The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

WWII Internment, Again

For John, BLUFThe question is, when we surrender our civil liberties in wartime, can we get them back?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

It may not be as bad as it sounds, but US Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia told the University of Hawaii Law School that the US Supreme Court could again approve internment camps during wartime.  This came up while he was discussing Korematsu v. United States.  An appropriate venue for such a discussion.

In wartime we give the President wide latitude in his actions to keep us safe from subversion.  That is not likely to change, per Justice Scalia.

UPDATE:  Professor Althouse weighs in.

Regards  —  Cliff

1 comment:

Neal said...

This opens a wild conundrum of what if's. The Japanese Internment was as a result of a DECLARED war, in point of fact, the LAST declared war in American history. The so called War Powers Act does not authorize the POTUS to "declare" war, but rather, to commit military forces "in defense of national objectives." Of course, there is the milquetoast promise to "keep the Congress advised," a promise that has been only superficially observed.

The real issue with the WPA is that it IS a de facto declaration of war against an enemy...presumably foreign.....but as the oath of office intones.....defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies, both foreign and domestic. So....given that fine distinction, it is not unforeseeable or illogical to assume that a POTUS could declare war against a segment of American society, labeling them as domestic enemies, and then rounding them all up (principals and relations as well) and interning them in a vast camp for......"the duration." I would liken this sort of action to the Stalinist camps to which millions were relegated........and exist today in Russia.

Remember too, the SCOTUS acts only within the limits of established LAW.....not what is right..or proper....or fair. Thus, were this to happen, the SCOTUS would likely approve as it has precedent and is vested in established law.

Given today's vehement demonization of all things Right or Conservative, rounding up the dissidents is NOT beyond the range of possibilities....even...probabilities.