See John, the problem I have with interpretations like yours, is that it makes it seem reasonable

I did not say anything about my own beliefs or about any "side" I might take on this. My only intent was to summarize what has been reported, and what may be the arguments others are likely to present. The dangerous thing here is that they may be able to "make it seem reasonable" and those who don't agree should be prepared.

people like yourself and other Bush Republicans

I have NEVER said anything about any party or political affiliation or about what I believe is right, proper, moral, or correct and you have no idea what my political beliefs are. You have no basis for an attempt to gratuitously SMEAR me with such an accusation. That is an unfounded personal attack that I find offensive. I'll note in passing that the alternative smear "bleeding heart liberal" would have been just as incorrect and almost as offensive.

It is not within the courts' remit to review the legality

ONLY THE COURTS AND THE JUDICIARY have the authority under the US Constitution to review the Constitutional legality of anything. It is within the authority, and is the responsibility here, of the Congress to investigate, to determine if laws have been violated, and to submit questions of legality to the Court. It is very difficult for the Courts to do anything unless, and until, a question is submitted to them.

John doesn't agree that we should demand accountability …

Where did you get THAT INANE conclusion?

If you want my honest and personal opinion, I believe that recent politics in the US, and the recent responses of the general population of this country are exactly and dangerously parallel to the events transpiring in Germany in the period from about 1930 and immediately thereafter. We are currently at about 1932 or so, and are at very high risk of continuing along a path very similar to what transpired there.

Step 1: Invoke fear of a foreign enemy to unite sufficient votes to elect a "Conservative Party" that promises safety and security for the nation. The Germans believed "socialism" was an incredible threat. We lost the USSR, but invoked "Islamic Fanaticists" (with a little help from those fanatics.)

Step 2: Pander to Religious "Fundamentalism" to obtain sufficient "swing votes" to get a free hand to "social engineer" politics. Catholicism was essentially the only religion in Germany ca. 1930, and "Liberal Catholics" were the only significant opposition to the establishment of policies offensive to the Weimar Constitution in 1932 Germany, but were largely unorganized as a political body. The Concordat of 1933 was the FIRST INTERNATIONAL TREATY to recognize the new German government, and established "Conservative Catholicism" (i.e. Vatican politics) as the official religion of the country. Without the international "authenticating" by this treaty, there is reasonable doubt that the party assuming power would have been able to do what later transpired. The pandering of a majority(?) of the Administrative and Legislative officials to the "Fundies" in the U.S. is, IMO, purely political on the part of the politicians and is mostly, if not entirely, for political purposes. The belief by the "Fundies" that they're "saving the religious principles of the nation" is naive and is clearly dangerous to anyone of real faith – any faith, and to anyone who supports and believes in our Constitution.

Step 3: Intrude religiosity into law, to establish that "non-believers" and "non-conformers" may be freely denied civil rights. For some unfathomable reason, the shipping of certain "social undesirables" to work camps seemed to fit Vatican policies, and allowed the German government to include large numbers of "political undesirables" right along with them. The same "social undesirables" have been attacked here by 23 states that have passed amendments to their State Constitutions to deny eligibility of "certain undesirables" for the same Civil Rights available to "good people." An additional 26 have written new laws or "reinterpreted" old ones along the same lines. Suspension of habeas corpus guaranteed by the Weimar Constitution was an early step in Germany, and appears to be pending and perhaps effective here.

Step 4: Declare a national emergency to permit the Executive to use extraordinary powers that skirt around the very foundations of the nation's principles. The authority of the Executive to do this was quite clearly defined in the Weimar Constitution, and has been assumed to be implied by the enumeration of the responsibilities of office in the US Constitution.

Step 5: Recruit core members of the military from the most "Fundamentalist" religious believers - because they will obey most readily without question. This was a stated and widely implemented policy in Germany, and it appears from reports about the U.S. Airforce Academy that some there believe you must be "born again" in order to graduate and become an Air Force officer. It seems also to work quite well for some of the Islamic political factions.

Step 5: Purge the courts by accusing them of "radicalism," eliminating judges who "don't go along" and appointing new ones willing to "make the right decisions." Done in Germany – apparently in process here. At least six states that I've heard of have proposed changes in how members of the states' judiciary are selected, largely to eliminate elective judges and make all judicial assignments by appointment. Some states where judges are appointed but must submit to popular vote to retain their position have proposed eliminating the vote. This is not necessarily an entirely bad thing, but is apparently being proposed now in the belief that an appointed judiciary will "be less radical," especially if appointment is by the legislatures. The apparent intent by some to seek U.S. Supreme Court replacements who will follow religious doctrine (or "popular opinion") in preference to the law is (IMO) exceedingly dangerous.

Step 6: Withdraw social welfare programs in the name of "economic necessity," and ship the "worthless" off to jail or to labor camps. Germany solved their extremely high unemployment problem by what amounted to "criminal prosecution" of the unemployed. (If they were in jail, or in a labor camp, they weren't unemployed.) We seem to have a leaning toward simple jailing, as we have the highest per capita prison population of any significant, let alone "major" nation. Germany was more efficient, since some estimates say that 30 percent of those sent to work camps died in them (a best guess, and not really a confirmable percentage). We have to support prisoners (for now) indefinitely. [Note to GUEST: last two sentences are sarcasm.]

Step 7: Go attack somebody, because "we deserve more" and a good war lets you keep the people occupied shouting political/nationalist slogans. No comment required.

All in the name of "what's good for the country." And of course, "what's good for our religion." All, in fact, to satisfy the lust for personal power, authority, and enrichment of the few "leaders" and their sycophants (certain "ministers of the gospel" not excluded from either category).

The good Germans who followed without due attention voted in good faith for, and supported, those who destroyed Weimar Germany. We have a splendid opportunity and a good start at doing the same to the US.

Axioms of politics:

"No government can stay in power without a credible foreign enemy to keep the people united."

"The easiest way to get a coherent block of voters sufficient for reelection is to give them permission to hate something."

Axioms seem to be working.

Now I'll wait for GUEST to proclaim that I think all this is a great idea and we should all be good Natzis?

John