Δαφνη Ευτυχια Αρθουρος

Actually, that's exactly what he was writing about in the article ("Crossing the Rubicon") the quote was pulled from. A bit later in the article:

Ever since the September 11 terrorist attacks, however, the president and the Justice Department have effectively taken the position that in cases involving accused terrorirsts, the executive branch now has the authority to ignore the Bill of Rights and the due process guarantees enumerated in it. [...] More ominously, they also take the position that they have the authority to try these accused terrorists before military tribunals, which have all the attributes ofa sham or kangaroo court whose only purpose is to create an appearance of legitimacy before executing the accused.

And also,

Dssenting Judge Diana Gribbon Motz correctly pointed out that the Hamdi case "marks the first time in our history that a federal court has approved the elimination of protections afforded a citizen by the Constitution solely on the basis of the executive's designation of that citizen as an enemy combatant, without testing the accuracy of the designation."

U.S. Officials then began making a series of fateful decisions leading down an increasingly tyrannical path.

He goes on to discuss the case of Jose Padilla: "In no circumstances will federal officials permit Padilla to file a petition for writ of haveas corpus, despite the fact that he's being held in a military brig inside the United States against his will. [...] That means that President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have effectively taken the position that they have the authority to suspend habeas corpus [...] despite the fact that the express wording of the Constitution does not carve out an exception of that nature."

The bit I quoted this morning is just to make sure his readers understand why the esoteric-sounding legal points he makes further on are so [expletive]ing ominous.