Is it Too Early to consider drafting Articles of Impeachment? (Not Hyperbole)

During a career in law, now spanning some four decades, I have been privileged to work with and for a number of very good, even great, leaders, one of whom will remain unidentified here, as he is still today an Elite Member. No, here I mention a leader by name, as he has left us for, hopefully, Valhalla: Chesterfield Smith.

Mr. Smith went to Washington in 1972, and became President of the American Bar Association. In this position, Chesterfield Smith called for the resignation of Watergate scandal tarred Richard Nixon from his position as President of the U.S. Nixon, two years later, did just what Chesterfield demanded, he resigned his office in disgrace.

For decades thereafter, Mr. Smith carried this pronouncement (he was the first national leader to do so) as a badge of distinction and courage, challenging as he did the most powerful man in the world, who was well known not to treat his "enemies" well, or even w/n. legal constraints.

I offer this historical anecdote only to illustrate that the unthinkable only becomes a plausible public policy option after it has been fully debated on its merits, both pro and con. So, I say let the national dialogue begin. The current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington D.C., has repeatedly pronounced he will do whatever it takes, using all of his legal powers to win the war on terror.

Nonetheless, he has refused to designate the Christmas Day bomber as an enemy combatant, so he can be interrogated freely and fully to protect the nation. Instead, the Attorney General, within the first hour of having Umar in custody and then speaking openly to his captors, was read his Miranda Rights, to which he has no legal entitlement. Instantly, upon being told that he had the right to remain silent, Umar spoke only one more sentence: "I want to talk to my lawyer and no one else."

In light of this intentional refusal to exercise his legal authority as Commander in Chief, the President has willfully denied the nation possibly critical intelligence information vital to preventing future terrorist attacks on the Homeland. So, I ask: is that act consistent with his oath of office and repeated statements to us all, or have we again been lied to alla Nixon-lite.