Precedent--Good or Bad?

The fall-back position for would-be despots is the use of precedent to justify their own actions. Take the case of Bush and the suspension of habeas Corpus. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, denying the accused the right to question government arrest and confinement, during the Civil War--and I think in that particular case his argument that the situation merited suspension of Constitutional Rights. You couldn't determine a Southern sympathizer from the Northern one in Washington DC and elsewhere--and there were many of them right in our own government. Lincoln was a well-educated and intelligent man--I would have been inclined to trust his judgment in protecting my interests and the country's. Our country was in great peril and lacked resources that were necessary to protect it from internal threats. Not so in our case today.
We are subject to attack, yes, but our survival is not threatened. We have great resources to deal with potential threats--a great standing military, computers, the FBI, CIA, the Media, and the list goes on.
So using a precedent that was used during different circumstances to justify present circumstances is like trying to justify an action without precedent. Analysis and debate are therefore paramount to determining a justifiable need. Executive powers are temporary and a stop-gap measure that was designed to enable the government as a whole to act expediciously during a crisis. We have a government system that was designed to check and balance power--not to allow one branch to assume dictatorial powers; justifying its actions by stating an emergency existed where one doesn't. Where is the War? We had more conflict during the Korean Police action than we are having now. We had more conflict during the Vietnam war--yet didn't feel that we were being threatened at home. We didn't feel as threatened as we are today when the Oklahoma City bombing occurred. Rhetoric seems more of a threat than anything else. Our own ineptitude certainly is a great threat to us, for everyone in the world is seeing what a mess we are making of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our Hawks speak of winning and Victory. Their apparent strategy to win and obtain Victory is to continue to bleed and spend lots of money. What have we gained so far?
A Democracy that is not working--it is a government that governs very little--and because we gave it "sovereignty" have tied one hand behind our backs in dealing with the developing Civil War. Yes, by definition it is a civil war--"a conflict between opposing groups in the same country". It is not full blown as the opposing groups are scattered and the U.S. and British presence restricts it somewhat but it is still a civil war. We have sided with the wrong faction it seems. Any faction that is likely to side with Iran is the wrong side and the Shiites fit that category. Diplomacy, if not backed by ruthless determination, is not going to work. We need to get in a Middle Eastern mindset. We are not going to win anyone's mind and heart. That is self-delusional. The only thing possible to gain in the Middle East is respect.