Voice votes are not recorded, and so any assertion that a voice vote was unanimous is merely someone's surmise. What we know, however, is that the Congressional Record reflected that Taft opposed passage of the bill, stating:

"I think this is probably the "sloppiest" criminal law I have ever read or seen anywhere. I certainly think the Senate should not pass it."

Let's summarize for Jebbie and Pauliac: it was Congress who criminalized any failure to abide by an internment order, not Roosevelt. And Taft unambiguously opposed the bill, the only member whose opposition was recorded in the Congressional Record.

When he says:

I don't believe that sacrifice of due process can be justified. If we are seen to defend our own values in a manner that does violence to them, then we run the risk of losing those values. Even worse, if our own standards fall, it will serve to recruit terrorists more effectively than their own propaganda could ever hope to. . . .

It shows exactly why it is so important to act to others with decency, even if they may not be prepared to show decency to us. George Washington told his troops to treat the British with decency during our Revolutionary War. This was at a time when they and their Hessian mercenaries were treating our soldiers badly. They were torturing and bayoneting our troops at the same time Washington was telling them to do exactly the opposite and not take revenge for their actions.

It is inconvenient to treat others well, especially when they are not treating you with respect. It is inconvenient to force any agency to produce a prisoner on demand instead of locking them up and throwing away the key. Habeas corpus is inconvenient. Not torturing people, not rendering them to jurisdictions that will do so, not putting them before kangaroo courts is most inconvenient. But it is the only way for a nation who prides itself for its values of freedom and justice to act.

If we cease to act in a free and just manner, even while engaging with others who do not treat us in a free and just manner, we certainly cannot be a beacon of freedom and justice, now can we? And that will surely serve to recruit terrorists more effectively than their own propaganda could ever hope to.

Even though acting in a true and principled manner is inconvenient, it is by far the most effective way to act, and that is important.

"Let's summarize for Jebbie and Pauliac: it was Congress who criminalized any failure to abide by an internment order, not Roosevelt. And Taft unambiguously opposed the bill, the only member whose opposition was recorded in the Congressional Record."

The Congressional Record is routinely changed after the fact to suit the needs of the various Members of Congress so I don't rely soley upon that source for this type of record.

While I am not arguing whether Taft did or did not oppose this Bill, I believe there is some ambiguity regarding his actual vote and therefore I don't believe either you or whoever you're arguing with really knows for sure what went on.

The only thing we know for sure is that the Bill passed and it was basically unopposed by either party.

All this does is demonstrate that the current Congress isn't the first to be railroaded into passing legislation which, when looked back upon, was both stupid and a violation of the rights of a large number of persons.

So what's new?

If Congress wasn't predisposed to pass laws which deprive people of their rights, and Executives weren't predisposed to grab as much power as possible even at the expense of individual rights, we wouldn't need a Constitution.

There has been a growing madness in The United States.

We see a lot of symptoms.

The 'win at all costs' mentality has corrupted reason.

Good sportsmen are few.

Too much authority has abandoned fair play.

We have a 'business is war' disease.

Success is all.

It's psycopathy. Any former principle of proper conduct may be erased for any goal.

It's very stupid, dangerous and crazy. Our language has been codified in concept to insulate against opposition thought or argument.

I saw some of British detention debate. The questions and answers were concise and articulate.

The level of intellect was much higher than what we get here.

I've been musing about our anti-words and code and catch phrases. Terms.

Liberal means effete, draining and wasteful. Seeking to buy an agenda to reward poverty and lazy outcasts.

Consertive used to mean elite skinflint, sort of Calvinist, indifferent to the human condition.

But, Teddy Kennedy is one of very few Liberals still existing.

The idea that 'the media' is 'liberal' has been innacurate for decades.

I also say again that there likewise are very few Conservatives.

I fear the new breed, they are all political all the time.

McCain is a tire on their wheel.

Obama is their enemy. Not opponent. Not a disliked candidate. Enemy.

Their cause is not superior. There's never any Plan B.

I can't figure what it's all for.

Greed and complete power?

I don't think all of them realise where there agenda leads to.

They have no bond with liberty, democracy,or representation.

They employ invocations of traditional sentimentality but appear to have no sense of how their tactics kill it.

They just can't think straight.

They are too dumb to understand that the law is not supposed to takes sides. Nor are the courts.

Winning at all costs is way too expensive.

They destroy the very things they pretend to revere.

I just don't understand it at all.

Read bumper stickers.

I live in an area where Democrats can hold their conventions in a phone booth if they could find a phone booth. David Duke was the Chairman of the local Republican party.

The stickers are invariably, and not in any particular order of magnitude:

"It's a baby, not a choice"

The "anti-Darwin" fish.

and the assorted "W"s and yellow ribbons telling everyone to "Support our troops".

You want to understand the rabid 28%?

Understand Babies and Bibles.