Internment Camps Okay?

[Makalakumu]

I also wanted to say that yes, in times of crisis or war, the US government can revoke many of our rights that we take for granted (Habeus Corpus). It has been done many times and even as recently as after September 11. Remember, no one was allowed into Manhattan and especially lower Manhattan. Even the people who lived there couldn't get to their homes. I know it was for their protection, but if you think about it, the internment camps were done for that same reason too.

I'm not so sure. Ashcroft and a great many other neocons in this country have got it out for the Muslims...whoever those people might be. There are arab muslims, black muslims, asian muslims and white muslims. Who goes to the camps?

 

[CB2379]

I'm not so sure. Ashcroft and a great many other neocons in this country have got it out for the Muslims...whoever those people might be. There are arab muslims, black muslims, asian muslims and white muslims. Who goes to the camps?

I am not really referring to the camps persay, I am just saying that in times of, as the Supreme Court case Schenk v. US (1919) put it, "clear and present danger", the US government has the power to declare martial law, place curfews on its citizens (I believe there was one in effect on 9/11, I am not 100% sure on that) and basically take away every right we have.

The grey area here is not in what laws the government can take away and to which groups of people they can do it to, but the real grey area is, what actually is "clear and present danger".

Chuck

 

[Feisty Mouse]

My next question would be: when are we willing to except "clear and present danger" during this so-called "war on terror" (although how we can wage war on a concept is beyond me) - when do we have evidence that there is such?

 

[pete]

It has been done many times and even as recently as after September 11. Remember, no one was allowed into Manhattan and especially lower Manhattan. Even the people who lived there couldn't get to their homes. I know it was for their protection, but if you think about it, the internment camps were done for that same reason too.

yes chuck, but while NO ONE was being allowed into lower manhattan in the days after 9/11, internment during wwII was targeted specifically at japanese and ITALIAN americans. that's discrimination...period.

pete

 

[kenpo tiger]

KT,
As far as I know, executive orders are a power given to the president under the war powers act. Technically, the system of checks and balances does not apply here. The veto power is the presidents power to check the Congress' power. The only way which I could forsee these orders being considered unconstitutional was if they went into effect, a citizen was violating one of the orders and was arrested. Then that case was brought up through the system and reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court doesn't even have to take the case but if they did and then say the executive order violated the Constitution, then the law would be take away....still the chances of this happening is very, very unlikely.

Chuck

Chuckster,
I KNEW if I put this out there you'd see it and set me straight! See you later. KT

 

[TwistofFat]

The following is a list of executive orders that will take away most of your rights as a citizen.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

....

Apparently the camps have already been constructed by FEMA and the REX 84 program. This information corresponds with the above executive orders though. Check it out...




upnorthkyosa

President Exec. Orders rank (1 = most - based on weeks in office)Hoover 1011 EO's, Rank2
FDR 3728 EO's Rank 1
Truman 896 EO's Rank 3
Ike 486 EO's #9
Kennedy 214 EO's Rank 5
Johnson 324 EO's Rank 7
Nixon 346 Eo's #8
Carter 320 #4
Clinton 364 # 12
Bush II 110 # 11




Interesting post but as ominous as it looks, there is another side. 10990, 10995, 10997, etc were from JFK's Presidency. As you can see above, if EO's are anti-democratic, they sure have become a Presidential Standard for both parties? (Feb 16, 1962 seems to have been a very active day!).

I looked at 10995 (http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/jfkeo/eo/10990.htm) and it seems to define the creation of standards for Federal communications standards but if you look at other sites (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/3450/executiveorders.html) it seems malicious at best. Glass half full or half empty. I guess the only way to judge is if it is ever envoked.

Many important policy changes have occurred through Executive Orders - Harry Truman integrated the armed forces under Executive Order. President Eisenhower used an EO to desegregate schools. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson used them to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring, and contracting. President Reagan used an EO to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. President Clinton reversed this order when he came into office.

If our 'valiant' representatives in Congress had any heartburn over EO's they have not gone after any of these (requires 2/3). We just wait and hope the next President reverses the EO or take the issue to the Supreme Court. Argh.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I think that using EO's to enact positive change is one thing - and, of course, that statement has the benefit of hindsight. Of course we want that schools were desegregated.

But do we want an EO used instituting internment camps for anyone and everyone of a particular religion or race that the government wants to target? I'm going to volunteer a big NO on that one.

I think this may be a fear because not many people trust what the current Administration may choose to do - esp. now that our civil liberties have already been pushed back during Bush the Second's presidency. Because he has such an all-or-nothing view of the world, I can easily imagine him deciding to separate the sheep from the goats, and put all of those he deems goats into internment camps, indefinetly, to the Glory of whatever God he believes in.

It's not that I don't think these powers and abilities can't be useful, it's that I don't trust the folks in power right now to use them wisely.

 

[OULobo]

KT,
As far as I know, executive orders are a power given to the president under the war powers act. Technically, the system of checks and balances does not apply here. The veto power is the presidents power to check the Congress' power. The only way which I could forsee these orders being considered unconstitutional was if they went into effect, a citizen was violating one of the orders and was arrested. Then that case was brought up through the system and reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court doesn't even have to take the case but if they did and then say the executive order violated the Constitution, then the law would be take away....still the chances of this happening is very, very unlikely.

Chuck

That's how it would work ideally, but if wholesale abuse of these powers becomes obvious, it will probably be because the President is becoming an emperor and the courts would likely be dissolved or turned into puppets. Ideally, if these powers are "war time", then congress would have to decide to declare war and grant the Pres. these powers. Vetos can be overridden with a 2/3rds vote from congress, right. The problem is that granting a president war time powers is like opening a flood gate, that could allow for a military takeover. Luckily past war time Presidents have been arguably responsible in their usage of that power. In war time, the idea of checks and balances seems to be null and void.

Consequently, I don't think congress ever gave a formal declaration of war in this, so called, "war on terror". To me it's just a sound byte, like the equally successful "war on drugs". Funny I don't remember drugs fighting back, but we still couldn't win in a stand up fight. Now just wait for the new "war on homosexuality" and "war on muslims" to be the precursur to the grand finale', "war on freedoms". I think we need a "war on wars that aren't really wars".

 

[Makalakumu]

Apparently some people decided to put the heat on the president during a press conference regarding this issue. Read this speech carefully and consider the presidents remarks...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040806-1.html

I wanted to ask you about protecting all Americans, as well. There are many Arab Americans and Muslims in this country who find themselves unfairly scrutinized by law enforcement and by society at large. Just yesterday we had arrests in Albany, New York. Immediately afterwards, some neighbors in the community said they feared that the law would come for them unfairly next. We have a new book out today that suggests perhaps we should reconsider internment camps. How do we balance the need to pursue and detain some individuals from not well-known communities, while at the same time keeping innocent people from being painted by the broad brush of suspicion?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I appreciate that. First, we don't need intern camps. I mean, forget it. (Applause.) Right after 9/11, I knew this was going to be an issue in our country, that there would be people that say, there goes a Muslim-looking person, therefore that person might be viewed as a terrorist. I knew that was going to be a problem. That's why I went to a mosque, to send the signal, right after the attacks, that said, let's uphold our values. People are innocent until judged guilty. Religious people, people that go to mosques, you know, need to be -- Americans need to be viewed as equally American as their neighbor, be tolerant; let law enforcement, to the best of their ability, determine guilt or innocence, but our fellow citizens need to treat people with respect.

By far, most Americans in this country did that, not because I asked them to, just because by far the vast majority of Americans are decent people. They care about their neighbors. I don't care where you're from or what your walk of life is, by far the vast majority of our citizens are willing to reach out to somebody who is different. And that needed to be done. As a matter of fact, the anecdotal stories of neighbors helping neighbors, across religious lines, were heart warming.

Now in terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is -- we need to be very sensitive on that. Lackawanna, for example, was a -- there was a cell there. And it created a lot of nervousness in the community, because the FBI skillfully ferreted out intelligence that indicated that these people were in communication with terrorist networks. And I thought they handled the case very well, but at the time there was a lot of nervousness. People said, well, I may be next -- but they weren't next, because it was just a focused, targeted investigation. And, by the way, some were then incarcerated and told their stories, and it turned out the intelligence was accurate intelligence.

I guess my answer to your question is, is that we've always got to make sure that people are judged innocent before guilty, that's the best insurance policy for law enforcement overstepping its bounds. I will also tell you, however, that the threats we're dealing with are real, and therefore we must do everything we can to ferret out the truth and follow leads.

We cannot -- again -- it's interesting, these recent threats, you know, they're becoming more and more enriched, as you're finding out. There was more than one thread line -- threat line. People are now seeing there was other reasons why we took the action we took. When we find out intelligence that is real that threatens people, I believe we have an obligation, as government, to share that with people. And imagine what would happen if we didn't share that information with the people in those buildings, and something were to happen; then what would you write, what would you say?

So we have a, in terms of law enforcement, we have a duty to uphold innocence and guilt. In terms of a government, we have the solemn duty to follow every lead we find and share information we have with people that could be harmed. And that's exactly what we've done, and I will continue to do as the President.

This is a dangerous time. I wish it wasn't this way. I wish I wasn't the war President. Who in the heck wants to be a war President? I don't. But this is what came our way. And this is our duty, to protect our people. It's a solemn duty, and I'll continue doing it to the best of my ability.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Flatlander]

It's safe to say that he's not a particularly skilled orator.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

flatlander - you win my own personal award for Understatement of the Week.