Conservatives seem to have now declared that any criticism of U.S. handling of enemy detainees, especially if it makes comparisons to the totalitarian regimes, aids and abets our enemies and, as such, is unpatriotic, disloyal, and perhaps event treasonous.
What then do they make of this statement by Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy in his dissent in Korematsu v. U.S, dealing with the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II.
"Moreover, this inference, which is at the very heart of the evacuation orders, has been used in support of the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy. To give constitutional sanction to that inference in this case, however well-intentioned may have been the military command on the Pacific Coast, is to adopt one of the cruelest of the rationales used by our enemies to destroy the dignity of the individual and to encourage and open the door to discriminatory actions against other minority groups in the passions of tomorrow."
Murphy (joined by Justices Owen Roberts and Robert Jackson) clearly criticizes U.S. policies in time of war and even goes so far as to compares U.S. actions to "dictatorial tyrannies." Moreover, his words were issued on December 18, 1944, the very height of the war. In fact, only two days before, the Germans launched their Ardennes Offensive. As it would soon be called, the Battle of the Bulge was the largest and costliest battle of the war.
So is the standard such that we should now consider Justices Murphy, Roberts, and Jackson traitors, or perhaps just unpatriotic and disloyal?