All this talk about waterboarding is well and good but let's not forget about Mukasey's even more alarming views regarding the president's power to suspend constitutional law in the name of national security. If taken to the extreme, something I don't trust GW NOT to do, the president has the right to suspend the next presidential election until the War on Terror has been won. Think about that for just a second and waterboarding doesn't seem so bad. I think we can all agree that is an unacceptable possibility no matter how unlikely.

Acceptable in the face of terrorism. Especially acceptable if we get attacked. Most especially if Iran's nuclear infrastructure is wiped out. We know where their plants are by satellite sensors. So: do you want to feel safe or not? Apparently you don't.

Of course we all want to feel safe, but quite frankly ithe prospect of Bush et al declaring martial law and suspending the November elections is far scarier and represents far more of a threat to the continued well-being of the United States than the prospect of Iran's current nuclear infrastructure remaining in place for the near term.

I consider Iran's nuclear threat more dangerous than a suspended election here in the US, though I seriously doubt that would ever occur. But if it did, then there would be a good reason, don't you think? Like the security of the United States? We are at war with a very determined enemy, the Islamic radicals who want to turn the clock back on civilization. They use civilains as shields; they consider all infidels a free fire zone. They have infiltrated moderate Muslim communities and are growing like an aggressive cancer. And like cancer, extraordinary means must be taken to stop them including states which sponsor terrorism like Syria and Iran. Half measures just won't do.

Merc,

You seem to be confusing the Taliban and Iran with someone else. They do not present a clear and present threat to the security of the United States. Iran is just now learning to enrich uranium and the most knowledgable experts feel that it will take them at least 5 years to make their first nuclear weapon. Then they need the means to get it to the U.S. Not an easy task. The Taliban and Osama are a rag tag group of criminals that we are pushing around Afghanistan on our spare time. WE ARE NOT IN DANGER. I will feel much safer when Dubya goes back to Texas.

You are making the mistake I saw the US made in Vietnam-underestimating the enemy. Iran does not need nuclear power-they are awash in oil, cheap oil- what they need are refineries. So their nuclear ambition is not peaceful- they want the bomb, and that is totally unacceptable. Though Iran is working their centrifuges overtime, I see their nuclear capability becoming a reality much sooner. Their intelligence services are working very hard-and frankly, it's not that hard to make an atomic bomb- what's hard is getting the right components. As far as Osama's band- don't underestimate them- they pulled off 9/11-they're capable of a lot worse. Thus yes- all those creeps present a Clear and Present Danger to the United States and Europe.

AirJeff,

Both you and Merc are way out of bounds.

First, from the perspective of constitutional law, any president has the LEGAL right to declare martial law. So if any candidate for ANY office said this, he is declaring his lack of understanding of the Constitution.

However, Bush cannot declare martial law by pushing a button. It takes the cooperation of many, many officers in the military, police, judiciary, etc. These are thinking people and would not allow it UNLESS someone sets off a nuclear weapon in one of our cities... or some similar massive terrorist attack. You see, the same Constitution-based set of laws that give the president the power also provides checks. For example, the 23rd Ammendment defines a way for the sanity of the president to be questioned and control passed to others down a defined list. There ARE checks and balances.

Proof: Bush hasn't been able to do all the terrible things his critics predicted he'd do; Pelosi hasn't been able to do all the wonderful things she predicted she would do. The checks and balances assure that there is no "EASY BUTTON".... and thank goodness! (Or more correctly, thank our forefathers for their insight!)

Why are checks and balances (almost to the point of being a straightjacket) good? Because we humans prove over and over every day that most of the time, what we think is good turns out to be bad, and vis versa.

Second, Merc is wrong in thinking that we're so weak we couldn't absorb the lost of a city and still preserve our ideals.

HOWEVER:

The real threat from terrorists is NOT "just" the loss of one of our cities.

The real threat is that a very small minority can force much larger majorities to surrender power to them. AND I DON'T MEAN THAT WE WOULD SURRENDER OUR POWER TO GOVERN OURSELVES. The threat is that the 3rd world will be overtaken by petty dictators (religious and otherwise) and we'll sit by, ignoring the enslavement of most of mankind.

The real threat is that we'll sell out all these other people using as our excuse, "we let them decide for themselves."

If it was really the choice of the 3rd world to be radically Muslim, fine. But we very well know that it only takes one wolf to devour a heard of sheep.... and we'll all we sheep if we allow ourselves to be terrorized. In fact, the definition of "terrorized" is precisely that!

The answer is probably NOT to jump in at every point and defeat the terrorists ourselves, but rather to do what Patraeus is doing now: helping the local people to defend themselves from the terrorists.

AirJeff good point! I did say earlier that I doubt seriously that elections could be suspended short of a massive attack. Your point of a small minority forcing itself on a larger majority makes sense- though I would counter the small minority issue seeing that 1/4 of the world is muslim- and that Islam is infiltrating at an alarming rate into the legal and political spheres of Europe and the United States. The great danger in fact are the so called moderate Muslims. Do a search typing Islamic Law and the United States and Islamic law and Europe. You will find lots of hits relating to that subject. I believe that Islam has two fronts-one which embraces violence, the other one cloaked in respectibility and moderation with scholars and professionals-but make no mistake, the final goal is to infiltrate and eventually take over. Charles Martel (Charles the Hammer) saw this coming in 732 when he devastated the Muslim invasion of Europe by defeating them at the Battle of Poitiers and kicked them out from Arles, Avignon and Provence. The Muslims never came back because Charles got his nickname the hammer by his merciless tactics. To stop an invasion you sometimes need to use knuckle dragging tactics-to make sure the invaders never dare come back. Charles the Hammer did so very effectively-and knew Islam's final mission-total takeover. He made sure that takeover never happened. We need today to be vigilant.

So, maybe Nostradamus and the Mayans are right...civilization will end in 2012. All of us (the world in general) have lost our collective minds with talk of nuking this country or threatening that one. I pray we all get a bit more sense before this rush toward Armeggedon becomes a reality.