OK, the daughter is having a field day with her gift (laptop), the wife is playing with hers (IPod), so what do I feel like doing? WRITING, natch! Here's one thing that caught my eye while checking some news today:
We've learned some spooky things about former FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover over the last few decades; now it comes to light that
... 12 days after the start of the Korean War, [Hoover] had a plan "to apprehend and detain persons who are potentially dangerous to the internal security of the country" -- thousands of them, almost all American citizens. (Link.)
From what we know of Hoover's deviousness this shouldn't really come as a shocker. In addition, 1950 is only eight years after FDR ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II. But check out what CNN says in the article -- which is then directly refuted by an expert author on the FBI:
While parts of Hoover's approach are reminiscent of the way the Bush administration has tried to battle terrorism following September 11, 2001, author Ronald Kessler said he sees a big difference between that plan and the detention of suspected terrorists now. Kessler has penned several books about the FBI, including "The Bureau."
"The court has allowed all the measures that the Bush administration has used to find terrorists to continue," he said. "Congress has allowed all the measures to continue as well. So it's quite a contrast with the days of J. Edgar Hoover."
Gee, 'ya think? Moreover, CNN states that the Hoover plan called for the suspension of habeas corpus noting that "The U.S. Constitution allows suspension of habeus corpus only in the case of rebellion or invasion." But such a suspension is a congressional power, not an executive one (just don't tell that to Abraham Lincoln). As author Kessler says, the Bush administration has utilized the court system with its war on terror approach, and the courts have explicitly stated that US citizens cannot be denied habeas corpus and may yet decide that 300 non-citizens at Guantanamo also cannot be so denied.
So here we have the MSM -- again -- making use of scare tactics about the "big, bad" Bush administration all the while being contradicted right in their very own article. You might think there'd be a much better connection in the article to the aforementioned FDR tactics used in WWII which, incidentally, were upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1944's Korematsu v. United States. Can you imagine the outrage today if the Roberts' court affirmed a Bush executive order ordering the summary detention of thousands of Americans in the name of "protection from espionage"? Just take a peek at part of then-Justice Hugo Black's Korematsu decision (my emphasis):
Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders -- as inevitably it must -- determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot -- by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight -- now say that at that time these actions were unjustified.
Kind of makes the BDS-induced fear of a 2007 fascist, theological police state seem silly now, doesn't it, especially considering that the current WOT is virtually all about clandestine activities.