In most monarchies and particularly in France back before their peasants took to their pitchforks and torches, rulers had the right to issue orders directing government and police agents to kill individuals, without the benefit of trial or appeal. Now the Bush administration argues it deserves the same powers:

Feb. 13, 2006 issue - In the latest twist in the debate over presidential powers, a Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States. Steven Bradbury, acting head of the department's Office of Legal Counsel, went to a closed-door Senate intelligence committee meeting last week to defend President George W. Bush's surveillance program. During the briefing, said administration and Capitol Hill officials (who declined to be identified because the session was private), California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the extent of presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this, at least in certain circumstances.

Given what my fine blogmates have covered with respect to the real victims of the surveillance program (American political opponents of the Assministration) who here doubts that if/when Bush issues his first Royal Execution Order, that person will not be an Islamacist terrorist?

Frankly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's already done so. Cough, Wellstone, cough.

...and my apologies to all our readers for my prolonged absence from the blogosphere. Life, finances and family conspired to keep me more busy these last two months than since I applied to PhD programs while working two nearly full time jobs. I hope to be back to regular blogging starting today. I missed it more than I can express.