Your post mocks the fact that substantive proof is needed to prove someone a traitor or allied with the enemy.
No it doesn't. Accoridng to the WH, no substantive proof is needed. It's simply the President's word. As long as Bush says the guy is involved with AQ, that's good enough. There's no process or anything. It's purely arbitrary.
Again, if John Kerry decided you were in any way involved with AQ, he could tap your phone, and there's nothing that could be done about it. same goes for your inherent authority. even the treason requirement needs 2 witnesses. Under this program, you need 0 witnesses, you just need the word of the President. Somehow, I figure you feel differently about Kerry's or Clinton's word than you do about Bush's, but it's the same thing.