Madam, - Charles Krauthammer (Opinion, July 10th) lists the "big wars" of the United States as "1861, 1941, 2001": the Civil War, the second World War and the "war on terror". He argues that, in contrast to the first two wars, the present Supreme Court has overstepped itself in not allowing President Bush to "do what he wishes to the constitution to win the war".
Mr Krauthammer is right about the rather flexible remit offered to both Lincoln and Roosevelt in their wars (to maintain the Union and defeat Nazism - both much larger tasks). To suggest, on that evidence, that President Bush be offered similar treatment is, however, quite wrong.
Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus in wartime has proved an indelible stain on that venerable man's reputation, and the military tribunals he established, as has been shown, were both constitutionally illegal and militarily counter-productive. Moreover, they provided the Confederacy with a priceless propaganda gift, allowing its leaders to argue, with some justice, that they were merely resisting Union tyranny.
Roosevelt's acquiescence in the internment of Japanese-Americans is a similar dark blot on an otherwise gilded surface. The mass internment was, again, militarily useless - no intelligence at all was gathered - and was latterly condemned and atoned for.
These were dark spots in the history of the republic: to hold them as instructive for the present makes little sense.
Today, President Bush has authorised programmes of arrest and detainment and claimed for himself power, which goes far beyond the limits granted by the US constitution. Mr Krauthammer may wish for that document to be made malleable in wartime, but it is the measure of its relevance, and the mark of its greatness, that its principles remain steadfast and immoveable. Denying persons justice under the law is simply not permitted, and any attempt to subvert this most basic right can be justifiably identified as unconstitutional.
It is the task of the Supreme Court to uphold and safeguard this right, and this it has done, to the chagrin of few, but the applause of many.
Incidentally, Mr Krauthammer neglects to mention the United States' original "big war": the War of Independence. In that conflict, George Washington made it a point of honour that enemy soldiers be treated humanely and with respect, even though American prisoners suffered terrible deprivations in British captivity. It was Washington's humanity and dignity that provided moral inspiration to the United States, and galvanised their cause. It is a proud legacy; but it is one that comes further and further undone when its lessons are ignored. - Yours, etc,
SEAN COLEMAN, Brian Avenue, Marino, Dublin 3.