Owen Fiss, A War Like No Other: The Constitution in a Time of Terror, edited and with a foreword by Trevor Sutton (New York & London: The New Press, 2015) (From the book jacket: "The ten chapters in this volume cover the major legal challenges posed by the War on Terror, from Guantanamo to drones, with a focus on their constitutional dimensions. The underlying theme is Fiss's concern for the offense done to the U. S Constitution by the administrative and political branches of government in the name of public safety, and the refusal of the judiciary to hold the government accountable, Fiss confronts the danger that many of the offenses will outlast the political climate that created them." "Although the legal dimensions of the War on Terror are often perceived as affecting only those accused or suspected of terrorist activities, in Fiss's view the character of American society itself is also at stake. When the Constitution is degraded in the name of national security, the rights of all those subject to the authority of the US, government are at risk." In short, America's response to terror, not the terror itself, has destabilized (and is continuing to destabilize) the the U.S. Constitution and, as a consequence, is destroying America. Americans chose safety over freedom, and got both less safety and less freedom.).
And, does anyone remember the internment of Japanese Americans?
Peter Irons, Justice at War: The Story of the Japanese American Internment Cases (New York & Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1983) (From the book jacket: "The internment of over 110,000 Japanese Americans during World War II has been called 'the greatest deprivation of civil liberties by government in this country since slavery.' How did it happen? This books shows how some of the most important individuals of their day swallowed their moral scruples and compromised basic legal principles--including suppressing evidence--as they helped formulate and implement President Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066." From the text: "The actions of both groups of lawyers raise profound questions of legal ethics and professional responsibility. Lawyers are subject to a code of ethics that requires them to 'zealously' represent the interests of their clients. In their examination of witnesses at trial, their presentation of oral testimony and documentary evidence, their framing of legal briefs, and their arguments to appellate courts, lawyers are bound by the dictates of the adversary system to represent the strongest case possible; it is the task of opposing lawyers to probe the weaknesses in these cases and to offer countering evidence and arguments." "But there are limits to the adversary system. Lawyers not only represent their clients but also function as officers of the courts, sworn to canons of fairness and justice. The same code of ethics--supported by judicial decisions--requires that lawyers present to the courts only that evidence they know tone truthful, and that they contain their briefs and arguments within the bounds of the trial records, In addition, lawyers are commanded to avoid any appeal to racial prejudice, Violation of this injunction constitutes a serious breach of legal ethics." "The wartime setting of the Japanese American cases put this code to the test." Id. at ix. And, one would think, so will America's so-called war on terror which seems to be running the risk of morphing into a war on Muslims and Arabs. Food for thought?).
