Interesting Read... Options

[Blakjak]

Anybody read Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? I'm about halfway through it now and I find it very interesting. Druid you're from Kansas right lol. No, but it really is a thought-provoking read, something I think everyone should try and muscle their way through.

*I know this isn't about the War on Terror but it deals with politics so I thought it would be relevant.

This post has been edited by Blakjak: 06/27/05 4:55pm

[Druid]

I have no idea where you got the idea that the every ship from the Pacific port was attacked. Every ship?

That would be here
http://www.answers.com/topic/japanese-american-internment
"In January 25, 1942 the Secretary of War Darshan reported that "on the Pacific coast not a single ship had sailed from our Pacific ports without being subsequently attacked". Due to this, espionage was suspected."

As for the reduction after interment, this was information linked to in a discussion several months ago on another forum. I've no clue how to find the inforamtion again.

I don't think I said your numbers where off but in fact they are.
The terms interment and relocation are often used interchangeably when the are two different things. Only enemy aliens were interned, this number also include "voluntary internees" spouses and children of people who denounced their citizenship.
You have to keep in mind at the time many people supported relocation and interment because there was a real fear of a Japanense invasion along the west coast. This is why Japanese where only relocated from the west coast. At the time it was considered an commonly called the "West Coast war zone".

Another aspect especially concerning foreign born was how they were brought up in a system that required loyalty to the Emperor.

So there will be no misunderstanding, let me say internment was a bad thing, no matter which way it's looked at.
It absolutely was immoral and probably was largely based on prejudice.
BUT, and it a big one.
Often in times of war, things happen that otherwise never would of.
Take war itself, all through our lives we have been taught that life is precious, murder inexcusable. Yet, in times of war countries call on their citizen to go kill as many people as they can. You may think this is simpled or beside the point. I don't think so. Take for instance the ability of the government to draft people into the military, wouldn't you agree the draft is in conflict with peoples 1st amendment rights? If not, where in the constitution does it talk about drafting or conscription.
In fact the constitution says exactly the opposite, the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits "involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime"
This is from a speech by Danial Webster "Where is it written in the Constitution , in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it?"
Now you could also say the draft was also wrong but my point is sometimes things are required in times of crisis.

Your point that interment was illegal, is true but only because the way it way done at the time. If it had been done by the Congress it would of been legal as the congress has the constitutional power to suspend habeas corpus, in times of crisis for the public safety.