Twenty thousand by 2011

[MoonWater]

Heh, screw forgetting the distant past, people can''t even remember yesterday.

Somehow this quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin seems appropriate:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[HollyS]

Date: 12/5/2008 6:59:56 PM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 12/5/2008 5:40:26 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 12/4/2008 12:14:14 AM

Author: thing2of2

Wow, Holly-did you really just say that Japanese internment camps were not nice but necessary?

Since when did it become necessary to protect Americans from their FELLOW CITIZENS?

I don''t know why I even bother responding anymore.

Don''t put words in my mouth. I NEVER said the internment camps were nice, but necessary. I DID say that the government felt they did the right thing, based upon what they knew or could surmise at that time. Right or wrong; good or bad. I don''t think it is up to us, now, to judge them for doing what they thought would best serve the U.S. It''s not my call. And it isn''t yours.

I''m not putting words in your mouth. That is EXACTLY what you said. Direct quote:

''The government did what they felt they had to do in WWII. It may not have been nice, kind, or even fair. But it kept this country far safer from another ''on the homefront'' attack than we would have been. Now ask the Japanese about their ''camps'' for Americans/British who were living in places like the Phillipines when they declared war on the U.S. Conditions there were far worse; and the people were not merely detainees, they were enemy prisoners and treated as such.''

Note the first 2 sentences. ''The government did what they felt they had to do in WWII.'' NECESSARY. ''It may not have been nice, kind, or even fair.'' NOT NICE.

See where I got that from?

Thing: I was referring to what ''they'' thought at the time, not myself. Do not read out of context, or quote me out of context. I -- ME -- MYSELF -- never said it was necessary, nice, or fair. I actually said it wasn''t ("might not have been nice, kind, or fair"), but they thought they had no choice based on conditions then. Since I wasn''t even alive then, and neither were your parents, probably, I''d say WE have no clue as to the validity of the information, intelligence they had then, or whether they made the best choice. They just thought they were making the right decision. And, they may have made the right choice; we weren''t attacked again, on our soil, during WWII. Actually we weren''t attacked again until 9/11. Then our government took certain actions, lamented in length here on PS, that have probably been instrumental in halting any further attacks on U.S. soil. But hey, the safety of millions is not worth the inconvenience, or detainment, or even imprisonment of a few. I thnk I''ll go picket somewhere about the injustice of it all. Gotta go get some poster board.

 

[strmrdr]

fyi Holly my dad and uncles fought in ww2 on both sides of my family.

They have passed away now but I knew a couple that were interned during ww2 along with their young children.
He showed up at the recruiting station to sign up to fight for his country only to be told no and sent home.
Later men with guns kicked down his door and rounded up him and his family and forced them on a train with just the clothes on their back.
They never did really recover from it and carried the scars all their lives.
I am really sad that you feel a young dad who wanted to fight for his country deserved that kind of treatment.

 

[strmrdr]

As far as Obama''s brown shirts(history again) go I don''t think it will happen but if it does it will be dealt with.
The military threat is happening now.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 12/6/2008 3:29:13 PM
Author: strmrdr
As far as Obama''s brown shirts(history again) go I don''t think it will happen but if it does it will be dealt with.
The military threat is happening now.

I know we disagree pretty strongly on a few things, but on this one we are completely on the same page.

And how about that civilian force that everyone is so freaked about.....Blackwater anyone? Anyone? Deployed to Katrina? Who needs brown shirts when the executive already HAS a mercenary force answerable only to it, to do whatever dirty work needs doing?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/6/2008 3:37:29 PM
Author: ksinger

Date: 12/6/2008 3:29:13 PM

Author: strmrdr

As far as Obama's brown shirts(history again) go I don't think it will happen but if it does it will be dealt with.

The military threat is happening now.

I know we disagree pretty strongly on a few things, but on this one we are completely on the same page.


And how about that civilian force that everyone is so freaked about.....Blackwater anyone? Anyone? Deployed to Katrina? Who needs brown shirts when the executive already HAS a mercenary force answerable only to it, to do whatever dirty work needs doing?

Blackwater and similar groups are certainly another problem of the same type, the biggest thing is the scale of the problem is not as large. All of them put together could not handle a midsized town.
They are more of a danger in hit and run raids for the government.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 12/6/2008 4:05:06 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 12/6/2008 3:37:29 PM

Author: ksinger

Date: 12/6/2008 3:29:13 PM


Author: strmrdr


As far as Obama''s brown shirts(history again) go I don''t think it will happen but if it does it will be dealt with.


The military threat is happening now.

I know we disagree pretty strongly on a few things, but on this one we are completely on the same page.



And how about that civilian force that everyone is so freaked about.....Blackwater anyone? Anyone? Deployed to Katrina? Who needs brown shirts when the executive already HAS a mercenary force answerable only to it, to do whatever dirty work needs doing?

Blackwater and similar groups are certainly another problem of the same type, the biggest thing is the scale of the problem is not as large. All of them put together could not handle a midsized town.

They are more of a danger in hit and run raids for the government.

Especially the "new" government that seems somewhat eager to disarm it''s civilians.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/6/2008 4:35:55 PM
Author: beebrisk


Especially the 'new' government that seems somewhat eager to disarm it's civilians.

The current one would have if they thought they could get re-elected afterward.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 12/6/2008 3:09:51 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 12/5/2008 6:59:56 PM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 12/5/2008 5:40:26 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 12/4/2008 12:14:14 AM
Author: thing2of2

Wow, Holly-did you really just say that Japanese internment camps were not nice but necessary?

Since when did it become necessary to protect Americans from their FELLOW CITIZENS?

I don''t know why I even bother responding anymore.

Don''t put words in my mouth. I NEVER said the internment camps were nice, but necessary. I DID say that the government felt they did the right thing, based upon what they knew or could surmise at that time. Right or wrong; good or bad. I don''t think it is up to us, now, to judge them for doing what they thought would best serve the U.S. It''s not my call. And it isn''t yours.

I''m not putting words in your mouth. That is EXACTLY what you said. Direct quote:

''The government did what they felt they had to do in WWII. It may not have been nice, kind, or even fair. But it kept this country far safer from another ''on the homefront'' attack than we would have been. Now ask the Japanese about their ''camps'' for Americans/British who were living in places like the Phillipines when they declared war on the U.S. Conditions there were far worse; and the people were not merely detainees, they were enemy prisoners and treated as such.''

Note the first 2 sentences. ''The government did what they felt they had to do in WWII.'' NECESSARY. ''It may not have been nice, kind, or even fair.'' NOT NICE.

See where I got that from?

Thing: I was referring to what ''they'' thought at the time, not myself. Do not read out of context, or quote me out of context. I -- ME -- MYSELF -- never said it was necessary, nice, or fair. I actually said it wasn''t (''might not have been nice, kind, or fair''), but they thought they had no choice based on conditions then. Since I wasn''t even alive then, and neither were your parents, probably, I''d say WE have no clue as to the validity of the information, intelligence they had then, or whether they made the best choice. They just thought they were making the right decision. And, they may have made the right choice; we weren''t attacked again, on our soil, during WWII. Actually we weren''t attacked again until 9/11. Then our government took certain actions, lamented in length here on PS, that have probably been instrumental in halting any further attacks on U.S. soil. But hey, the safety of millions is not worth the inconvenience, or detainment, or even imprisonment of a few. I thnk I''ll go picket somewhere about the injustice of it all. Gotta go get some poster board.

You wrote separate defenses for several of the worst atrocities this government has committed. Me pointing that out and questioning you about it isn''t putting words in your mouth. And you continue to justify the government''s actions in your posts. And I quote you once again:

"And, they may have made the right choice; we weren''t attacked again, on our soil, during WWII."

Yep, maybe locking up all the Japanese-AMERICANS was the right choice! Who knows?! Who are we to judge?! We didn''t live back then and neither did our parents! What do we know?!

Well I do know this...our own government has apologized for the internment of Japanese Americans:

"In 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government. The legislation stated that government actions were based on ''race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.'' About $1.6 billion in reparations were later disbursed by the U.S. government to surviving internees and their heirs."

link

It doesn''t matter what the government thought was right at the time-it was WRONG. Not sure how or why you don''t see that. Obviously those in the government with all that top secret intelligence that you, me and our parents don''t have realize that the government was wrong, or they probably wouldn''t have paid out $1.6 billion to the victims of internment.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 12/6/2008 3:09:51 PM
Author: HollyS

Thing: I was referring to what ''they'' thought at the time, not myself. Do not read out of context, or quote me out of context. I -- ME -- MYSELF -- never said it was necessary, nice, or fair. I actually said it wasn''t (''might not have been nice, kind, or fair''), but they thought they had no choice based on conditions then. Since I wasn''t even alive then, and neither were your parents, probably, I''d say WE have no clue as to the validity of the information, intelligence they had then, or whether they made the best choice. They just thought they were making the right decision. And, they may have made the right choice; we weren''t attacked again, on our soil, during WWII. Actually we weren''t attacked again until 9/11. Then our government took certain actions, lamented in length here on PS, that have probably been instrumental in halting any further attacks on U.S. soil. But hey, the safety of millions is not worth the inconvenience, or detainment, or even imprisonment of a few. I thnk I''ll go picket somewhere about the injustice of it all. Gotta go get some poster board.

http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/ww2/9066/citizenship.shtml
(excerpt below)

Throughout the War, the loyalty of persons of Japanese ancestry, citizens and non-citizens, was a public issue. It appeared in the public statements of officials and organizations, editorials, and letters to the editor. The impossibility of telling if a person was loyal was used as a reason for evacuating all persons of Japanese ancestry--though not for evacuating persons of Italian and German ancestry. Possible disloyalty was stated as one of the reasons for not allowing evacuees back to the West Coast. (When the threat of sabotage was no longer seen as likely, the threat of violence against the evacuees displaced loyalty as a public reason.)

February 24, 1943:

JAPANESE EVACUEES MUST BE KEPT UNDER STRICT SURVEILLANCE [Editorial]
The defense council stresses one point that no one can dispute - who knows for sure whether a Japanese, whether alien or American born, is loyal to the United States? Even the Japanese evacuees themselves have admitted they cannot tell! ...Americans have been known to "bend over backwards" many times in efforts to be tolerant but the events of Dec. 7, 1941, and subsequent activities of the "yellow aryans" have shown only one thing - the Japanese government is determined to conquer and humble the United States or commit national hari-kari in the attempt. (Watsonville Register-Pajaronian. February 24, 1943 p. 4.Full-Text)

On February 8, 1943, a loyalty questionnaire was administered to all adult men and women in the camps and was used as proof that citizens were loyal. It was a major element in the granting of release from the camps. Even when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that American citizens could not be imprisoned, "It upheld constitutionality of the removal program by a 6 to 3 decision, and was unanimous in holding that loyal [our emphasis] citizens should be released."(Watsonville Register-Pajaronian. December 18, 1944. p.1)

Ultimately, the question remains, why should this particular group of American citizens have to prove that they were loyal when other groups did not have to?

"Remember also -- persecute these people for the accident of birth -- establish a precedent and the cold heavy hand of persecution and intolerance may one day rest on your shoulder because your name is Smith or Jones -- or because you are Protestant or Catholic or Jew -- white or Negro -- and the persecutors will use this incident as a precedent." John L. McCarthy. (Watsonville Register-Pajaronian, March 9, 1943. p.6)

(end excerpt)

Well, as we''ve discussed ad nauseum, you and I differ quite a bit on history. I don''t have a problem putting together the discrete "facts" of history to make an assessment of a situation, to pass judgement on it if you will. I call it the "lessons of history". So giving a pass for clear wrongs committed by coyly saying that "they may have made the right choice; we weren''t attacked again" or we can''t KNOW what they were thinking back then is a cop out to me. There is plenty of information about what they were "thinking" and most of it has to do with FEAR and xenophobia, pure and simple. The internment camps were merely the culmination of a long and quite well-documented record of discrimination against Asians in this country.

You''ve also said: "I don''t think it is up to us, now, to judge them for doing what they thought would best serve the U.S. It''s not my call. And it isn''t yours."

I''m going to heartily disagree with that. It IS my call. When I vote an official into office, I do NOT give him or her carte blanche to use power as THEY see fit, but to excercise it according to the laws and ideals of our country. Since the government of this country gets its legitimacy and power from MY granting it to them, I don''t have a right but an OBLIGATION to give my input, and not just via my vote. I can and SHOULD pass judgement on them all day, and I will: they WORK for me. If I steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge and VOICE the fact that wrongs have been committed, then I cannot guard against them happening again.

The level of paternalism you allow with your statement, borders on autocracy. You''ve accused Obama followers and "Americans" in general of being dumbed down and sheeplike, but I''m kind of at a loss as to how your unquestioning acceptance that our government is not to be questioned because their "hearts are in the right place", is any less sheeplike that what you accuse others of.

I don''t give a pass to those whose knee-jerk response every time there is a threat, is to abuse the ideals our country was founded on, or worse, to toss out the constitution itself.

You say: "But hey, the safety of millions is not worth the inconvenience, or detainment, or even imprisonment of a few."
Pretty much, yes. I am deadly serious when I say that my safety is NOT worth the detainment and imprisonment of innocent people. Not only do I see that as completely ineffective, in my view it IS un-American and does great damage to what we''re SUPPOSED to be protecing, which is not only lives but our American "soul" if you will. If that is the price for my "safety" I''ll pass, thanks.

 

[MoonWater]

thing2 and Karen both hit the nail so hard on the head that it went through the board. I could not possibly agree more. However this:

It IS my call. When I vote an official into office, I do NOT give him or her carte blanche to use power as THEY see fit, but to excercise it according to the laws and ideals of our country. Since the government of this country gets its legitimacy and power from MY granting it to them, I don''t have a right but an OBLIGATION to give my input, and not just via my vote. I can and SHOULD pass judgement on them all day, and I will: they WORK for me. If I steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge and VOICE the fact that wrongs have been committed, then I cannot guard against them happening again.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! People want to question someone''s patriotism, THIS is what being a patriot is about.

 

[iheartscience]

Also, ditto everything that smart lady's post above this one said.

ETA Okay, the 2 smart ladies' posts above this one!