20 paces and I'll stop along the way to pick up my second!

You couldn't be more wrong in your analysis, and I will lay out the specifics as to why.

But first ...

What sin could I possibly have committed to earn such an insult? Have I done so little to vindicate my intellect over these many years that you find it necessary to attempt a literal correction of what was clearly a creative hyperbole meant to accent a relevant point? So let me get this straight - you're telling me it wasn't ONE man that crossed the Rubicon? Thank you dear professor. Whatever would I do without such keen insight? I was convinced it was but one bellicose general, bearing his short sword in his teeth, that braved the cold waters and set Rome on a course for Empire. Your clarity is crystal. But why stop the lesson there? Surely it occurred to you to enlighten me on the fact that President Obama himself will not literally be the arresting agent when an American is detained under his new authority. Nor will it be he, one man, who flies the plane when and if an American is subjected to Rendition. Nor will he lock the cell door, nor launder the clothing, nor cook the prison food for the never charged, never mirandized, indefinitely held American citizen. Perhaps the constraints of time prevented you from making this clear. I can only hope that I have properly addressed the issue to your exacting standards ... feel fortunate dear man that Western Civilization has evolved past the era when it was permissible to challenge a fellow gentleman to a duel, for I would demand satisfaction sir!

To my point, Bush never sought nor did he achieve this power by law (not that it was disclosed at least). Had he, his immediate successor would have no need of duplicate legislation. In addition, never once have I advocated indefinite detention of US citizens. Third, this I don't buy for a moment: "every chief executive" has sought this power. In fact, I would go so far as to say the vast majority have not.

Fourth - FDR and Lincoln / temporary versus permanent. There is a specific and measurable difference between they and Obama. Technically, this is peacetime. There is no formal declaration of war. Meaning unlike Lincoln & FDR these powers have not been assumed under the War Powers Act, which would as a matter of course naturally abate at the cessation of hostilities. In other words, this is a stand alone law. No return to peace (from wars declared or not declared) will withdraw the authority. Which leads me to my last point on the permanent nature of these powers - there will never be a cessation of hostilities in the war on terror. They (or at least a significant portion therein) have been converting by the sword since the time of Mohammad. Unlike what Lincoln and FDR faced, there is no single leader to kill or capture; no peace of real estate to win that eliminates the threat; no high command that can demand and receive the surrender of all enemy troops. In other words, unlike in the case of the two afore metioned chief executives, the very nature of this war neccessitates that these new powers not be temporary.

No, no my friend. This is unique. Even Adams' sedition acts provided for charge and trial. So unless you can demonstrate a case(s) in which a PoTUS sought and had codified into law, unaffected by peacetime status, the ability to suspend any and all applicable criminal justice Rights (and if you want me to rest easier, evidence the authority was successfully rebuffed and the law recalled), don't present section 1021 to me as something common to the annals of American history.

Oh, and of course you realize these powers would provide their ability to "disappear" the likes of Timothy McVeigh, right? Now personally, I wouldn't care if McVeigh were summarily thrown on the Rack then tossed in a shallow grave (although clearly our laws can not reflect such personal feelings). What I do care about is the idea that scores of radicals on the Left do not distinguish between Terry Nichols and the Tea Party. And the language on what constitutes a "terrorist" is just vague enough to be interpreted any which way they please.