Whatever happened to the "rule of law"?

Remember, back in those good old days when what Clinton did with his dick was the obsession of Republican Washington? They justified their witchhunt with the mantra "rule of law."

Now the tune is different, of course, with the justification being "9/11 changed everything." Including the need of the president to uphold the Constitution and obey the law, apparently:

When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.

A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security.

''We are not going to ignore this law," the official said, noting that Bush, when signing laws, routinely issues signing statements saying he will construe them consistent with his own constitutional authority. ''We consider it a valid statute. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment."

But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a ''ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack.

''Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case," the official added. ''We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it's possible that they will."

And if that happens, you change the law. The law exists for a reason. If the President doesn't believe the law allows him to do his job, then let him go to Capitol Hill and enlist the help of Congress to change it.

9/11 changed absolutely nothing. Evil, power-mad men will still use a national tragedy as an excuse to turn themselves into dictators.

Bush apologists have forgotten that he works for us. He is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but not of the entire population. WE are HIS commander-in-chief. And it is OUR responsibility to make sure he behaves in a manner consistent with the law. And if he doesn't, WE must hold him accountable.

L'état, ce n'est pas lui.