It's no wonder so many Americans are examining alternative explanations that range from the plausible to the absurd.
The Bush Administration's illegitimate use of renditions,
disappearances, torture and an illegal war has fostered the growth of a
loose-knit global band of fanatics willing to do unspeakable violence
The fifth anniversary of 9/11 prompts grief and sadness, but also
anger. We must free ourselves from the idea that the "war on terror" is
an organizing principle for our foreign policy.
As the Bush Administration continues to exercise an inordinate amount of
power, will the Supreme Court's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling become
a guidepost for future government or a last lonely relic of a proud
Citizens, lawyers and constitutional scholars of all political stripes
have reason to be concerned about President Bush's use of "signing
statements," which assert his right to ignore a law and threaten the
central tenet of America's system of constrained government.
By blindly accepting Bush's expansion of state secrets claims, the
courts are allowing the executive branch to operate above the law,
putting the core principles of our democracy at risk.
The Supreme Court's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision is to Bush what the Pentagon Papers were to Nixon: a devastating rebuke of a President who thought he had a blank check and a clear affirmation of human rights and the rule of law.
Goldman Sachs chairman and CEO Henry Paulson faces ethical, political
and economic challenges if confirmed as Bush's latest Treasury Secretary.
If the Bush Administration is serious about UN reform, it should
replace Ambassador John Bolton and stop linking payment of dues to
action on reform.
Growing concern over Bush's abuses of executive power could be the force that unites Democrats, Republicans and libertarians in a broad, nonpartisan effort to defend the Constitution and the rule of law.