For the US, there is no national security apart from the Constitution

Ashcroft says judges threaten national security by questioning Bush decisions:
"... Ashcroft criticized rulings he said found 'expansive private rights in treaties where they never existed' that run counter to the broad discretionary powers given the president by the Constitution."

But there are no broad discretionary presidential powers under the US Constitution. General Achcroft must have been reading some other document, maybe Russia's constitution.

Every president, being a fallen human being and subject to greater temptations than most of us have to face, is lured by the siren of unaccountable power. Some resist it well, others less so. Some succumb against their better judgment and others embrace the opportunity to be a petty tyrant.

Bush has by no means been the worst. He hasn't ordered the arrest of legislators who oppose his policies as Lincoln did. But there is no reason why he could not do so under the authority he has unilaterally claimed for himself. And he has displayed a Lincolnian affection for the erroneous proposition that a wartime president can suspend habeas corpus to suit his whims. That is why judicial review of his decisions is essential.

Even this president's most devoted fans ought to realize that the question is not what has this president done with such power, but what might some other president do with it? Would you have trusted such power to Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton? Would you feel confident in trusting such power in future to John Kerry, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards?