I hit the Publish button before I was done.....

The only thing that these folks care about regarding the Constitution is Roe v Wade.

"No one can rule out the possibility of another atrocity--but a free and open society is worth a certain amount of risk. A siege society is alien to our core instincts and--once in place--will be difficult to dismantle.

It is a road down which we should not go."

A British official--John Major, formerly Her Majesty's Prime Minister--wrote these eloquent, incisive words. He and like-minded

people in Britain are fighting that government's attacks on civil liberties.

What's going on across the pond in America? Well, the Liar-in-Chief has a Constitution-trashing government in place; the Congress passes neofascist laws; and the courts are virtually worthless.

Glenn,

I just saw Vincent Bugliosi on Democracy Now making his case for the prosecution of George W. Bush for murder.

Please review the legal arguments put forth in that book and let us know your opinion.

Thanks a lot.

Major's observations are hardly new:

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
— Thomas Paine

I'm not sure whether Ecclesiastes 1:9-14 validates or refutes WT's observation about the frailty of human, or even institutional, memory. Probably it does both depending on who is interpreting.

But with regard to WT's earlier observation, I'd like to opine that, yes, Obama is not the solution, nor even yet a glimpse of what the solution will look like. Obaba is merely an opportunity to redefine the problem, with the hope that the new problem will not have such pernicious and far-reaching effects.

-- thomas c

"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."

Adding to what Jebbie has already said... Big Surprise! A politician says one thing and votes another way.

We can all use google and we can even check the Congressional Record and Daily Journal for the 77th Congress, Volume 88, which covers the period of the second session, Jan. thru May, 1942. Why don't you? I'm not going to bother. After all, the Japanese would never use spies or saboteurs, would they?

When he heard the "East wind, rain." code phrase on the short wave radio bringing the news from Tokyo signaling an attack against America, Yoshikawa destroyed all evidence of his activities. When the FBI picked him up on the day of the attack there was no incriminating evidence of his espionage. Yoshikawa eventually returned to Japan in August 1942 in a diplomat prisoner exchange. It was not known for some time that he was the chief Japanese agent in Hawaii.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeo_Yoshikawa

In the aftermath of the Tolan Committee hearings, Congress took up the matter of legislation that would put teeth into enforcement of the new evacuation program, making criminal any violation of Executive Order 9066. There was no civil liberty opposition in Congress, and the Nisei, few of whom were of voting age, had no voice in that legislative body. Thus, debate over the bill to formalize the order as a federal statute focused only on the inclusive wording of the bill, no one publicly questioning the military necessity of the action or its intrusion into the fundamental liberties of American citizens. Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio spoke briefly against the bill, although he did not vote against it:

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. I do not want to object, because the purpose of it is understood. . . .

[The bill] does not say who shall prescribe the restrictions. It does not say how anyone shall know that the restrictions are applicable to that particular zone. It does not appear that there is any authority given to anyone to prescribe any restriction. . . .

I have no doubt an act of that kind would be enforced in war time. I have no doubt that in peacetime no man could ever be convicted under it, because the court would find that it was so indefinite and so uncertain that it could not be enforced under the Constitution. [14]

The debate was no more pointed or cogent in the House, where there seemed to be some suggestion that the bill applied to aliens rather than citizens. [15] The bill became Public Law 503, passing by voice vote in both houses on March 19, and it was signed into law by President Roosevelt on March 21, 1942. [16] The law stated:

That whoever shall enter, remain in, leave, or commit any act in any military area or military zone prescribed, under the authority of an Executive Order of the President, by the Secretary of War, or by any military commander designated by the Secretary of War, contrary to the restrictions applicable to any such areas or zone or contrary to the order of the Secretary of War or any such military commander, shall, if it appears that he knew or should have known of the existence and extent of the restrictions or order and that his act was in violation thereof, be guilty of misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be liable to a fine of not to exceed $5,000 or to imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, for each offense. [17]

This ratification of executive branch actions under Executive Order 9066 was significant, because another independent branch of the federal government now stood formally behind the exclusion and evacuation of Japanese Americans. During 1943 and 1944, the Supreme Court gave great weight to the Congressional action in upholding the imposition of a curfew as well as the evacuation itself. [18]

http://www.nps.gov/archive/manz/hrs/hrs3a.htm

Even the ACLU was divided over it. National was in favor and the West Coast affiliate opposed it.

Feb. 19, 1942: "Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, authorizing the Secretary of War to designate military zones" in which 120,000 Japanese-Americans ended up being interned. The debate as to whether the ACLU should support the order or not created a split within the ACLU between the supporters and the opponents of the order.

June 6, 1942: The ACLU National Committee approved a resolution endorsing the Executive Order in principle, and crafted a policy which "offered four grounds for legal challenges to the government's program: the absence of a clear military necessity, racial discrimination, the lack of individual hearings, and detention."

Oct. 19, 1942: Amidst great controversy between the ACLU and its West Coast affiliate, the ACLU board adopted the "Seymour resolution" which stated notably that the ACLU "will not participate - except where the fundamentals of due process are denied - in cases where, after investigation, there are grounds for a belief that the defendant is cooperating with or acting on behalf of the enemy, even though the particular charge against the defendant might otherwise be appropriate for intervention by the ACLU".

In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker, Southern Illinois University Press (2nd ed. 1999.)

I'll probably regret this. Think of it as self-depracating.

*The Health and Medical History of President William Howard Taft: Fat Jokes

http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/z_x27fat_g.htm