Thomas says:

#100
The comparison of Vietnam to Iraq is that of apples to oranges. Different enemies, different types of enemies, different styles of combat, different styles of management, different global objectives etc.

Second, the Constitution contains no explicit promise to respect the sovereignty of foreign nations in a time of war, whereas it does contain a promise of protected rights to American citizens. That is the difference.

There is no justifying FDR’s actions. He has been lambasted for generations about his internment of the Japanese. Ironically, Lincoln gets more of a free pass in terms of imprisoning American citizens without trial than FDR which is doubly ironic since the nation was not officially at war. (Since Congress can’t declare war and since the Confederacy was not recognized as a nation, Congress never declared war against the South. They simply authorized the use of force to quell the rebellion).

Mr. Fusion says:

#98, Brendal,

He had people kidnapped from South America who weren’t citizens of the US OR Japan.

&

#100, Cow-Paddy

I’m sure there are “good” justifications for Bush’s illegal activities too. Just as people can justify FDR’s criminal acts… Slippery slope, no?

*

The internment of Japanese, Italian, and German nationals during WWII is reprehensible. During WWII though, it met with approval from the Supreme Court. The camps, while not luxurious, were not concentration camps. Inmates were well fed; often better than the guards, had good health care, and were usually paid for any labor. Most children in the camps were schooled and adults were allowed to pursue activities. Very few, and only after internal trials, were housed separately from the population.

And those criminal acts are? It is claimed the FDR kidnapped several foreign nationals from Latin America. Not true. I spent several hours searching and I could not find one reference suggesting that. Of course, I purposely stayed away from the idiot sources such as Conservipedia.

Although I know you won’t, try giving a reference that FDR had foreign nationals kidnapped. Just saying it is taught in school is insufficient.

Now compare that with Bush and Gitmo. There, the inmates were kidnapped on battlefields, usually by Afghanis and sold to the Americans as Terrorists. Some were kidnapped in other countries, tortured and then sent to Guantanamo. All have been dehumanized. All reports indicate that they have been tortured, deprived of counsel, and had their legal rights violated. Foreign nationals of countries we are allied with are refused access to these prisoners. In spite of the Geneva Conventions that regulate how prisoners are to be treated during war, Bush has ignored them and invented his own rules.

*

Regardless, your version of history is bullshit. Both of you are idiots. Cow-Paddy made a stupid comment in #55 and has yet to explain it. Instead of telling us what “natural economic law” is, he has tried to steer the topic onto something else.

The standard practice here with the wing nuts is to blame the Democrats for whatever bullshit Bush is responsible for. Somehow just saying JFK, or Clinton did it is enough for them. It doesn’t matter that neither had done anything like that, just say they did and Bush looks better. And that makes you two idiots morans.

Yet the tragedy is you might have a vote. Stupid people should not be allowed to vote.

NOTE. I have heavily edited this from a much longer piece.

Thomas says:

#103

RE: Internment camps

You forgot the part of about forfeiture of your assets.

It is not known whether some of those that were eventually interned were tortured. We may never know as records of such events are surely lost, destroyed or never kept. I’m sure the Jews we traded to the Germans for other Americans were treated just peachy.

> Now compare that with Bush and Gitmo.
> There, the inmates were kidnapped
> on battlefield

If you are a combatant, your statement is a non-sequitur. If you are on the battlefield and you are a combatant you are captured not kidnapped.

Furthermore, for the Geneva Convention(s) to apply, a person must be soldier of the nation in question. Terrorists that are “captured on the battlefield” are not allied to any nation nor wear any nation’s uniform. Therefore, it is unclear where the Geneva convention(s) apply. Are they soldiers or merely a criminals?

> Stupid people should not be allowed to vote.

And yet you want to vote. The irony is palatable.

Thomas says:

#106
I’ll leave the rest of your comment to rest as there is not much left to say. However, I will answer this question:

> And if the nation does not equip
> their soldiers with uniforms?
> Does being captured without a
> iniform automatically make someone
> a terrorist?

The uniform is symbolic of a soldier’s allegiance to and authorization by a specific nation to conduct military operations. If we are at war with Germany and a German solider is captured in civilian clothes, the German government can still sue for release or demand fair treatment under the Geneva Conventions. The uniform is less critical than they can prove they are a member of an opposing military with which we are at war and thus under orders to conduct military operations that are sanctioned by their home nation. However, if that same captured German is a civilian and thus not a member of the German military, their rights under the Geneva Convention are questionable. If the person captured is a civilian from a country with which we are not at war and is captured conducting military operations against us, then their rights under the Geneva Conventions are even more questionable. The terrorists captured in Afghanistan and Iraq fall into this last category.