There is a limit to how often one can go over the same ground, the same questions, and the same answers. Between you and E, I have about reached mine.
This issue was brought up by E, not for the first time in SI history, and I was willing to engage in it once again. I don't think it is brought up just for purposes of idle debate.
The JA internment is ancient history, but it has important parallels today, such as the internments at Guantanamo, racial profiling of Arabs, and the Patriot Act. The similarity is that these current events involve the same overriding issue -- the degree to which certain civil liberties can be limited or even suspended in a national emergency.
That is what happened in 1942. We were in a state of war. All logic and common sense pointed to the non-assimilated JA populations on the West coast as a potential threat to national security. Certain of their civil liberties were then abrogated, temporarily. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court decreed that the measure taken was necessary and appropriate.
In the wake of 9/11, we now face some of the same difficult choices and decisions. We have already taken measures not very dissimilar to those in 1942. We may be faced with necessity to take more stringent measures as the war on terror evolves. People like you and and me will be forced to take stands on these measures. They do involve difficult choices and trade-offs. You can bet that the ACLU and the ultra liberals will oppose them with vehemence.
I am not inclined to discuss the internment further with you, as it has all been said, and said, and said.
If you choose to continue this as a topic on the thread, I hope you will give careful thought to the broader implications of the the position you advocate. |
