9/11 doesn't change the rule of law

After the recent relevation that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans in hopes of ferreting out terrorist plots, I'm going to say Congress should consider impeachment hearings. Because if it ends up being true - and it probably came from multiple, high sources to be printed in the NY Times - what this really means is that Bush willfully overrode all domestic laws restricting the arbitrary use of surveillance on American citizens. The last time we had a leader doing these kinds of things, a few patriots got together to give these arguments for his overthrow:

• He has refused his Assent to Laws
  
• For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury
  
• For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
  
• He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people

Of course, Bush continues to claim that 9/11 changed everything. To that I can only quote the inestimable DarkSyde from DailyKos:

Does that really make sense? Our rule of law and constitutional chaperone of personal liberty survived presidential assassinations, two World Wars, the Holocaust, standing armies millions strong, and scads of thermonuclear tipped missiles pointed at out heads, and we're going to trash our traditions and Constitution because a cabal of religious fanatics with box-cutters trained in a stone-age country got lucky?

9/11 may have radically changed our perception of the world order and what presents the gravest threats. It does not change the fact that we are fundamentally a society of laws and that no one is above the law. Including the president.

(kudos to 28th Avenue for the quote link)