Or so said Peter Kirsanow, a Bush appointee to the Civil Rights Commission no less.
Kirsanow made the statement during the Commission's monthly meeting which was held at the Omni Hotel in Detroit. The Commissioners heard testimony from the Arab American community relating its experiences following the Sept. 11 but instead heard Kirsanow bring up the idea of detention camps.
quote:Kirsanow raised the possibility of internment camps for the mass detention of Arab Americans at a Commission hearing in Detroit on July 19. He did not condemn this idea, but raised it as a serious and reasonable possibility in the event of future terrorist attacks against the United States. He also stated that if the perpetrators of any such attack "come from the same ethnic group that attacked the World Trade Center, you can forget about civil rights."
quote:If there's another attack by Arabs on U.S. soil, "not too many people will be crying in their beer if there are more detentions, more stops, more profiling," Kirsanow said.
"There will be a groundswell of public opinion to banish civil rights. So the best thing we can do to preserve them is by keeping the country safe."
[ July 26, 2002, 16:09: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"If there's another attack by Arabs on U.S. soil, 'not too many people will be crying in their beer if there are more detentions, more stops, more profiling,' Kirsanow said."
Except maybe the Arabs? Oh, sorry, I forgot. They're not people. How silly of me.
Posted by Colorless Cartman (Member # 256) on :
One totalitarian police state, coming right up.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Ahhhh; America. The land of freedom and justice for all...
Posted by Red Snay (Member # 411) on :
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
With this news, I think Arab-Americans should start buying weapons from their local gun stores.
Posted by Red Ultra Mega Psy Snay God Shinzon (Member # 16) on :
Given how citizens of the US generally respond to being attacked, you'd be silly to presume otherwise.
There were plenty of people who, while the events of September 11th unfolded and immediately afterwards, would have happily used the power of the Douwd, had they had it, to destroy all the Husnock, everywhere. For a few hours that day, I was one of them. Fortunately, I snapped out of it. I don't expect as many people to be able to do that.
He's talking about how the American PEOPLE would react, not the government, you dupes. If you think that what happend with the attacks on the Arab community post 9-11 was bad, it won't be anything compared to what could happen after a second, similar attack by a cell in the US. People will see a threat in their midst, and act on what they think they see, whether it's real or not. They will assume any Arab could be in cahoots, since the government wasn't able to catch them all. They won't CARE that it's a totally wrong presumption, because scared angry people don't act rationally.
I'm actually worried for my new boss... she's Lebanese.
So are you telling me they want this guy out because he told a goddamned unpleasant TRUTH?
Man, you people need thicker skins.
Posted by Springfield Armory Snay (Member # 411) on :
Glock 23, a .40 cal handgun, isn't that expensive, and it's fairly compact. They run $550 or so ... tell her to invest.
Posted by Colorless Cartman (Member # 256) on :
...In a phased plasma rifle, forty watt range.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
As a dupe, I just don't understand how there can be "internment camps for the mass detention of Arab Americans" without the concent and participation of the American goverment. He even made comments about Korematsu v. United States. I'm sure you read that Rob. 10 militia members with guns can't intern anyone if the full might of American law and order denies them the ability to do so.
A member of the Civil Rights Commission knows this, apparently he doesn't care.
And also in my dupieness, I also assume that it is the responsibility of the American goverment to maintain the rule of law prevent segments of the "people" from running about and beating another segment of the "people".
Further, I don't see the role of a member of the Civil Rights Commission, no matter how right wing, tell the people whose civil rights he's supposed to protect, that the government might round them up, apparently regardless of American citizenship, and deny them their civil rights.
One should ask the question: If Arab Americans, regardless of citizenship, are rounded up, where does that leave the future of liberties and American freedom in general?
There is no truth in his statements, it's a point of view and it's one that a Civil Rights Commissioner should be sacked for taking.
Another example of a classic Bush compasionate conservative appointee.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
You know what's really sad? History is repeating itself here. Or has the majority of the country forgotten about that little incident regarding the internment of Japanese-American civilians during World War Two -- many of whom were natural-born American citizens?
Coincidentally, I recently finished taking a college course on the Great Depression and World War Two. Part of one night's lecture dealt with the internment camps from 1942 to 1945. We also had some assigned reading, in the form of two essays written which either supported or opposed the internment process.
But the kicker is the name of the author of the article which supported the "military necessity" of interning Japanese civilians and American citizens. The author was none other than Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. (ref: Presidents and Their Decisions: Franklin D. Roosevelt -- "The Internment of Japansese Americans was Justified", page 174-185.)
I would not be too surprised if such a thing were attempted again in the future, in a scenario similar to the one described above. Not only have many people forgotten what's happened, but most others would consider it to be a crucial measure to prevent further terrorist attacks. And the scary thing is that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would likely support such a program.
Anyway, to go into some of the background on the idea of civilian internment camps, there were three cases that were argued before the Supreme Court over the camps: Hirabayashi v. United States, Korematsu v. United States, and Endo v. United States -- and all of them upheld the constitutionality of the government's program to "intern" Japanese Americans who lived on the west coast. In the above-mentioned essay, Rehnquist wrote, "The basis on which the Court upheld the plan was military representations as to the necessity for evacuation."
Gee, isn't that nice?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
One point, in Ex Parte Endo, the Court found that the War Relocation Authority did not have the power to hold Mitsuye Endo, a loyal and law-abiding citizen. The Court did not go so far as to declare Executive Order No. 9066 unconstitutional however.
Mr. Justice Douglas wrote in the opinion for the Court:
quote:...we do not come to the underlying constitutional issues which have been argued. For we conclude that, whatever power the War Relocation Authority may have to detain other classes of citizens, it has no authority to subject citizens who are concededly loyal to its leave procedure.
Mr. Justice Roberts wrote in a concuring opinion:
quote:I conclude, therefore, that the court is squarely faced with a serious constitutional question,-whether the relator's detention violated the guarantees of the Bill of Rights of the federal Constitution and especially the guarantee of due process of law. There can be but one answer to that question. An admittedly loyal citizen has been deprived of her liberty for a period of years. Under the Constitution she should be free to come and go as she pleases. Instead, her liberty of motion and other innocent activities have been prohibited and conditioned. She should be discharged.
However, in Korematsu, deliverd on the same day as Endo, the Court basicly because of the war that the War Relocation Authority could demand out of military necessity
quote:...that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily...
but stopped short of fully deciding the constitutionality internment of citizens by saying
quote:We cannot-by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight-now say that at that time these actions were unjustified.
So, basicly they side-stepped the issue.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Rob: So, what you're saying is that it's okay to lock up all the Arabs in the country, because the rest of the population is too stupid not to try to hurt them?
The arguement that you can stick people in internment camps "for their own protection" has always been one of the stupidest I've heard. Do we lock away victims of assault, robbery, rape, &c. because they need to be protected from their assailants? No, we lock up the people who commited the crimes. So, if we were going to have detention camps set up in order to prevent future crimes, wouldn't it be all he non-Arabs that should be locked up? After all, we're the ones being called potential criminals, and the Arabs are the potential victims.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Springfield Armory Snay: Glock 23, a .40 cal handgun, isn't that expensive, and it's fairly compact. They run $550 or so ... tell her to invest.
Y'know in films and stuff when you have a character who hates something, lke weddings, or blacks, or eating babies? And you know how he eventually sees the error of his ways and then becomes the pope or something? And you know how really, really tiring and dull it is when that person then goes on about how great black weddings where they eat babies are?
It sprung to mind for some reason.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
What you have here is a representative of the government expressing an opinion. The question is, was it a personal opinion, or the actual policy of the USG?
If the latter, I'm sure that Rob will rush to remind us that, as in the case of the proposed use of tactical nuclear weapons we discussed a while back, it's just a contingency plan and it's perfectly OK to have contingency plans for any sort of potential action no matter how horrendous those actions might be.
But that remains to be seen. If instead he was expressing a personal opinion, then his suitability for the office he holds is called into question. It might even call into question the judgement of the person who appointed him, but I don't know whether the current incumbent of 1600 Pa Avenue goes in for that whole "buck stops here" thing. It's not my call. The current leader of the Government Opposition over here, Ian Duncan Smith, was revealed to have a member of staff who had been a member of the British National Party, a far-right organisation. So far IDS remains leader of the Conservative Party, the Nazi has been sacked, and it's largely forgotten.
I could even cite examples in British politics where a government representative has blabbed about secret policy matters, and has suffered as a result, just as someone who couldn't keep his mouth shut when he should have. But either way, I'd say Kirsanow is for the boot.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Speaking of contingency plans....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
The conservatives have a leader now?
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i wonder what marshal they'll get to make the law. i hope we get "Walker: Texas Marshal".
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I'm actually worried for my new boss... she's Lebanese.
My soon-to-be-former boss at my soon-to-be-former library is also Lebanese. Nifty.
As for the moron who said that civil rights might be abolished, I want his resignation on my desk, tomorrow. Or his head. Whichever's easier.
Posted by Magnus Pym Eye (Member # 239) on :
Probably both doing a bit of Aeronautical research under the guise of Librarianism.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
You haven't seen our workroom. She doesn't have time to scan all the books we get, much less read any of them. And we're... two childrens' librarians, one adult librarian, and a circ assistant down as of next Wednesday. And as of three weeks after that, they'll be missing a page, too. Daad needs a vacation. Or a few clones. Or both.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...soon-to-be-former library..."
That sounds much more destructive that I suspect it was intended to...
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: So far IDS remains leader of the Conservative Party, the Nazi has been sacked, and it's largely forgotten.
As are the conservatives... Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Maybe if IDS had been the PM, it might have been more serious. But unless Labour screw up even worse than they have been of late, the Tories may not even be in Opposition after the next election.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Hmph.
A couple years ago. When a Conservative talks about Executive Orders, issuing of mass, destruction of freedom by, he's a "paranoid."
Now, When a liberal talks about the same, (down to the same exact EO's) he isn't?
Someone's either a paranoid or a hypocrite.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Or drunk? Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
What exactly that post was about.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
To clarify on my earlier post -- yes, Justice Rehnquist's article was an opinion-based work, but it was presented in a way that heavily relied on legal interpretation, focusing on the reasoning for the Supreme Court's decisions for those three court cases.
So the article doesn't constitute an official opinion or policy in and of itself. However, many Americans regard the Supreme Court as one of the primary bastions of civil rights, as the last resort for those whose rights are infringed by laws that Congress and the President put into force. If the Chief Justice writes an article that effectively supports the Japanese internment camps, I'd say that's a strong indication as to which way Justice Rehnquist (and possibly the entire Supreme Court) could lean should these proposed new internment camps for Arab-Americans actually become a reality.
THAT'S what worries me. The fact that others in the government are going to be willing to go along with this because of an illusory "national defense" justification. And the fact that the Supreme Court may be willing to screw over loyal American citizens again exclusively because of their ethnicity.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I'd say that if argued before the Court now, it would be another 5-4 decision. A decision in favor of internment.
Although I wonder which way O'Connor would go, I think it's pertty easy to figure which way Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas would go.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Perhaps.
How would you expect it to go in the event of a second attack, similar in nature and impact, which is what the original article assumed?
Let's say, for example, that terrorists linked to Al-Qaeda hit Disneyworld during the busy season (this winter).
Personally, I would expect the general public (people not as smart or disciplined as us here)'s reaction to make what happened post-9-11 look like a picnic. Then the govt. might call internship "protective custody."
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
And then we would, of course, be in need of not just a president, but a national father. Perhaps Bush would be willing to run for Father? The state knows what is best for us, after all. Defeating terrorism is the sole concern of government, and nothing must be allowed to get in the way of that.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Too bad that didn't contribute to the discussion.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:America needs a group of dedicated professionals who wake up each morning with the overriding duty of protecting the American people.
Gee, isn't that what they're supposed to do already?
I suppose you can argue that what Bush was trying to say was that he wants a department whose PRIMARY duty is "national defense," and nothing else. It's true that most other departments have to worry about all sorts of other duties as well.
Two years later, though, it seems that Mr. Bush is still capable of putting his foot in his mouth, and remembers that wonderful term, "fuzzy math."
quote:And as I understand, it was on this day 35 years ago that [President Truman] signed the National Security Act of 1947.
Now, I'm not a Mathematics Major at college, so maybe one of Bush's top-notch advisors or speechwriters is more familiar with some of the latest mathematical theories. But when I was in grade school, I was taught that 2002 - 35 = 1967.
Gotta love good ol' Dubya! Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Well, if the case is argued that civil rights limitation X could happen if attack Y, or something like it happens again, then I'd expect the present administration to be working as hard as it can to find out what caused attack Y to happen in the first place.
That apparently might happen in Congress even over the strong objections of the present administration, who instead clings to platatudes, vague warnings and threats of internment rather than looking for root causes.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I was unaware I needed to have my posts vetted by an approved representative.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
You are now, for the good of the nation.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Yes, or else people might start asking questions like "how come the Constitution is so sacrosanct when it comes to gun control, but not when it comes to fucking over a bunch of darkies?"
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Yes, or else people might start asking questions like "how come the Constitution is so sacrosanct when it comes to gun control, but not when it comes to fucking over a bunch of darkies?"
Cause they need the guns to round up the darkies. Man, how hard could that be to understand.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)