No. of Recommendations: 2
<<"Never thought I'd actually encounter someone ..."

Well, when someone is competing for troll of the year, you never know.

Ken>>



Your range of intellectual imagination appears to be very narrow.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<“We were in American concentration camps,” she said. “We were held under indefinite detention. We were without due process of law. We were charged without any evidence of being a threat to national security, that we were in an unassimilable race, that we would be a threat to the economy. We hear these exact words today regarding innocent people seeking asylum in this country.”>>



Tens of millions of Americans were drafted in WWII and put into the front lines to fight and die.


By contrast, the Japanese internees got off easy.


It's not at all unusual for countries to intern enemy alien populations during war time ---- the Japanese certainly interned American and Europeans who were in their home country or territories they captured.

Still have a grievance? Take it up with Franklin Roosevelt who made the decision.


Once again the open borders crowd makes it case for unregulated and unlimited immigration into the United States. Liberals unerringly choose another losing political position for the 2020 election.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
Tens of millions of Americans were drafted in WWII and put into the front lines to fight and die.


By contrast, the Japanese internees got off easy.


Read and be educated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese-American_service_in_W...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7

Tens of millions of Americans were drafted in WWII and put into the front lines to fight and die.
By contrast, the Japanese internees got off easy.
It's not at all unusual for countries to intern enemy alien populations during war time -

-Seattle Pioneer

No Rec for most ignorant comment of the day

Maybe post it here
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/36cw3g/what_is_t...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<Tens of millions of Americans were drafted in WWII and put into the front lines to fight and die.


By contrast, the Japanese internees got off easy.

Read and be educated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese-American_service_in_W...



Oh, it's certainly true that many of those interned served in the military.


War, as they say, is hell.


War for those in internment camps was no picnic, but neither was it being drafted to fight and die in the military.

So who was forced to make the greater sacrifice and risk the most to life and limb ---- the person interned or the person drafted?

Roosevelt made the decision to intern the Japanese. The President properly has that power during a declared war, but he is also responsible politically for the wisdom of using that power, if he does.

Was that a hardship for those interned? Certainly. But far less of a hardship and risk than millions of Americans who were drafted.


As an interesting aside, only those of Japanese ancestry on the west coast of the United States were interned. If such Japanese lived elsewhere in the United States, they were not interned. Japanese living in Hawaii were not interned, although there they constituted a high percentage of the population.

In short ------ tough.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Tens of millions of Americans were drafted in WWII and put into the front lines to fight and die.
By contrast, the Japanese internees got off easy.
It's not at all unusual for countries to intern enemy alien populations during war time -

-Seattle Pioneer

No Rec for most ignorant comment of the day>>



Sorry to see that you don't have a reasonable objection to my comment. I would be glad to read it and reply should you care to make one.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 22
War for those in internment camps was no picnic, but neither was it being drafted to fight and die in the military.

So who was forced to make the greater sacrifice and risk the most to life and limb ---- the person interned or the person drafted?


During WW2, the population of the United States was ~135 million.

16 million, or approximately 12% of the population served in the Armed Forces, many of them drafted.

During WW2, the Japanese-American population of the United States was approximately 550,000, and 33,000, or approximately 6% of that number served in the Armed Forces. Some of them were drafted, but the majority were volunteers.

Given that the position of the United States in the first year or so of the war was that Japanese Americans were not to serve in the Armed Forces, and also- that Japanese-Americans were rounded up in California and put in detention camps, it's remarkable that any large number of Japanese-Americans volunteered to serve at all.

But volunteer, they did, and as the article I linked points out, one Japanese-American unit, the 442nd Infantry Regiment, was the most decorated unit in American history.

Many Medal of Honor winners among that group of heroes, including the former President Pro tempore of the U.S. Senate, Daniel Inouye, who left an arm on a battlefield in Italy.

Anyone who says they had it easy, in any respects- either at home or overseas fighting for this country, just doesn't know his history.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
It's not at all unusual for countries to intern enemy alien populations during war time

These were not an “enemy alien population”. They were United States citizens.

And they were incarcerated without due process, something guaranteed to all American citizens by the Constitution.

The Japanese internment camps represent a black mark on American history.

From Wikipedia:
President Jimmy Carter opened an investigation to determine whether the decision to put Japanese Americans into concentration camps had been justified by the government. The Commission's report, titled Personal Justice Denied, found little evidence of Japanese disloyalty at the time and concluded that the incarceration had been the product of racism. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government and authorized a payment of $20,000 (equivalent to $42,000 in 2018) to each camp survivor. The legislation admitted that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership."

Both Democrats and Republicans recognized this as a black mark on American history.

Of course those ignorant of American history, like the current president and his sycophant supporters, have no problems when it comes to recreating the same type of racist, anti-American behavior against people who have legally tried to ask for asylum.

AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Given that the position of the United States in the first year or so of the war was that Japanese Americans were not to serve in the Armed Forces, and also- that Japanese-Americans were rounded up in California and put in detention camps, it's remarkable that any large number of Japanese-Americans volunteered to serve at all.

But volunteer, they did, and as the article I linked points out, one Japanese-American unit, the 442nd Infantry Regiment, was the most decorated unit in American history.

Many Medal of Honor winners among that group of heroes, including the former President Pro tempore of the U.S. Senate, Daniel Inouye, who left an arm on a battlefield in Italy.>>


That's all true, and they deserve their honors.


But they didn't earn their honors for being in an internment camp.

The Japanese who were detained suffered hardships for their internment, but the hardships of those who were drafted suffered a lot more, on the whole. Both internees and draftees suffered intrusions on their lives. I suggest that the draftees suffered far greater risk of being killed than those who were interned.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that it was a mistake to intern the Japanese, and if so Roosevelt was the person responsible for that error and mistake. But there are LOTS of errors and mistakes made in time of a major war. That's one of the risks of going to war. Interning the Japanese at least cost few of them their lives. That's not true of a great many of the errors and mistakes made during WWII by the United States.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<It's not at all unusual for countries to intern enemy alien populations during war time

These were not an “enemy alien population”. They were United States citizens.

And they were incarcerated without due process, something guaranteed to all American citizens by the Constitution.

The Japanese internment camps represent a black mark on American history.>>


NMany were or had been Japanese citizens, others were American citizens by birth. During war time, they were properly subject to internment as enemy aliens and even the Supreme Court approved of that action.

Your claim that these internments were illegal was rejected by the Supreme Court when it was litigated.

It's reasonable to conclude that Roosevelt's actions were a mistake ----with benefit of hindsight. But Roosevelt was making that decision at the time of a sneak attack by the Japanese government at a time when war had been declared by Congress. That gives the President extraordinary powers to wage war --- including the power to intern the Japanese. Lots of mistakes were made by the American government during WWII ----and many of them caused far more fatalities than the minor number suffered by Japanese who were interned.

That's not to trivialize the internments. It's to put them in the perspective of all out mobilization for war. As I suggested, draftees suffered similar intrusions upon their liberties, and far greater risks of being killed than Japanese internees.
\

<<President Jimmy Carter opened an investigation to determine whether the decision to put Japanese Americans into concentration camps had been justified by the government. The Commission's report, titled Personal Justice Denied, found little evidence of Japanese disloyalty at the time and concluded that the incarceration had been the product of racism. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government and authorized a payment of $20,000 (equivalent to $42,000 in 2018) to each camp survivor. The legislation admitted that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership."

Both Democrats and Republicans recognized this as a black mark on American history.>>


So? 250,000 Americans were killed in WWII. They suffered a far greater loss than those who were interned, and many others suffered wounds, capture and loss of their liberties due to the draft.

War is hell and all things considered the Japanese were burdened a lot less than those who were drafted.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
SP, have you seen the movie Snow Falling on Cedars, or read the book? I've done both--you might get something out of it. The movie was well done IMO, and the score is one of my faves by one of my fave film composers, James Newton Howard.

ASIDE
On one of my cross-country trips, I visited the site of Manzanar in the shadow of Mt Whitney. Our govt was just beginning to turn it into a national monument then so there was no visitor center, just dirt roads and a couple of plaques. Reminds me there are many beautiful, interesting places to see along the eastern side of the Sierras...the Alabama Hills, Mono Lake, Mammoth Lakes, Death Valley.... All of these have been used as scenic locations in films and tv shows so they have an air of familiarity while at the same time feeling unusual.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 24
NMany were or had been Japanese citizens, others were American citizens by birth. During war time, they were properly subject to internment as enemy aliens and even the Supreme Court approved of that action.

Your claim that these internments were illegal was rejected by the Supreme Court when it was litigated.


62% of Japanese in the internment camps were US citizens.

The SCOTUS did not rule on the internment camps. They ruled on compulsory exclusion. Even during WWII, 3 Justices had the courage and wit about them to point out the racism of compulsory exclusion by noting that German and Italian citizens (and aliens) were not subject to the compulsory exclusion.

It should also be noted that the SCOTUS also ruled that blacks were not, and could never be, US citizens. Not exactly a pristine of perfect track record.

War is hell and all things considered the Japanese were burdened a lot less than those who were drafted.

Which, of course, even if it were true, misses the entire point.

The ability of right wingers to rationalize illegal and unconstitutional behavior is well documented by their actions during the current administration.

They wrap themselves in the American flag and with faux indignation declare themselves to be the true arbiters of what is righteous while ignoring the very rules and laws they claim allegiance to.

AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
During WW2, the Japanese-American population of the United States was approximately 550,000, and 33,000, or approximately 6% of that number served in the Armed Forces. Some of them were drafted, but the majority were volunteers.

Isn't it frustrating to keep educating the righties about American history?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
Your claim that these internments were illegal was rejected by the Supreme Court when it was litigated.

On this one point, the decision in Korematsu is today considered to be one of the worst in the history of the Court - right up there with Plessy v. Ferguson in the "anti-Canon" of rulings that were not just wrong, but loathsome, the day they were decided.

There is little disagreement that the internments were illegal, and the SCOTUS got it wrong. Even the most hard-core conservatives on the Court have criticized Korematsu - Scalia cited the dissent as the SCOTUS opinion he admired most, and Roberts has repudiated it (in an opinion joined by all the current conservative members) as "gravely wrong the day it was decided.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<SP, have you seen the movie Snow Falling on Cedars, or read the book? I've done both--you might get something out of it. The movie was well done IMO, and the score is one of my faves by one of my fave film composers, James Newton Howard.

ASIDE
On one of my cross-country trips, I visited the site of Manzanar in the shadow of Mt Whitney. Our govt was just beginning to turn it into a national monument then so there was no visitor center, just dirt roads and a couple of plaques. Reminds me there are many beautiful, interesting places to see along the eastern side of the Sierras...the Alabama Hills, Mono Lake, Mammoth Lakes, Death Valley.... All of these have been used as scenic locations in films and tv shows so they have an air of familiarity while at the same time feeling unusual.>>



Yep ---- read the book, saw the movie and visited Manzanar forty years ago.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<SP, have you seen the movie Snow Falling on Cedars, or read the book?>>



Incidentally, with the book I had the special knowledge about the locations used in the book. The book actually combined two locations into one, Bainbridge Island a ferry ride across Puget Sound from Seattle, and San Juan Island and Cattle Point on San Juan Island where the collision took place on that foggy night as described in the book.

It was interesting to be familiar with both while reading the book.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<War is hell and all things considered the Japanese were burdened a lot less than those who were drafted.

Which, of course, even if it were true, misses the entire point.>>



No, that is the point.


But Democrats are welcome to keep whining about Japanese internment in the 2020 election as much as you like. Just another of many losing issues Democrats want to take into the 2020 election to insure your defeat.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<Your claim that these internments were illegal was rejected by the Supreme Court when it was litigated.

On this one point, the decision in Korematsu is today considered to be one of the worst in the history of the Court - right up there with Plessy v. Ferguson in the "anti-Canon" of rulings that were not just wrong, but loathsome, the day they were decided. >>


<<Your claim that these internments were illegal was rejected by the Supreme Court when it was litigated.>>


And CORRECTLY decided, in my opinion. The President needs a wide variety of war powers, and Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt defined how extensive those power could be.

All three Presidents grabbed up people using a draft and put those people on the front lines in war time to fight and die. By contrast, the Japanese internment is small beer.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
All three Presidents grabbed up people using a draft and put those people on the front lines in war time to fight and die. By contrast, the Japanese internment is small beer.

Compared to what 6% of Japanese Americans went through, fighting and dying for America, the experience of American civilians back home was even smaller beer.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<All three Presidents grabbed up people using a draft and put those people on the front lines in war time to fight and die. By contrast, the Japanese internment is small beer.

Compared to what 6% of Japanese Americans went through, fighting and dying for America, the experience of American civilians back home was even smaller beer.>>


I'm supposing that you are suggesting that 6% of Japanese Americans wound up serving in the military during WWII.

If so, I agree with you. The hardships of war fall the hardest among those who fight it, and not on the civilians back home whether or not they are in internment camps. That is my point in comparing those drafted with those interned.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
And CORRECTLY decided, in my opinion. </i.

Never thought I'd actually encounter someone who defended Korematsu, one of the most reviled decisions in the Court's history. A case so bad it's part of the anti-canon, right there with Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. Every day's a surprise, I guess.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Never thought I'd actually encounter someone ..."

Well, when someone is competing for troll of the year, you never know.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Why do you hate due process and liberty?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<And CORRECTLY decided, in my opinion. </i.

Never thought I'd actually encounter someone who defended Korematsu, one of the most reviled decisions in the Court's history. A case so bad it's part of the anti-canon, right there with Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. Every day's a surprise, I guess.

Albaby>>




Think about the action Lincoln took during the Civil War, and that were taken after the war in the Confederate States. They were draconian in the extreme, abolishing some states for a time in favor of military districts, for example.

Woodrow Wilson took extreme steps against political and 1st amendment rights in order to Fight WWI against the desires of socialists and anarchists, who found themselves in jail or deported to Russia.

Franklin Roosevelt found himself waging war against the Japanese Empire while significant numbers of Japanese nationals and their families lived on the west coast. He was advised that that was a threat by the military, and he acted on that advice.

We don't need a constitution that serves us only in times of peace and prosperity ----we need one that will preserve the constitution in times of extreme trial, like those situations described above.


A current example of that is the mess involving immigration where all manner of courts have severely damaged the ability of the government to enforce immigration laws.


<<"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. ... It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War.>>



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<Why do you hate due process and liberty?>>



Because that's usually the Supreme Court making stuff up about the constitution that isn't there.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Never thought I'd actually encounter someone ..."

Well, when someone is competing for troll of the year, you never know.

Ken
---------------------

And said troll, my his own repeated admission, posts on this board in order to get a rise out those he spites. Therefore, I gave up engaging him and instead grayed out his posts. Anyone explicitly uninterested in persuading or in solving problems is not only unworthy of the time; (s)he's poisoning discourse, which in turn drives good people away.

(As a side note: kudos to albaby,who always responds to inflammatory posts with a rigor, clarity, and patience that his interlocutors are unable to match.)

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<"Never thought I'd actually encounter someone ..."

Well, when someone is competing for troll of the year, you never know.

Ken>>



Your range of intellectual imagination appears to be very narrow.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
that's usually the Supreme Court making stuff up about the constitution that isn't there.

You might want to actually read the Constitution.
Fwiw:
Amendment 4: No person shall be ...deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Amendment 9:The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You should probably read the Federalist some time as well.

Understanding the Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights (1689) would also be helpful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Amendment 9:The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.>>


Not even the Supreme Court uses the 9th amendment when it is busily rewriting the constitution by a 5-4 majority.

You've probably noticed that there IS a way to amend the constitution, but it has nothing to do with the Supreme Court.


And it's out of fashion to use that process to amend the constitution when its so much easier to just have the Suopreme Court vote for whatever you want by a 5-4 majority.


<<You might want to actually read the Constitution.
Fwiw:
Amendment 4: No person shall be ...deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.>>


You seem unhappy that the Supreme Court approved Japanese internment. Are you IN FAVOR of them rewriting the constitution to say what they want, or not?



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You seem unhappy that the Supreme Court approved Japanese internment. Are you IN FAVOR of them rewriting the constitution to say what they want, or not?
As with Scalia, I believe the Constitution means what it says.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=900115...

Also, as with Scalia, I note that you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again. ...In times of war, the laws fall silent.
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/antonin-scalia-intern...

But then, I'm a conservative. I don't get to change my principles for the sake of convenience.
While you prefer to ignore the parts of the Constitution that don't fit your agenda, because agenda über alles.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<You seem unhappy that the Supreme Court approved Japanese internment. Are you IN FAVOR of them rewriting the constitution to say what they want, or not?
As with Scalia, I believe the Constitution means what it says.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=900115......

Also, as with Scalia, I note that you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again. ...In times of war, the laws fall silent.
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/antonin-scalia-intern...



I see we generally favor the same approach, although I favor being honest about the unusual powers of the government during times of war.

I do admire Scalia, and regret that Bork didn't get on the court.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
...although I favor being honest about the unusual powers of the government during times of war.
And how exactly is this different from ignoring the parts of the Constitution that don't fit your agenda, because agenda über alles?
It would seem your only principles are those of convenience.

I see we generally favor the same approach...
Since my approach is principle-based, this statement would seem untrue.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<...although I favor being honest about the unusual powers of the government during times of war.
And how exactly is this different from ignoring the parts of the Constitution that don't fit your agenda, because agenda über alles?
It would seem your only principles are those of convenience.>>



By all means be principled.


Lincoln would have had no draft and would have had outright Confederate States agents free to act to undermine the Union war effort.

Wilson would have had anarchists and communists freely acting to undermine the war effort in WWII

Roosevelt conscripted much of the entire country to win WWII


I see you make a reference to the Nazis to compare the Nazis to the United States. That merely illustrates your own foolishness and ignorance, although when at war, both the United States, Germany and Japan fought TO WIN, not make debating points.


And no one in this discussion has chosen to challenge the point I made comparing the intrusion on personal liberties imposed on millions of men whop were drafted to fight on the front lines of the war, not be safely interned for what was not even the duration of the war.

I again suggest that those drafted had their liberties and safety intruded upon to a FAR GREATER extent than Japanese who were interned.

War is hell. Those who were drafted faced far more hell than those interned, though both groups suffered because of the war.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Still no one willing to dispute my direct comparison of drafting Americans to fight WWII vs interning Japanese Americans.

Both were impositions on people.

Being drafted to fight in combat was FAR MORE of an imposition than being interned, and then Japanese internees were often released before the war was over.

Does the American government owe an apology to those who were drafted during WWII?

Even worse than that, the draft continued until the early 1970s, even without a declaration of war being in effect.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I see you make a reference to the Nazis to compare the Nazis to the United States.
No. I haven't mentioned the Nazis at all.
Maybe you could stop making thing up?

And no one in this discussion has chosen to challenge the point I made comparing the intrusion on personal liberties imposed on millions of men whop were drafted ...
...Still no one willing to dispute my direct comparison of drafting Americans

Ooh. Double posting. Obsess much?

Fwiw, it's not necessary to challenge inanity.
But the draft is applied universally, not to a specific class of citizens(eg, the Italians in Boston or the Germans in Pennsylvania - or the Japanese in California).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<...although I favor being honest about the unusual powers of the government during times of war.
And how exactly is this different from ignoring the parts of the Constitution that don't fit your agenda, because agenda über alles?>>


<<I see you make a reference to the Nazis to compare the Nazis to the United States.
No. I haven't mentioned the Nazis at all.
Maybe you could stop making thing up?>>


Your "uber alles" remark above looks like a Nazi reference to me, and you made that up, not me.


<<But the draft is applied universally, not to a specific class of citizens(eg, the Italians in Boston or the Germans in Pennsylvania - or the Japanese in California).>>


Well, it applied to MEN only who didn't get one of several exemptions.

And it yanked those men away from their homes and families whether they wanted to go or not ----just as the Japanese were yanked out of their homes.

The biggest difference is that the draftees often took their chances fighting and dying on the front line of the war, while Japanese internees stayed in internment camps that were similar to army camps, but safe from being assigned to combat roles.

Both draftees and Japanese internees were among those who suffered the hardships of war. But draftees fought and died in combat in large numbers, in contrast to Japanese internees who were safe from the hardships, death and injuries of combat.

And of course Americans abroad were often interned by the Japanese when they were captured in the Philippines and the rest of the area where they were living and working when the Japanese invaded, or when the war was declared. That alone justifies interning the Japanese as a war measure.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
> Well, it applied to MEN only who didn't get one of several exemptions.

> And it yanked those men away from their homes and families whether they wanted to go or not ----just as the Japanese were yanked out of their homes.

Your lack of self awareness is staggering.

1, The Japanese were not provided an exemption to the internment camps.
2, No children were drafted into military service.
3, No women were drafted into military service.
4, No elderly were drafted into military service.

with each new post you provide more examples on just how badly your brain is working.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Your "uber alles" remark above looks like a Nazi reference to me, and you made that up, not me.
Taking things out of context now?

You said I made a reference to the Nazis to compare the Nazis to the United States which is patently false. In no way did I compare the US with the Nazis.
I did say you put your agenda "above all else" (über alles), ignoring the parts of the Constitution that are inconvenient for you.

That alone justifies interning the Japanese as a war measure.
Because it's not like collective punishment is a war crime.
Oh. Wait. We explicitly included that as a war crime after WWII.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Artic...

Wow.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<> And it yanked those men away from their homes and families whether they wanted to go or not ----just as the Japanese were yanked out of their homes.

Your lack of self awareness is staggering.

1, The Japanese were not provided an exemption to the internment camps.
2, No children were drafted into military service.
3, No women were drafted into military service.
4, No elderly were drafted into military service.
>>



Your objections are quite true. And irrelevant.

After all, are you suggesting that Franklin Roosevelt could intern adults and separate those adults from their children? Or are you suggesting that because adults has children they could not be interned?

Yep, whole families were interned. Each such person was subjected to the hardships of living in a military environment ---- as were American draftees. The difference is that the Japanese internees were not required to serve on the front lines to fight and be killed, as were American draftees.


My point is that Japanese internees were subject to hardships that millions of draftees experienced, in addition to which they were often put of the front lines in combat to fight and die.

I suggest that the experience of the draftees, while different, subjected them to much greater risks of injury and death than Japanese internees.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<I see you make a reference to the Nazis to compare the Nazis to the United States.
No. I haven't mentioned the Nazis at all.
Maybe you could stop making thing up?>>



When you make an Uber Alles reference you should expect to have that understood as a Nazi reference.

However, since you say it wasn't so intended, I accept that and I am glad to withdraw that remark.



Doesn't matter a bit. Millions of MEN were drafted to fight on the front lines in combat, and subjected to the rigors of military discipline against their wishes. (The class of MEN were chosen to be drafted, just as the class of Japanese living on the west coast of the United States were selected for internment.)


Japanese internees were subjected to the rigors of military discipline in camps, but never faced the FAR GREATER risks of combat. Of course, many Japanese internees volunteered to serve in the military.

Few Japanese internees were killed in the course of their internment. PLENTY of draftees were killed and maimed in the course of their compulsory military service.

An objective comparison shows that Japanese internees were exposed to far fewer risks than were draftees. And both Japanese internees and draftees were subjected to military discipline of various kinds.


I realize my liberal friends have constructed an elaborate story about how brutally the Japanese internees were treated, but it just isn't so. Draftees had their liberties taken from them and were exposed to FAR greater risks of being maimed and killed than Japanese internees.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
So, you'll just insist on comparing apples to underwear and justify it saying "Fruit of The Loom".
Sad.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<So, you'll just insist on comparing apples to underwear and justify it saying "Fruit of The Loom".>>



I regret that you don't have any substantial critique of my observations, and must resort to pointless non witticisms.
\

You are welcome to reply to the detailed remarks I've made several times if you have something substantial to say in return.


I find that liberals are so indoctrinated by their meme of outrage over Japanese internment that they can't really think straight about it. But I'd be glad to be proven wrong.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I regret that you don't have any substantial critique of my observations..
I regret that you chose to ignore my substantial critique of your observations and instead chose to make stuff up as a distraction.

So let's go through the points you are ignoring.

Amendment 4: No person shall be ...deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
There was no due process with regard to the interment. People lost their homes and businesses without compensation. This was illegal and unconstitutional.

Additionally, when you read the Constitution you will see a prohibition against corruption of blood. Yet American citizens were interned not because of their actions but because of their ancestry.
It was also racist. Not a single Italian American on Boston's North End was interned. Not a single German American from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania was interned.

You also have not addressed the point about collective punishment being a war crime.

With regard to the draft, this is the "underwear" you keep trying to compare to apples.
The draft is universally applied, much like taxation. It in no way justifies immorality.


... must resort to pointless non witticisms.
Because talking to you is like playing chess with a pigeon.

You are welcome to reply to the detailed remarks I've made several times if you have something substantial to say in return.
Back at you. Not really expecting anything different from you though.
I find that you are so indoctrinated by your outrage that you can't really think straight about much. But hope springs eternal.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Amendment 4: No person shall be ...deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.>>


This is vague language that means just what the Supreme Court says it means. And the Supreme Court approved the Japanese internment.

If it means that Americans can't be grabbed up to be used for the governments purposes and reasons, it would mean that BOTH the draft and internment were illegal.


<<Additionally, when you read the Constitution you will see a prohibition against corruption of blood. Yet American citizens were interned not because of their actions but because of their ancestry.>>

This doesn't mean what you think it does:


<<Corruption of blood
The descendants of an attainted person could not inherit either from the attainted person (whose property had been forfeited by the attainder) or from their other relatives through him. ... The United States Constitution prohibits corruption of blood as a punishment for treason.>>


<<It was also racist. Not a single Italian American on Boston's North End was interned. Not a single German American from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania was interned.>>

Here is a supplement to your fund of knowledge:


<<Internment of German resident aliens and German-American citizens occurred in the United States during the periods of World War I & World War II. ... Many more had distant German ancestry. During WWII, the United States detained at least 11,000 ethnic Germans, overwhelmingly German nationals.>>


<<The draft is universally applied, much like taxation. It in no way justifies immorality.
>>


The draft was a web of rules and exemptions applied by local draft boards. It wan't applied universally at all ---- most famously women were excluded as a class.

And the basic issue is whether the government can grab people up and subject them to military like discipline when those people have done nothing wrong. The answer to that is yes for both those drafted and those interned.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is vague language
Again, you choose to ignore the portions of the Constitution that are inconvenient for you.
For the record, there is nothing vague about due process. But hey, agenda über alles.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
> Your objections are quite true. And irrelevant.

You were the one making the comparison of Japanese internees to drafted enlisted men.

Thank you for agreeing that the comparison of Japanese internees to drafted enlisted men is completely irrelevant. This is the closest I have ever seen you to admitting a mistake or issuing an apology for taking a shameful position.

A relevant comparison is that enlistees being drafted was necessary because we were attacked.

Interning US citizens was not.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Thank you for agreeing that the comparison of Japanese internees to drafted enlisted men is completely irrelevant. This is the closest I have ever seen you to admitting a mistake or issuing an apology for taking a shameful position.
>>


Try again. my comparison of draftees to internees is completely relevant.


<<A relevant comparison is that enlistees being drafted was necessary because we were attacked.

Interning US citizens was not.>>



Franklin Roosevelt disagreed.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top