[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Ibram, every controversial action taken by the Bush Administration has been of the nature of taking on war powers, without having the convenience of Congress having declared a state of war, which is something that frees up the Executive to employ sweeping decrees in aid of the war effort and no questions asked -- like Lincoln's suspending habeas corpus for the duration.

Please note the distinction that Lincoln was involved in a civil war.

Also, that exact argument has been used by Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and even to an extent by Vladimir Putin. Many tyrants in the beginning are given their power democratically, either by assent or lack of dissent.

To an extent it even works. Noone has invaded North Korea in almost a century, and Saddam Hussein kept Iran and his other neighbors at bay. The people were perfectly safe from outside threats and outmatched any regional opponents except for superpowers like China. Ask them if it was worth it.

Democracy means assuming risk in exchange for freedom. Tyranny means better protection from outside threats in exchange for institutionalized oppression from within.

Our three branch government was the best failsafe our forefathers could assemble. Messing with it for the illusion of additional security is like trying to get a better picture from your TV by removing the back and sticking in a screwdriver.