Reply to Topic
What evidence is there that interning Americans with Japanese ancestry cut the war short at all, let alone by a decade? And even assuming this is true, are you saying that, in the interest of ending a war, you can imprison innocent people in violation of the Constitution?
History in Photos (warning: some disturbing content)
Luckily you wasn't in charge of the war because if you were no doubt it would've gone on for another ten years and thanks for taking everything I said into consideration
It was absolutely the WRONG thing to do. No argument you make is going to convince me otherwise. My grandparents came from peaceful farming AMERICAN families. What happened to them was a CRIME. Full stop.
__________________
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Sir Winston Churchill leaving No 10 Downing Street with his pet poodle, Rufus
Neville Chamberlain declares peace for our time
Lord Haw Haw captured by the Allies
Mosley and BUF members at a rally
X
Favorite Movies
This is what she looks like recently.
I assume this conversation is basically over, but I didn't see this before, and feel the need to respond:
The right to due process is a fundamental right that has pretty much never been under question. It's not debated like the 2nd amendment or heavily interpreted like the Commerce Clause. Every modern democracy has something like it. You can't use a totally non-specific reference to debate about one part of the Constitution to handwave away the entirely non-controversial rights at the center of it. This is like saying it's okay to steal because you think the drinking age is too high.
So, using this logic, if a police department is shorthanded, they can just start locking people up? 
Since you mentioned "more pressing concerns," which is a better use of United States manpower? Actually fighting the war and producing materials for it, or rounding up people who are mostly going to be innocent on the off-chance you detain a few sympathizers, who may or may not have any impact on the war, anyway? Forget it being wrong or illegal for a second, you can make a pretty good case it was an inefficient use of resources, anyway.
And that brings us back to the question of evidence. Even if you think rights are cheap little things that can be arbitrarily disregarded during war, shouldn't the person taking them away at least have to demonstrate a clear benefit to doing so? This isn't skipping over some technicality to prosecute some obviously guilty person, for example, where the moral and the legal are at odds. In this case, it's a suspension of rights committed almost entirely on speculation.
I don't know if this is true, but a) you're addressing an individual human being in this thread, not "the internets" and whatever you may have seen on them, and b) maybe it's good that there's disproportionate mention of it, because free societies should hold themselves to higher standards. Self-critical, introspective societies should dwell on their flaws more than others'. The same is true of individuals.
Again, this would be a more compelling argument if there were any significant evidence that this helped us win the war. "They were Japanese and maybe some of them secretly wanted the Japanese to win" is not evidence of that.
sorry but your constitution is a convoluted mess that nobody seems to fully comprehend, Americans just use it how they see fit
Do you think in that time and yes in that climate there was time and resources to Judge each and every American of Japanese heritage or could there have been more pressing concerns
Since you mentioned "more pressing concerns," which is a better use of United States manpower? Actually fighting the war and producing materials for it, or rounding up people who are mostly going to be innocent on the off-chance you detain a few sympathizers, who may or may not have any impact on the war, anyway? Forget it being wrong or illegal for a second, you can make a pretty good case it was an inefficient use of resources, anyway.
And that brings us back to the question of evidence. Even if you think rights are cheap little things that can be arbitrarily disregarded during war, shouldn't the person taking them away at least have to demonstrate a clear benefit to doing so? This isn't skipping over some technicality to prosecute some obviously guilty person, for example, where the moral and the legal are at odds. In this case, it's a suspension of rights committed almost entirely on speculation.
Yes I tell you on the internets there is disproportionate mention of what happened to the Japanese (Nagasaki, Hiroshoma, US Internment camps) which is why I felt the need to speak up this one and only time.. just to give perspective.. whether or not anybody agrees I really don't care
I have debated this with a good friend and we kind of met halfway eventually and I am not completely unsympathetic, no doubt individual liberties were taken but I go back to the climate and what was at stake in a world at war.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
So, using this logic, if a police department is shorthanded, they can just start locking people up?
Of course there is no evidence it helped us win the war but there is no evidence it didn't, goes both ways.
There is ample evidence the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did shorten the war though, most are in agreement here.
X
Favorite Movies
No that's your logic, I am talking about a specific time and place and set of circumstances.. you can't just apply my logic to anywhere you wish.
Of course there is no evidence it helped us win the war but there is no evidence it didn't, goes both ways.
There's also the factual impossibility of proving a negative.
There is ample evidence the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did shorten the war though, most are in agreement here.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
LBJ being sworn in as President on Air Force One.
Princess Diana's Funeral.
London cranes bowed in honor of Winston Churchill's funeral barge passing by.
Three queens. Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, and Queen Elizabeth II at King George IV's funeral.
Queen Elizabeth II with Charles, her first-born child.
Building the RCA Building in Manhattan.
1886 Inauguration of the Statue of Liberty
1960 ticker tape parade for Mr & Mrs Kennedy
I'm not posting the photo because it is distressing but posting the wiki on Kevin Carter, a pulitzer prize winning photo journalist whose photo caused and still causes a lot of controversy. He later committed suicide and
really pushes home how distressing photojournalism is. I once wanted it as a career - so glad I decided not to go that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carter
really pushes home how distressing photojournalism is. I once wanted it as a career - so glad I decided not to go that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carter
Trying to blot out the photo of the little boy in turkey. Can people put those photos in a link rather than an image please.
Trying to blot out the photo of the little boy in turkey. Can people put those photos in a link rather than an image please.
Oh for goodness sake that was not a photo of a dead toddler. I asked politely. Just hide in a link and give people the option of looking or not. What's the argument? Why do you think I provided a link to a photo journalist and not shove the photo he won the prize for down poster's throats which I made perfectly clear and right before you posted that photo, and that wasnt of a dead child. People have the right to decide for themselves what gruesome photos they see - it's not up to you. You obviously missed the earlier comment by the forum owner.
|
|