One thing I still don’t get about those who defend Bush’s unconstitutional power-grab regarding illegal wiretaps, stripping citizens of their rights, etc; how do they not see how these things might ultimately be used against them? Are they really arguing that they think a President Hillary Clinton or a President Howard Dean should have these powers? Or, god forbid, a President Michael Moore? Are they really arguing that all presidents have these powers? Obviously they refuse to see things that far into the future, but I don’t see why we should let them forget.
Sure, there are far better arguments to make against Bush’s actions, but anyone too blind to see those reasons already aren’t going to listen to them now. But they understand enemies and power, and how they’d like to keep those two things from getting together. And before we even bother arguing in support of Al Qaeda (as is our wont), we need to ask them how far these limits really stretch and who they’re willing to give these powers to.