Clever, clever.
The Imperial Japanese lived under a military dictatorship, and had all the moral legitimacy that a dictatorship provides. They had no Constitution, or Bill of Rights, or any legal safeguards whatsoever. There was no social contract or commitment that people will not be deprived of life or liberty without due process. They had nothing. They didn't even have the pseudo-legitimate cover that Hitler did about being elected.
So, while I am amused by the clever twisting of words, I'm not seeing your point.
I wrote the way I did to illustrate that the moral criteria you use for judging Terri's situation, if applied to the Imperial Japanse, does not support your condemnation of that society. While I happen to agree with your conclusions about the Imperial Japanese, and that due process (whatever that means at any given moment) is better than no due process, I think that the rationale you use in Terri's case would thwart moral criticism of another society. If the state of Flordia can set its own standards, why couldn't the Imperial Japanese? In the same way, judging the decision of a State court judge ordering the dehydration and starvation of a U.S. citizen based merely on a standard that the order was not taken lightly or that they set their own standards seems inadequate. If Terri's situation is a 'tragedy', the question comes to mind; what's wrong with it? Why is it 'tragic' to you, since it was purportedly done with due process?
I would rather say that if something is wrong with it, then everything is wrong with it.
Cordially,