are still unguarded, the transportation system is still unmonitored.

But you have to take your shoes off at the airport. Yeah, that'll stop a terrorist attack.

msummo:

And the Spanish and Brits have been experiencing terrorism for the last 30 years, those attacks weren't much of a shock.

Huh? The Spanish were being attacked be ETA. The Madrid bombing was Al Qaida. The claim was that we had to fight them "over there" so that wouldn't have to fight them "over here." Strange how even though Spain was fighting them "over there," they still got attacked.

Great Britain was being attacked by the IRA. The London bombing was Al Qaida. The claim was that we had to fight them "over there" so that we wouldn't have to fight them "over here." Strange how even though London was fighting them "over there," they still got attacked.

Hmmm...might it be because Al Qaida wasn't "over there"?

msummo:

No such example of a catastrophic attack has yet occurred which would make the secret protocol in question necessary.

The secret protocol is never necessary. We have a succession in place. The President does not have the authority to supercede it. What part of Article II, Section 1 are you having trouble with?

Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Where in this do you find anything about the President having any say in the matter? If he doesn't like what Congress has come up with, he can petition them to change the law, but it is for Congress to do so, not the President.

That's why the SCOTUS slapped down Lincoln when he tried to suspend habeas corpus: That is a right reserved to Congress, not the President.