I couldn’t help but notice the resurgence of MoveOn.org this month. In my neck of the woods (Eastern Washington) they have been staging a variety of events, including the heckling of my Congressman Doc Hastings at an open forum. Mostly, they focus their anger on their opposition to the war, but they have also been claiming that Bush is eroding our civil liberties.

At this stage in the war (and political cycle), another post by me, or anyone else, debating the merits of the war would probably serve little purpose. But I do want to challenge the accusation levied by MoveOn.org spokeman Steve Verhey that President Bush has eroded American civil liberties in the name of fighting the war on terror.

I would suggest that the historical record indicates exactly the opposite. In fact, I would go further and argue that no president in American history has done a better job of balancing respect for civil liberties with the necessities of war and crisis than President Bush. Using history as a guide, let’s look at how other presidents have behaved when confronting similar crises.

When the United States was fighting “Indian wars” many Natives were stripped of their land. When the Supreme Court stepped in and said Georgia could not expel thousands of Indians to Oklahoma (Worcester v. Georgia, 1832), President Andrew Jackson completely ignored the Supreme Court and expelled them anyway. Pres. Jackson became famous for his statement, “[Chief Justice] Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let Mr. Marshall enforce his decision.” President Bush, in contrast, has had many disagreements with the US Supreme Court, but he has not once ignored any of their rulings. When he lost battles over military tribunals, he ordered changes to the way they were conducted.

During the Civil War, President Lincoln, who most historians consider our greatest president, routinely ignored and violated the Constitution. He unilaterally suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus on his own authority. He tried US civilians in military courts, even when civilian courts were up and running. He instituted a draft without authority. He imposed an income tax in direct conflict with Constitutional law. Bush, on the other hand, has not done anything close to what Lincoln did. The US Congress, with bi-partisan support, did pass the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which denied the Writ of Habeas Corpus to Guantanamo Bay detainees. This restriction of jurisdiction, however, is explicitly allowed for by the US Constitution in Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2. Whereas Lincoln went around the Constitution to suspend Habeas, Bush is simply narrowing Habeas via the very process set up in the Constitution…and he, unlike Lincoln, is getting permision from Congress.

During WWI, President Wilson pushed for and passed the Sedition Act of 1918 which forbade Americans to use “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” towards the United States. The law also contained prohibitions on “unpatriotic speech,” stating “Provided, That any employee or official of the United States Government who commits any disloyal act or utters any unpatriotic or disloyal language, or who, in an abusive and violent manner criticizes the Army or Navy or the flag of the United States shall be at once dismissed from the service.” IN fact, the Sedition Act made it illegal to criticize the US form of government, stating, “whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States…” is guilty under the Act. Simply put, this bill made the Patriot Act look like a Boy Scout guide. Many men were imprisoned simply for protesting America’s involvement in WWI. The famous socialist Eugene Debts was sentenced to 20 years in jail for his “anti-war activities.” Today, as evidenced by our recent MoveOn.org events, people are free to protest away without any fear of imprisonment.

President Roosevelt takes the prize from most egregious violations of civil liberties during a time of war. He literally imprisoned thousands of American citizens of Japanese decent simply because of their ancestry. Less well-know is the fact that Roosevelt also used military tribunals to try and execute American citizens (See Ex Parte Quirin, 1942). Can you imagine the cerebral implosion that would take place on the Left if President Bush started rounding up Muslims and putting them in interment camps, or if he used military tribunals to try and execute American citizens/civilians? When we compare Bush’s decision to wiretap incoming phone calls from Afghanistan to Roosevelt’s actions of imprisonment and execution, President Bush comes out looking like the Mother Teresa of civil liberties.

As a last example, I would remind people that President Truman tried to seize America’s steel mills in the name of fighting the Korean War, even though there was no direct threat of North Korean attacks on US soil. The Supreme Court stepped in and stopped him. Once again, in comparison, Bush has never acted in such an arbitrary manner towards private property or civil liberties.

In the end, when history compares the way President Bush has respected civil liberties in comparison to other presidents, he will not only come out on top, but he will come out so far on top as to not even have anyone as a “close second.” We should remind people of that the next time MoveOn.org decides to use their very well protected civil liberties to claim they have lost their civil liberties