Mulberrywildman said:

---

aalan94 said:

---

The term "survivor" in this context is bull***** The only people who didn't survive the camps died of natural causes.

---

This is the correct response to this thread that completely ends the discussion, outside of the normal virtue signaling by a couple particular posters.

---

Amazing how arguing "detaining American citizens for no reason = bad" is virtue signaling to you.

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Mulberrywildman said:

---

aalan94 said:

---

The term "survivor" in this context is bull***** The only people who didn't survive the camps died of natural causes.

---

This is the correct response to this thread that completely ends the discussion, outside of the normal virtue signaling by a couple particular posters.

---

Amazing how arguing "detaining American citizens for no reason = bad" is virtue signaling to you.

---

Quit being stupid, you know dang well that there was a reason for the west coast Japanese to be put into camps.

---

What about the west coast citizens they put in the internment camps?

Here's a good book I read a couple of years ago about an internment camp that's just a few miles from where I live. There's still a few barracks there and a memorial. I was surprised to learn how many of the internees volunteered (or were drafted) for the US armed services. Many of them served with distinction. Amazingly some of the draftees who didn't want to serve were tried and sent to prison.

What is your definition of virtue signaling?

Sapper Redux said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Mulberrywildman said:

---

aalan94 said:

---

The term "survivor" in this context is bull***** The only people who didn't survive the camps died of natural causes.

---

This is the correct response to this thread that completely ends the discussion, outside of the normal virtue signaling by a couple particular posters.

---

Amazing how arguing "detaining American citizens for no reason = bad" is virtue signaling to you.

---

Quit being stupid, you know dang well that there was a reason for the west coast Japanese to be put into camps.

---

What's the reason for putting American citizens in camps without trials beyond racism in this case?

---

Summon the ghost of that fine democrat FDR and ask him, but here is his Executive order:

Executive Order 9066: Resulting in Japanese-American Incarceration (1942)

Issued by President Franklin Roosevelt on February 19, 1942, this order authorized the forced removal of all persons deemed a threat to national security from the West Coast to "relocation centers" further inland resulting in the incarceration of Japanese Americans.

Executive Order No. 9066
The President
Executive Order

Authorizing the Secretary of War to Prescribe Military Areas

Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104);

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion.

The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are excluded therefrom, such transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations as may be necessary, in the judgment of the Secretary of War or the said Military Commander, and until other arrangements are made, to accomplish the purpose of this order. The designation of military areas in any region or locality shall supersede designations of prohibited and restricted areas by the Attorney General under the Proclamations of December 7 and 8, 1941, and shall supersede the responsibility and authority of the Attorney General under the said Proclamations in respect of such prohibited and restricted areas.

I hereby further authorize and direct the Secretary of War and the said Military Commanders to take such other steps as he or the appropriate Military Commander may deem advisable to enforce compliance with the restrictions applicable to each Military area hereinabove authorized to be designated, including the use of Federal troops and other Federal Agencies, with authority to accept assistance of state and local agencies.

I hereby further authorize and direct all Executive Departments, independent establishments and other Federal Agencies, to assist the Secretary of War or the said Military Commanders in carrying out this Executive Order, including the furnishing of medical aid, hospitalization, food, clothing, transportation, use of land, shelter, and other supplies, equipment, utilities, facilities, and services.

This order shall not be construed as modifying or limiting in any way the authority heretofore granted under Executive Order No. 8972, dated December 12, 1941, nor shall it be construed as limiting or modifying the duty and responsibility of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with respect to the investigation of alleged acts of sabotage or the duty and responsibility of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice under the Proclamations of December 7 and 8, 1941, prescribing regulations for the conduct and control of alien enemies, except as such duty and responsibility is superseded by the designation of military areas hereunder.

Franklin D. Roosevelt
The White House,
February 19, 1942.

Exactly, the decision was not made in a vacuum. A few Japanese were disloyal, and the vast majority were living on the area most likely to be invaded

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Exactly, the decision was not made in a vacuum. A few Japanese were disloyal, and the vast majority were living on the area most likely to be invaded

---

It doesn't matter.

It clearly did matter.

Being allowed to face ostracism in one's community is not comparable in an apples to apples perspective to being round up by the government and placed in internment camps.

I would have no problem had this been consistently applied. Particularly when there were Nazi sympathizers throughout the country.

It would absolutely make sense to investigate people with connections to Japan. It makes no sense to just throw American citizens into detention because of their race.

Danger Mouse said:

---

Being allowed to face ostracism in one's community is not comparable in an apples to apples perspective to being round up by the government and placed in internment camps.

I would have no problem had this been consistently applied. Particularly when there were Nazi sympathizers throughout the country.

---

Which is why I prefaced my statement with 'not the same'.

Sapper Redux said:

---

It would absolutely make sense to investigate people with connections to Japan. It makes no sense to just throw American citizens into detention because of their race.

---

This is an easy statement to make, especially 80 years later. Yes, the federal government did an immense wrong to these people. I don't know how a society is to take precautions against subversive activity from people who might be inclined to such activity, especially in a time when the nation had just been attacked in those circumstances and there was a palpable anger in all facets of American life.

You did for sure. Which begs the question as to what purpose did it serve as it pertains to the topic at hand?

Danger Mouse said:

---

You did for sure. Which begs the question as to what purpose did it serve as it pertains to the topic at hand?

---

As it turned out, none.

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

How would we view FDR had this interment of Americans of Japanese ancestry not happened, and then one or a group of them turned out to be the spies this action was intended to prevent? And a bunch of Americans then died as a result of said spy activities? In our current times, I suppose we could pat ourselves on the backs for not being racist.

Japan bombed us and brought us officially into WWII. We know now they had spies operating in Hawaii but I am unsure when we actually became aware of that. It seems reasonable to me to take precautions against further American deaths. Did we take it too far? Absolutely from the armchair 80 years later, but at the time I am sure many thought it a reasonable action.

My grandfather HATED all things Japanese until his death in 2002. I suppose that makes him a racist? Never mind being ripped away from your family, missing the birth of your second daughter, and then having your ship sunk beneath you. He had plenty of reasons to hate them, and I won't judge anyone from that era for it.

Oh, and while not the same, German Americans faced ostracism in their communities. This was what my great grandparents and grandmother went through in Spring, TX

---

So why not imprison all Japanese Americans and German-Americans? And Communist Americans? And Italian Americans? Former Bund members?

Surely you don't believe that we should arrest people because they could break the law.

You're grandfather's views have nothing to do with it. Nor do reasonable actions. The Constitution is very clear about this.

I know I'm speaking of "what-ifs" that never happened. I also stated that what the federal government did to Japanese-Americans was wrong. History records that none of the people that FDR rounded up did anything untoward in this country.

But I'll put it into more modern terms. If there is an American of Muslim heritage (not talking about one of Joe Biden's terrorists he's allowing into this country though non-existent borders) who happens to radicalize and create a situation that will kill 2000 Americans (regardless of their actual heritage) - and this could have been stopped, are you okay with those 2000 casualties so long as we don't violate the Constitution?

Just curious here. There is no good solution to this "what-if?" problem. The Muslim comparison is the closest thing that I can come up with, yet it fails because we are not at all-out war with any Muslim country as we were with Japan. Violating the constitutional rights of citizens was (and is) a terrible thing, but I'd say that violating the rights of those who might have been killed would be equally if not more so terrible.

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

I know I'm speaking of "what-ifs" that never happened. I also stated that what the federal government did to Japanese-Americans was wrong. History records that none of the people that FDR rounded up did anything untoward in this country.

But I'll put it into more modern terms. If there is an American of Muslim heritage (not talking about one of Joe Biden's terrorists he's allowing into this country though non-existent borders) who happens to radicalize and create a situation that will kill 2000 Americans (regardless of their actual heritage) - and this could have been stopped, are you okay with those 2000 casualties so long as we don't violate the Constitution?

Just curious here. There is no good solution to this "what-if?" problem. The Muslim comparison is the closest thing that I can come up with, yet it fails because we are not at all-out war with any Muslim country as we were with Japan. Violating the constitutional rights of citizens was (and is) a terrible thing, but I'd say that violating the rights of those who might have been killed would be equally if not more so terrible.

---

1. I'm not okay with it.
2. I'm still don't regret not violating the Constitution.

I think we can all agree that if we have fewer guns in the country, we'd have fewer gun deaths. I'm still not going to allow the government to violate the second amendment.

Quote:

---

I think we can all agree that if we have fewer guns in the country, we'd have fewer gun deaths. I'm still not going to allow the government to violate the second amendment

---

I don't agree with that at all

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think we can all agree that if we have fewer guns in the country, we'd have fewer gun deaths. I'm still not going to allow the government to violate the second amendment

---

I don't agree with that at all

---

There is some evidence to support this claim. There would be fewer suicides by gun.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

I know I'm speaking of "what-ifs" that never happened. I also stated that what the federal government did to Japanese-Americans was wrong. History records that none of the people that FDR rounded up did anything untoward in this country.

But I'll put it into more modern terms. If there is an American of Muslim heritage (not talking about one of Joe Biden's terrorists he's allowing into this country though non-existent borders) who happens to radicalize and create a situation that will kill 2000 Americans (regardless of their actual heritage) - and this could have been stopped, are you okay with those 2000 casualties so long as we don't violate the Constitution?

Just curious here. There is no good solution to this "what-if?" problem. The Muslim comparison is the closest thing that I can come up with, yet it fails because we are not at all-out war with any Muslim country as we were with Japan. Violating the constitutional rights of citizens was (and is) a terrible thing, but I'd say that violating the rights of those who might have been killed would be equally if not more so terrible.

---

1. I'm not okay with it.
2. I'm still don't regret not violating the Constitution.

I think we can all agree that if we have fewer guns in the country, we'd have fewer gun deaths. I'm still not going to allow the government to violate the second amendment.

---

You are entitled to your view. Like I said, I see this as a difficult decision, but at the end of the day I am coming down on the side of saving lives over not wronging people based only on their ancestry.

And no, I cannot agree that less guns would lead to less gun deaths, but that is a different conversation.

Your claim then allows for you to violate people's rights in the name of safety. That just seems strange coming from a conservative like yourself.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think we can all agree that if we have fewer guns in the country, we'd have fewer gun deaths. I'm still not going to allow the government to violate the second amendment

---

I don't agree with that at all

---

There is some evidence to support this claim. There would be fewer suicides by gun.

---

Around the world where they don't have a Second Amendment.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think we can all agree that if we have fewer guns in the country, we'd have fewer gun deaths. I'm still not going to allow the government to violate the second amendment

---

I don't agree with that at all

---

There is some evidence to support this claim. There would be fewer suicides by gun.

---

great, more suicides by hanging or overdoses, hooray liberals!

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think we can all agree that if we have fewer guns in the country, we'd have fewer gun deaths. I'm still not going to allow the government to violate the second amendment

---

I don't agree with that at all

---

There is some evidence to support this claim. There would be fewer suicides by gun.

---

great, more suicides by hanging or overdoses, hooray liberals!

---

I'd imagine more people survive suicide attempts by hanging and overdose than by gun. Hooray, we've lowered the death rate and therefore it's justified.


You do realize this discussion isn't about guns, right?