And now for today's thought...

The following is the Oath of Office required to be President of the United States.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The following is the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

And just for good measure, the 5th Amendment to the same document.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Now, I am not going to go into whether or not Jose Padilla is guilty or innocent of the dirty bomb thing he's accused of. What I am going to discuss is this.

George W. Bush has violated his Oath of Office.

That's a pretty strong statement to make but, What is absolutely clear is that Mr. Padilla or whatever he feels like calling himself these days has been in holding since May 8, 2002, without being charged with anything, and in fact moved from civilian custody to military custody to block any access to him.

Now I don't know the specifics of the case against him, and neither does anyone else apparantly because he's been held all this time as an "enemy combatant." Basically he's being accused of being a traitor. Fine. We know how to deal with traitors in this country. When they are found guilty they are taken out and "hanged by the neck until dead." (Not that I'm any great fan of capital punishment either, but that's not this argument.)

By the actions of Mr. Bush, he is not preserving, protecting or defending the Constitution, his actions in this case are in direct opposition to that. The Constitution has some very specific rules in it, and you will also note it does not say "citizen," it says "person." What that means is it doesn't even matter if you ARE a citizen.

The very thing that separates the United States, and what is the reason this IS a great country is that it is not supposed to matter who you are or where you are from, the rules apply to everyone equally. The current administration seems to be opposed to that idea and has not lived up to the oaths taken when they assumed office.

I am not going to say those are not some big shoes to fill, but it is obvious that the current bearer of them is not even trying to wear them. If you would like grounds for impeachment there they are. Even if you would not like them, how do you refute them?

postscript: Before someone brings up Japanese internment in World War II, the only analogous case to this, it was done in a state of declared war (which must be done by an act of Congress, Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution) and later, the families of those people were given an apology and restitution, again by act of Congress, for that abrogation of their rights. Japanese internment is considered one of the blackest marks in the history of this country.