[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by James L

I am confused by your post... how did you get me?

I pointed out that 68% of the people on this poll disagreed with you. I also pointed out that your own government disagreed with you. I did not offer my own opinion on the matter (though I disagree with you also).

So tell me again... how did you get me?

Were you thinking that because Canada interned also, that a Canadian shouldn't answer the question "internment.... good or bad?"

Where you thinking I would be oblivious to my own nation's history?

Where you actually pathetically thinking "I can't wait for James L to jump in on this thread, and I will nail him with the fact that Canada also interned?"

...are you really that pathetic?

Do you really have nothing better to do with your time?

I could see how that would be a "gotcha" if I tried to hold a "Canada is superior to the US because you interned" kinda attitude.

Unfortunately for you, I did no such thing. The fact that multiple governments, my own and yours, had to make reparation to the Japanese people only serves to solidify the fact that internment was wrong. Thank you for proving my point.

Now, I will let you in on a secret....

People are laughing at you, in multiple threads.

You should try to figure out why.

I feel sorry for you.

I am denying you what you most desire.

[Pendergast]

On the contrary, the parallels are extraordinary!

Japan at war againts US: Japanese Camps in the U.S.

War on terror from Muslims: Muslim Camps in the U.S.

America is going to be so great afterwards like you can't imagine.

Consider yourself introduced to yourself now.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

On the contrary, the parallels are extraordinary!

Japan at war againts US: Japanese Camps in the U.S.

War on terror from Muslims: Muslim Camps in the U.S.

America is going to be so great afterwards like you can't imagine.

Consider yourself introduced to yourself now.

"Hello, it's ME!

I've thought about us for a long, long time..."

Hello!

Is it ME you're looking for?

Back to the O.T.

No, the situation is being handled. However, there MIGHT come a day when internment could make sense. Not in the foreseeable future, though.

And frankly I'm aghast that you'd say so, Pender...AGHAST, I tell you!

[James L]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

I am denying you what you most desire.

If you say so.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by James L

If you say so.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

There were citizens, male & female, young & older who didn't serve in uniform during WWII. And the law enforcement officers were those who couldn't serve in the military, for the most part due to age or other unsuitability.

Do you have any statistics that would demonstrate that there was a significant shortage of police officers per capita during the war? Because, to my thinking, given that everyone else was being drafted too, the ratio of police officers to civilians should have stayed roughly the same.

Show me where black people have declared war on America with an attack on our military facilities and installation, killed thousands of Americans and prompted a war and I'll agree with you.

Show me that a majority of American citizens of Japanese descent did those things. It's fine for you to point out that some Japanese Americans refused to take a loyalty oath (even though that shouldn't be required), but, if loyalty is so easily tested, then why weren't all the Japanese Americans who were willing to take that oath released from the camps? if you've pinpointed who might be dangerous, why hold everybody else?

No one knew before Rodney King # I that Los Angeles was going to erupt as it did or else law enforcement would have been increased and placed on emergency alert beforehand as law enforcement was substantially beefed up in preparation for the RK verdict #2.

I was being specious, but, like Pendergast, I am confused as to why you seem accepting of the Japanese internment, but dismissive of modern parallels that, by your reasoning, should also call for internment. Certainly a measurable percentage of blacks in Los Angeles would have, at the time, expressed a feeling that the Los Angeles police department was a hostile force to be opposed. They might have even been persueded to sign a "disloyalty oath" stating their desire to perform acts of civil disobedience (maybe even sabotage) against the LAPD.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y!!!!

100% YES!

I must warn you, if you rebut this you will end up look very silly.

Why would I rebut this? It says alot about you that you find some hate acceptable. Presumably, the only hate you would find acceptable is that which you agree with.

Personally, I find all hate to be unacceptable.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Do you have any statistics that would demonstrate that there was a significant shortage of police officers per capita during the war? Because, to my thinking, given that everyone else was being drafted too, the ratio of police officers to civilians should have stayed roughly the same.

No, if there had been Japanese running around there would have been a greater NEED for law enforcement.

Show me that a majority of American citizens of Japanese descent did those things. It's fine for you to point out that some Japanese Americans refused to take a loyalty oath (even though that shouldn't be required), but, if loyalty is so easily tested, then why weren't all the Japanese Americans who were willing to take that oath released from the camps? if you've pinpointed who might be dangerous, why hold everybody else?

Some of them were, get ready, I know this may be difficult for you to believe, deceitful.

Does EVERY person in a city have to be contaminated with the plague before you would recommend a quarantine? That would be bass-ackwards, wouldn't you say? The idea is to SPARE the greatest number of people the greatest amount of danger when no other way is possible to protect them. But, rather than just protecting the majority of America and Americans, the internees were being protected FROM attack. AND, the internees were helping the war effort by removing themselves from being the target of attack.

I was being specious, but, like Pendergast, I am confused as to why you seem accepting of the Japanese internment, but dismissive of modern parallels that, by your reasoning, should also call for internment. Certainly a measurable percentage of blacks in Los Angeles would have, at the time, expressed a feeling that the Los Angeles police department was a hostile force to be opposed. They might have even been persueded to sign a "disloyalty oath" stating their desire to perform acts of civil disobedience (maybe even sabotage) against the LAPD.

It's not analogous.

[Rolling Bones]

Jesus Christ people...listen up!

I said it was a different time and a different world. People were afraid of other cultures. Look at the commie witch hunt of the fifties and stuffs. People were less educated.

Bonk! Bonk! Knock that into your noggin. That was then and this is now. Don't bring what happened in the past and try to make it fit somehow to present situations. It won't fit.

If it won't fit you can't convict.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

No, if there had been Japanese running around there would have been a greater NEED for law enforcement.

Maybe, maybe not. We'll never really know. Unless there were attacks on Japanese Americans before the attack? I am not aware of a significant number of such attacks, but I think that personal liberty is valuable enough in a democracy that the internment of a population "for their own protection" should always be a last resort.

Some of them were, get ready, I know this may be difficult for you to believe, deceitful.

And yet you still don't seem to acknowledge that some of prisoners could have been coerced or were confused due to language issues. Works both ways.

Does EVERY person in a city have to be contaminated with the plague before you would recommend a quarantine? That would be bass-ackwards, wouldn't you say? The idea is to SPARE the greatest number of people the greatest amount of danger when no other way is possible to protect them. But, rather than just protecting the majority of America and Americans, the internees were being protected FROM attack. AND, the internees were helping the war effort by removing themselves from being the target of attack.

See above about last resorts. We don't yet quarantine entire cities because of a flu outbreak, for instance.

It's not analogous.

If you say so. Why?

What about the riots and other incidents of violence in Southern California in the late '70s and '80s committed by blacks against the influx of Korean dominated neighborhoods and Korean-owned businesses? Certainly it was widespread enough and localized enough that the Korean populations in question had a significant amount to fear, and traditional law enforcement offered little protection. Should the U.S. have interned them for their own protection?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Why would I rebut this? It says alot about you that you find some hate acceptable. Presumably, the only hate you would find acceptable is that which you agree with.

Personally, I find all hate to be unacceptable.

Well, that would make you a conscientious objector, I suppose. That would make you qualified to be a medic in a combat unit, maybe.

In war, it isn't unusual to act hatefully toward the enemy.

Or do you find hateful acts directed toward the United States to be ok?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

Jesus Christ people...listen up!

I said it was a different time and a different world. People were afraid of other cultures. Look at the commie witch hunt of the fifties and stuffs. People were less educated.

Bonk! Bonk! Knock that into your noggin. That was then and this is now. Don't bring what happened in the past and try to make it fit somehow to present situations. It won't fit.

If it won't fit you can't convict.

to you RB!

Or, (speaking to the dissenting Fuzzies) conversely, don't try to wrap your metro-patriotic sensibilities around an issue that clearly was more serious in nature than you can 'Google.' Some of you don't recognize we are at war. Others of you want the US to lose.

You don't count.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Or do you find hateful acts directed toward the United States to be ok?

I believe I said "I find all hate to be unacceptable". Perhaps with all the reading you do, individual sentences escape your notice.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Maybe, maybe not. We'll never really know. Unless there were attacks on Japanese Americans before the attack? I am not aware of a significant number of such attacks, but I think that personal liberty is valuable enough in a democracy that the internment of a population "for their own protection" should always be a last resort.

Uh, there weren't many attacks like that because the Japanese WERE INTERNED.

How do you know it WASN'T the last resort?

And yet you still don't seem to acknowledge that some of prisoners could have been coerced or were confused due to language issues. Works both ways.

So, tell us. Since we've seen what 19 hijackers can do just how many saboteurs and espionage agents and their support network do you figure we should allow, hmm?

See above about last resorts. We don't yet quarantine entire cities because of a flu outbreak, for instance.

AND THAT IS THE POINT!!!

By quarantining the smaller number which might endanger the majority you are acting responsibly. If you intern the Japanese, regrettably even innocent ones - because you can't know for sure which ones will be risks to the war effort or AT RISK from grieving Americans, you are doing what's best for the MAJORITY. And THAT is democracy.

If you say so. Why?

What about the riots and other incidents of violence in Southern California in the late '70s and '80s committed by blacks against the influx of Korean dominated neighborhoods and Korean-owned businesses? Certainly it was widespread enough and localized enough that the Korean populations in question had a significant amount to fear, and traditional law enforcement offered little protection. Should the U.S. have interned them for their own protection?

STATE OF WAR IS THE FIRST STEP.

DEMONSTRATED SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS DANGER TO THE US AND/OR THE WAR EFFORT WITHOUT A SUITABLY EFFECTIVE DEFENSE OR DETERRENT.

Last resort.

What you describe was handled by law enforcement.

Not analogous.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I believe I said "I find all hate to be unacceptable". Perhaps with all the reading you do, individual sentences escape your notice.

Just checking.

[cpt kangarooski]

Rolling Bones--

Actually it may have saved a few lives.

After Pearl Harbour I imagine some "Rednecks" would've driven around and picked off a "Jap" or few.

Different time, a different world. Made sense at the time to many people. Anyone that looked different (white) was considered an enemy.

Some people would think that it is better, safer, and more just, to imprison racist bigots that lynch people, than to imprison their victims. You, on the other hand, seem to come from bizarro world, where the innocent are punished and the guilty run free.

Meanwhile, the problem with this argument is still that the government did not intern Americans of German origin or descent. Unless you seek to support racism, there is no way to explain the disparate treatment. Even in WW1, when there was a lot of irrational hostility towards all things German, we didn't actually imprison people of German ancestry en masse, nor did we see a lot of rampant lawlessness with regard to them.

Your argument just doesn't hold water.

Additionally, it's always worth looking at history. The misdeeds of our predecessors should be examined, remembered, and used as cautionary examples. If we forgive and forget, we will doom ourselves to making the same mistakes all over again. We must never forget, and we must remember that we too will someday be judged, so we must strive to have the highest ideals and to live up to them, even apart from the fact that doing so is its own reward.

Aberdeenwriter--

However, there MIGHT come a day when internment could make sense.

No, that day will never come. It's as inane an idea as saying that someday slavery would make sense, or segregation would make sense or geocide would make sense. The fact that people have been as stupid as you in the past and may well become that stupid again in the future doesn't change the fact that it is a stupid idea.

Not only is it stupid because the idea of internment is so fundamentally anti-American, and an attack on the essential concept of due process, but it is stupid because it is not effective, harms morale, and is wasteful of resources. It doesn't even do what proponents of it want it to do -- unless they just want to kick people on account of their ethnicity.

you are doing what's best for the MAJORITY. And THAT is democracy.

We don't live in a democracy, and the majority doesn't have absolute power. Our government was designed by people who distrusted the mob rule you advocate, and we have many civil liberties that are protected against the incursions of dangerous majorities and which are subject to no votes and no elections.

Basically, the US is a place that does things for majorities while just as equally protecting minorities. Having only half a brain, I suppose it was inevitable that you would only grasp half the idea.

Space Monkey--

how me that a majority of American citizens of Japanese descent did those things. It's fine for you to point out that some Japanese Americans refused to take a loyalty oath (even though that shouldn't be required), but, if loyalty is so easily tested, then why weren't all the Japanese Americans who were willing to take that oath released from the camps? if you've pinpointed who might be dangerous, why hold everybody else?

Actually, the really funny part is not only that the Supreme Court had already ruled (during the war) that loyalty oaths for private citizens could never be constitutionally required, but remember that they are useless. Someone who is loyal may take the oath, but someone who wants to gain our trust in order to engage in espionage will absolutely take the oath. Meanwhile, many people who are loyal but disgusted with the government's behavior, or who have other relevant principles (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses) will not take an oath.

If I were around in WW2, I'd gladly support the Allies in the war, but I still wouldn't take an oath. Governments owe their loyalty to their people, not the other way around. This is because governments are tools of the people, meant to help create and sustain good societies. When you find a better tool, it's appropriate to replace the old one. An oath to a tool inverts the whole situation.

We don't yet quarantine entire cities because of a flu outbreak, for instance.

Of course, it would depend. The main problem with the internment was the lack of due process: the government imprisoned people arbitrarily and with no indication that there was a need to do so that outweighed their right to be free.

If there was a serious medical emergency, then a quarantine of the relevant areas might be justifiable. But a quarantine against people who were not at risk at all, and where the quarantine would be of no value, would certainly not be okay.

[aberdeenwriter]

So, Rooski (before I give your post the attention it deserves ) how many lives are you willing to sacrifice so the potential enemy could run free as you please?

How many innocent lives would you permit to be lost before you'd act to protect them?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Uh, there weren't many attacks like that because the Japanese WERE INTERNED.

How do you know it WASN'T the last resort?

That was my point. Unless there was a demonstrated danger to the Japanese American population, then, by definition, you can't say that it was a "last resort" with respect to imprisoning them for their own protection. Was there a demonstrated danger? I haven't read of any.

So, tell us. Since we've seen what 19 hijackers can do just how many saboteurs and espionage agents and their support network do you figure we should allow, hmm?

Wait, I thought the War on Terror was another one of those "not analogous" situations. Sorry, you can't dismiss it and then bring it up as part of your argument.

But certainly, anyone convicted of committing acts of sabotage or espionage should be imprisoned. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise.

AND THAT IS THE POINT!!!

By quarantining the smaller number which might endanger the majority you are acting responsibly. If you intern the Japanese, regrettably even innocent ones - because you can't know for sure which ones will be risks to the war effort or AT RISK from grieving Americans, you are doing what's best for the MAJORITY. And THAT is democracy.

I would say that unless you have demonstrated evidence that the smaller number does endanger the majority, you are acting rashly and irresponsibly. You still haven't indicated how there was demonstrated evidence that Japanese Americans needed to be interned for their own protection. As for the potential for sabotage or espionage, it was certainly convenient for the Roosevelt Administration to intern Japanese Americans en masse instead of going through the laborious process of running actual counterintelligence operations and investigating single cases. But, in retrospect, I have never seen it argued that it was a military necessity. Merely a difficult decision. Perhaps understandable when put into the context of its times, but still, in hindsight, regrettable and even "disgraceful."

STATE OF WAR IS THE FIRST STEP.

DEMONSTRATED SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS DANGER TO THE US AND/OR THE WAR EFFORT WITHOUT A SUITABLY EFFECTIVE DEFENSE OR DETERRENT.

Last resort.

What you describe was handled by law enforcement.

Not analogous.

Yes, and I have been arguing that any supposed danger to Japanese Americans from vengeance-seeking Americans of other ethnic backgrounds could also have been handled by simple law enforcement. You pointed out that many law enforcement officers were called away to fight in the war, and I pointed out that many potential vengeance-seekers were also called away to fight in the war, which probably evened the odds. So why, exactly, if law enforcement has been deemed able to handle decades of race riots in Los Angeles, would it not have been up to the task in protecting Japanese Americans during World War Two?

[iomatic]

Maybe if we interned hicks from Aberdeen, aberdeenwriter would have some level of empathy.


"Don't count"

"Intern"

"We're at war"

Sounds like a nutjob Righty to me. No further need to listen.

[SpaceMonkey]

I should also point out that IF one of the chief goals of the internment camps was to protect Japanese Americans from vengeance-seekers, then they were complete failures, as many Japanese Americans lost significant property while they were imprisoned.

[lurkalot]

nm.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

That was my point. Unless there was a demonstrated danger to the Japanese American population, then, by definition, you can't say that it was a "last resort" with respect to imprisoning them for their own protection. Was there a demonstrated danger? I haven't read of any.

OMG!

We were at war. There were reports (only SOME of which are included in my post above) of sabotage, ship sinkings, spy networks and activities. If it is your job to deal with the problem what are you looking at logistically?

You will have to plan for the logistics of where and how to screen these 100,000 people. You will have to investigate them. You will undoubtedly have to go on stakeouts and follow a good number of them.

Just how many men will you have to devote to this?

How many do you have available for the job?

How many Japanese interpreters will you have to recruit, investigate and train?

How long will that take?

Will they work only 8 hours a day? 7 days a week?

Will there be enough men and materials and talent to do a 100% job?

Will you be able to devote those men and materials to this job for the duration of the war?

Are you willing to make that commitment early in the war when the outcome is FAR from certain?

And that says NOTHING about the increased law enforcement needs and the danger to the internees by allowing them to walk around free.

If you were going to spend a weekend with your girlfriend at the seashore there would be certain plans and provisions you must take into consideration before the ACTUAL need. There would still be several deadlines you'd have to be certain to make before you got to the hotel.

Get the car from the garage. Get your haircut. Pick up the dry cleaning. Take the dog to the kennel before it closed. Gas up the car. Be on the freeway before rush hour. Help Suzy-Lou choose her outfits to bring along. Make an unexpected trip to pot dealer.

I'd say getting the car was probably necessary before any of your other plans could go into full gear. So, getting it was probably the "last resort." That thing which if you didn't successfully deal with everything else would be jeopardized.

If there were a huge and continuing man power and logistical drain from dealing with this real, demonstrated danger and a likely increasingly greater problem to come as time progressed, the whole war effort would have been hampered.

Or worse.

Just as the left leaning Fuzzies in our government sabotage the Bush administration and his policies a little at a time here and there and escape detection, just as Coalition troops in Iraq have to deal with Iraqis of questionable loyalty (how about the scores of Iraqi police recruits who are killed en mass due to being infiltrated by al qaeda or traitors), in WWII Japan-loyalists
could have caused a nightmare for the war effort.

Wait, I thought the War on Terror was another one of those "not analogous" situations. Sorry, you can't dismiss it and then bring it up as part of your argument.

The 19 hijackers are different in that regard.

I would say that unless you have demonstrated evidence that the smaller number does endanger the majority, you are acting rashly and irresponsibly. You still haven't indicated how there was demonstrated evidence that Japanese Americans needed to be interned for their own protection. As for the potential for sabotage or espionage, it was certainly convenient for the Roosevelt Administration to intern Japanese Americans en masse instead of going through the laborious process of running actual counterintelligence operations and investigating single cases. But, in retrospect, I have never seen it argued that it was a military necessity. Merely a difficult decision. Perhaps understandable when put into the context of its times, but still, in hindsight, regrettable and even "disgraceful."

Many things are allowed to slide once the issue has been decided. For example, after the Communists had been exposed and rooted out of government and Hollywood, pretty much, and McCarthy began attacking innocents only then did Murrow believe it was safe enough for him to speak out. It's good that he spoke out. But it's also good that McCarthy cleaned out the Commies.

Once the cleaning had been accomplished and the government was suitably convinced the danger had passed then we went along with expressions of contrition or compensation.

After the Commies were gone we apologized or something (didn't we? ). After the War we compensated the internees. But not before. It's like the liberals are Mom and the Conservatives are Pop. When the tough decisions and actions are needed Pop does what's needed and Mom goes along with it. After the danger or tough stuff is over Mom apologizes and brings over a cake or something and Pop doesn't say anything to stop it.

Yes, and I have been arguing that any supposed danger to Japanese Americans from vengeance-seeking Americans of other ethnic backgrounds could also have been handled by simple law enforcement. You pointed out that many law enforcement officers were called away to fight in the war, and I pointed out that many potential vengeance-seekers were also called away to fight in the war, which probably evened the odds.

Are you saying that the only Americans who felt anger/hatred against the Japanese were of draft age and those who were fit for service???

60 year olds and people with flat feet or rheumatic heart conditions, for example, can set fire to a house or pull the trigger of a gun on his or her Japanese neighbor. Some of these people, I hear, are also racists.

So why, exactly, if law enforcement has been deemed able to handle decades of race riots in Los Angeles, would it not have been up to the task in protecting Japanese Americans during World War Two?

We're talking about all over the West coast. NOT just L.A. It's like this. If your job is to protect the population and keep peace there are two approaches (probably a simplification):

1. To increase manpower to handle the problem and reacting to the incidents that occurred.

2. To remove the factors that would require the need for extra manpower.

If there were no Japanese to be attacked the law enforcement manpower could afford to be maintained without change. If enough Japanese were removed from an area, along with the numbers of servicemen no longer residing in an area, law enforcement manpower numbers might even have afforded a drop in numbers without jeopardizing public safety.

[aberdeenwriter]

With a post count of 666 you reveal yourself to be demonic AND idiotic.

idiotic
Elite Member


Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 666
Status: Offline
Report Abuse
Today, 10:25 PM

Maybe if we interned hicks from Aberdeen, aberdeenwriter would have some level of empathy.


"Don't count"

"Intern"

"We're at war"

Sounds like a nutjob Righty to me. No further need to listen.

[James L]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

You are a sad man Aberdeen.

The count is now 70% against your belief. The leaders of several nations state you are wrong. Still, you persist, and insult those who disagree with you.

You arrogantly stated earlier that "you are denying me that which I most desire".

News flash. This is the internet. That which I most desire does not lie on the internet. This is pretend land.... not the real world.

Let's try this. Who do you see when you look in the mirror?

My perception of you is that of a broken man in his mid fifties, lonely, with no luck with adult women (or underage ones for that matter), who receives very little fulfillment from his real life. My perception of you is that you seek to feel better of yourself by besting people in intellectual debate on the internet. With each post you make you reveal more and more of yourself. A quick search of your user name on this forum reveals many people who agree.

While answering your question in the OP, and stating that I disagree with you, you somehow feel you have "won" something from me. More so, you somehow feel you have "denied me that which I most desire", and appear to gloat with laughing emoticons.

News flash #2. If a person's greatest desire is to be found on the internet, than that person is lacking in some basic human fundamentals.

On my day today I trained at the dojo with close friends early in the morning. I worked a 12 hour shift. I delivered a baby. I cared for a lady who broke down when her mother died of cancer. I treated a 2 year old with croup, and a 70 year old with pulmonary edema. On the way home from work I dined with my best friend of 26 years, and I spent some quiet time with my pregnant wife watching a movie, while working to train my young puppy.

This is an average day for me. Where, with all of that, would I find need to have a broken, anonymous man on the internet grant my greatest desire?

Sorry my friend. You are not even a blip on the radar screen of my desires. You are a bit character in this great play we call the internet.

Nothing more.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I should also point out that IF one of the chief goals of the internment camps was to protect Japanese Americans from vengeance-seekers, then they were complete failures, as many Japanese Americans lost significant property while they were imprisoned.

If they lost their property don't you think that's a sign of the kind of hostility that existed at the time? Unless you're talking about bank foreclosure. In which case maybe that was what was partially recompensed.

So, how many internees would you permit to die to protect the property?

Oh, and I'll remember that if we are ever together inside a building that catches fire. (Heaven forbid.) You are in essence saying you'd rather risk your life for property.

As for me, I'll just buy new stuff as long as I have my health.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by James L

You are a sad man Aberdeen.

The count is now 70% against your belief. The leaders of several nations state you are wrong. Still, you persist, and insult those who disagree with you.

You arrogantly stated earlier that "you are denying me that which I most desire".

News flash. This is the internet. That which I most desire does not lie on the internet. This is pretend land.... not the real world.

Let's try this. Who do you see when you look in the mirror?

My perception of you is that of a broken man in his mid fifties, lonely, with no luck with adult women (or underage ones for that matter), who receives very little fulfillment from his real life. My perception of you is that you seek to feel better of yourself by besting people in intellectual debate on the internet. With each post you make you reveal more and more of yourself. A quick search of your user name on this forum reveals many people who agree.

While answering your question in the OP, and stating that I disagree with you, you somehow feel you have "won" something from me. More so, you somehow feel you have "denied me that which I most desire", and appear to gloat with laughing emoticons.

News flash #2. If a person's greatest desire is to be found on the internet, than that person is lacking in some basic human fundamentals.

On my day today I trained at the dojo with close friends early in the morning. I worked a 12 hour shift. I delivered a baby. I cared for a lady who broke down when her mother died of cancer. I treated a 2 year old with croup, and a 70 year old with pulmonary edema. On the way home from work I dined with my best friend of 26 years, and I spent some quiet time with my pregnant wife watching a movie, while working to train my young puppy.

This is an average day for me. Where, with all of that, would I find need to have a broken, anonymous man on the internet grant my greatest desire?

Sorry my friend. You are not even a blip on the radar screen of my desires. You are a bit character in this great play we call the internet.

Nothing more.

Well, James L...

For once in your life you might have the final word in this engagement.

You appear to be a kind and caring, moral man who spends his day helping others but when a few mocking words are cast your way you act fearfully. And out of desperation you commit a morally reprehensible deed against me, someone you believe is not as well off as you, someone you see as pitiable. You helped spread a vicious lie about me. You play on my pain in life.

What hurts even worse is that you knowingly sunk below a standard of morality no one would have thought of you. Not even I.

The only difference between you and the USA in the internment issue is that the USA didn't intend to hurt the internees.

Enjoy your victory James L.

You finally bested me.

Savor the taste.

[Spliffdaddy]

I agree. His comments made him appear to be worse than the person he was belittling.

As if he were trying to reassure himself that his life didn't suck.

[James L]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Well, James L...

Enjoy your victory James L.

You finally bested me.

Savor the taste.

Nope, nothing to savour, as I was not seeking victory.

Perhaps this is where you and I differ.

You debate aggressively, with little or no regard for the thoughts of others. You insult people. You mock people. You lure people into threads, only to gloat about how you pulled the wool over others eyes. You purposely ignore questions. You threaten people with lawsuits, and make such silly comments as "do they really want you as their enemy?"

...and you are surprised when they retaliate?

You appear to be a kind and caring, moral man who spends his day helping others but when a few mocking words are cast your way you act fearfully. And out of desperation...

Again, you fail to realize that you are a virtual personality to me, as I am to you. You do not have the ability to draw out emotions from me such as desperation, and fear. Desperation is the look I see on a parent's face as we attempt to resuscitate their child. Fear is the look I see in the face of the rape victims I encounter. It would be silly to think that these emotions could be brought out on the internet on a forum.

you commit a morally reprehensible deed against me, someone you believe is not as well off as you, someone you see as pitiable. You helped spread a vicious lie about me. You play on my pain in life.

What hurts even worse is that you knowingly sunk below a standard of morality no one would have thought of you. Not even I.

You are in no position to comment on morality, as I have seen you cross this line often while debating with people on this forum.

I will let you in on a secret: I am a compassionate and caring man. I am not a door mat, however.

I treat people with the same respect they treat me.

Tonight you called me both stupid, and a loser. You gloated and mocked. In return, you received the same level of respect back that you presented to me.

As an analogy, when I spar, I go at an agreed upon level of force with my opponent. If he escalates, so will I. I am a compassionate and caring individual. I am also not opposed to choking someone unconscious if that is the level they chose to go at.

I do not know if you are as well off as me or not. I do not know you. I simply stated what my perception is of you, based on your online behaviour.

I did not participate in spreading any lie about you. Show me where I did this.

...

Aberdeen, there are times where I do pity you. It is not because of your lot in life. I don't know your true lot in life, but you could be blind, with three arms, in a wheel chair, with multiple ethnicities and a smell that the strongest deodorant in the world could not cover up. You could have a sh*t job, and crappy luck with women. Our tastes in movies could differ. You could be a cross dressing homosexual for all I care. Maybe it is all an act and you live in Park Avenue, surrounded by babes. Whatever.

I pity you sometimes because you are obviously intelligent, put significant thought into your posts, and there are times where you are freaking hilarious and I really enjoy your comments.

But then you get serious, act high and mighty, gloat, attempt to manipulate people, insult them, threaten them, etc.

I gave you my honest impression of how your virtual personality comes off in this forum... at least to me. The ironic thing is that you and I live about 400 kilometers apart, and who knows... in real life your personality may be drastically different from that which you present here.

I just wish you would loosen up and relax. I bet we would get along great if this happened.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Back to the O.T.

No, the situation is being handled. However, there MIGHT come a day when internment could make sense. Not in the foreseeable future, though.

And frankly I'm aghast that you'd say so, Pender...AGHAST, I tell you!

Glad you are aghast. Too much mirrorin' can give tht state of mind.

But the situation is not being handled. Unless you consider the wire-tap of all Muslims of the U.S. to be similar to encampment...

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

So, Rooski (before I give your post the attention it deserves ) how many lives are you willing to sacrifice so the potential enemy could run free as you please?

How many innocent lives would you permit to be lost before you'd act to protect them?

Actually, I'd like to vote for your internment as you are a threat to my freedom.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego

I wouldn't consider 9 to 9.8 misses per hit effective.

9 to 9.8 misses? What do you mean? I'm not talking about internment camps, I'm talking about racial profiling.

Though I don't necessarily disagree with your premise, I don't think this particular example is good evidence to support your claim.

I didn't use a particular example. I simply stated that internment camps are bad, racial profiling is effective, unfortunately. If I were to site an example, it would be the airport. It makes no sense to me to "appear" fair by searching a 75 year old lady and allow others through who bear striking resemblance to all 19 hijackers on 9-11. I don't think we should fear others' indictments of racism to the point where we ignore common sense. However, racial profiling requires a great degree of discipline. I believe few were interested in discipline during the Pearl Harbor fiasco because frankly the Americans were completely caught off-guard with the notion that an adversary would actually take his own life to ram a plane into a military target. Our reaction post 9-11 is a prime example of a people that have changed. There were those calling for internment, but the collective did not agree. It was viewed for what it is, over-kill and wholly unnecessary.

P.S. and O.T.: Sorry I bailed on our last convo 4 months ago ebuddy, I needed to take a forced absence from pol/war, though this was absolutely, positively not because of you.

I appreciate the sentiment. I hadn't thought of it subego, it's all good. There are various reasons for the timing of exits and generally they are none of my business. I take none of it personally.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

But the situation is not being handled. Unless you consider the wire-tap of all Muslims of the U.S. to be similar to encampment...

Just to clarify; you're not trying to say that the US government is monitoring the calls of all Muslims here in the US right?

[cpt kangarooski]

ebuddy--

I believe few were interested in discipline during the Pearl Harbor fiasco because frankly the Americans were completely caught off-guard with the notion that an adversary would actually take his own life to ram a plane into a military target.

Given that the Japanese didn't engage in pre-planned kamikazes until late 1944, years after Pearl Harbor, I bet they never even considered the notion. Pearl Harbor was mostly attacked by means of bombs and torpedoes. Plus, internees were beginning to be released in 1944, since Japan was losing so badly.

Besides, it's actually not an unusual idea. Haven't you ever heard of the concept of a 'suicide mission'? Or any of a million idiotic charges from the trenches in WW1? The Japanese were a little too comfortable with the idea, which they only adopted when they had just about lost anyway, and had few alternatives. But it's not unknown to us.

I didn't use a particular example. I simply stated that internment camps are bad, racial profiling is effective, unfortunately. If I were to site an example, it would be the airport. It makes no sense to me to "appear" fair by searching a 75 year old lady and allow others through who bear striking resemblance to all 19 hijackers on 9-11. I don't think we should fear others' indictments of racism to the point where we ignore common sense. However, racial profiling requires a great degree of discipline.

What makes you think it's effective? Profiling in general -- maybe -- but not where it's based on race. Behavior is a better basis. Use the wrong criteria and you just harm the innocent while risking yourself due to a lack of a defense. Even a random policy is better than a predictable one that is based on the wrong criteria. Would you have picked up on Richard Reid? No, because he's not from the Middle East. But he was caught (thanks in no small part due to how dumb he was) due to his behavior.

Aberdeen--

But it's also good that McCarthy cleaned out the Commies.

Incidentally, he didn't. McCarthy was a drunken idiot who could not have found a real Russian spy if he had a map. He never did a lick of good, and we would have been better off without him. Real counterintelligence would have found them -- as actually happened (McCarthy had no list) -- and would've done so without causing the climate of fear that caused us to just hurt ourselves and innocent men and women.

That you think McCarthy did anything good in the course of his witch hunt is just another indicator that you have no grasp of history, no sense of justice, or compassion, and nothing that could even be charitably called intelligence. The only thing keeping you from being a danger to yourself and others is that society marginalizes raving idiots.

How many innocent lives would you permit to be lost before you'd act to protect them?

Ah, but first you have to tell be whether you stopped beating your wife yet.

Anyway, as few as possible, preferably none. However, if you thought that that was a good idea, why aren't you supporting the imprisonment of everyone in this entire country. After all, you believe strongly in the idea of guilty before being proven innocent. I don't know how; that idea should be foreign to us as well as repulsive. It certainly is to me.

So it is not good enough to simply save lives. They have to be saved in the right fashion, lest those lives be made terrible. This means that instead of just using a shotgun approach, you work surgically. You look for the spy, and you start by excluding people you can be strongly or reasonably sure are not the spy. You take steps to keep watch on the spy even before you know his identity, through intelligence services. You step up your guard in vulnerable areas. But you do not just lock up a hundred thousand people just because the spy -- who we aren't even sure exists at all -- is in there someplace. Frankly, the damage that causes is worse than what the spy could do. It's not so much a numerical matter -- though there is some of that -- as it is damage to our spirit. If we're middle of a war with fascist assholes, the last people we should behave like are the fascist assholes, whether they're German, Italian, Japanese, or you.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Just to clarify; you're not trying to say that the US government is monitoring the calls of all Muslims here in the US right?

No I am not. I have no information leading to that affirmation. I merely speculate on the idea that internment camps are ideal responses to a situation where a culturally defined group identified as a foe from another country, of which a subgroup resides in the area targeted/coveted by that group, requires a physical isolation through containment.

Wiretap of individuals of such a subgroup would be the logical extension of that isolation, where the containment is open rather than closed.

[aberdeenwriter]

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A343_0_2_0_C/

ACCURACY IN MEDIA

Smearing Of Joe McCarthy
By Cliff Kincaid | May 27, 2003

McCarthy helped uncover a communist spy ring involving foreign service officer John Stewart Service and Phil Jaffe, the editor of a pro-communist magazine.

The release of 50-year-old hearings conducted by Senator Joe McCarthy gave the media another opportunity to charge that the Wisconsin Senator made reckless charges about communists that destroyed the lives of innocent people. M. Stanton Evans, a scholar on the subject, contacted reporters for Roll Call newspaper, the Washington Post and Reuters in a fruitless attempt to get the name of one innocent victim of McCarthy. They told him to contact Donald Ritchie, the Senate historian who edited the hearings and appeared on several shows to talk about them. Ritchie told Evans to send him a letter.

One of those appearances came on a Fox News show hosted by John Gibson, who said McCarthy was a drunk who "went around the bend" and who had a list of 1000 alleged communists that was "bogus, completely bogus, right?" Ritchie responded that McCarthy did find communists and security risks "from time to time" but no espionage agents or subversion.

McCarthy had actually cited 59 suspected communists in the State Department, and he produced that list, plus 22 others. McCarthy helped uncover a communist spy ring involving foreign service officer John Stewart Service and Phil Jaffe, the editor of a pro-communist magazine. He targeted Owen Lattimore, a key State Department adviser and communist. McCarthy's charge against Mary Jane Keeney, a State Department, U.N. employee and Soviet agent, was proven correct. McCarthy was right about Annie Lee Moss, an Army Code Clerk who was a member of the Communist Party.

Ken Ringle, in a Washington Post story about the new release of the hearings, still insisted that Annie Lee Moss was "a frail file clerk in the State Department who had no idea who Karl Marx was…" He and John W. Dean, in a column posted by CNN.com, made the claim that the derogatory term "McCarthyism" was coined by Washington Post cartoonist Herblock. But Herbert Romerstein, an expert on the Communist Party and Soviet espionage, points out that the term was introduced by the Communist Party to discredit the movement to root communists out of government.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg in the New York Times insisted that, "Historians who have reviewed the documents [the hearings] say they do not support McCarthy's theories that, in the 1950s, Communist spies were operating at the highest levels of government." But the John Stewart Service spy ring also involved Laughlin Currie, an adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt, and they succeeded in manipulating U.S. foreign policy to enable the communists to seize China. Other top communists in government included Harry Dexter White at the Department of the Treasury and, of course, Alger Hiss of the State Department, a founder of the U.N.

Joel Brinkley in the New York Times said McCarthy did not hesitate "to destroy reputations and lives." In fact, some in the media wanted to destroy McCarthy. The Washington Post was preparing to publish major allegations of illegal conduct against McCarthy until it realized at the last minute that its major source was a con man. The coverage hasn't changed that much over the years.

Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at [email protected]

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by iomatic

Maybe if we interned hicks from Aberdeen, aberdeenwriter would have some level of empathy.


"Don't count"

"Intern"

"We're at war"

Sounds like a nutjob Righty to me. No further need to listen.

How does the land look from that high horse?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

OMG!

We were at war. There were reports (only SOME of which are included in my post above) of sabotage, ship sinkings, spy networks and activities. If it is your job to deal with the problem what are you looking at logistically?

The accuracy of Michelle Malkin's version of the events leading up to the decision to intern Japanese Americans has been called into question numerous times. For example, the incident in which she claims that a Japanese submarine shelled a California oil refinery, is described on this Wiki article as a "fairly minor incident" that was in fact later proven to not have been caused by a submarine at all. Most of the fears of spy activities and sabotage were fears about what might happen, not what had happened.

You will have to plan for the logistics of where and how to screen these 100,000 people. You will have to investigate them. You will undoubtedly have to go on stakeouts and follow a good number of them.

Why would you have screen 100,000 people, unless you are assuming from the outset that every person of Japanese descent is disloyal? If you are running actual counterintelligence operations then you would be investigating actual activity, and not supposed intent. That would lower your caseload dramatically.

Many things are allowed to slide once the issue has been decided. For example, after the Communists had been exposed and rooted out of government and Hollywood, pretty much, and McCarthy began attacking innocents only then did Murrow believe it was safe enough for him to speak out. It's good that he spoke out. But it's also good that McCarthy cleaned out the Commies.

Actually, McCarthy began to get more scrutiny after his hearings started to be broadcast on television, revealing how deranged he actually was (the famous "Army-McCarthy Hearings").

Are you saying that the only Americans who felt anger/hatred against the Japanese were of draft age and those who were fit for service???

60 year olds and people with flat feet or rheumatic heart conditions, for example, can set fire to a house or pull the trigger of a gun on his or her Japanese neighbor. Some of these people, I hear, are also racists.

In most of modern history, the people who do the actual burning, looting, and pillaging are jobless young men. Not the sort of people who would have been in large supply during World War Two.

We're talking about all over the West coast. NOT just L.A. It's like this. If your job is to protect the population and keep peace there are two approaches (probably a simplification):

1. To increase manpower to handle the problem and reacting to the incidents that occurred.

2. To remove the factors that would require the need for extra manpower.

If there were no Japanese to be attacked the law enforcement manpower could afford to be maintained without change. If enough Japanese were removed from an area, along with the numbers of servicemen no longer residing in an area, law enforcement manpower numbers might even have afforded a drop in numbers without jeopardizing public safety.

You missed my point entirely. Why would there have been a need for extra manpower? I raised the issues in Los Angeles to show that the U.S. government has deemed law enforcement agencies, without extra manpower, to be sufficient for holding the peace even during times of extreme racial conflict. Los Angeles is just a microcosm, but you could take the analogy anywhere in California. Why would have demands on law enforcement during World War Two been so much more pressing than they were during the Rodney King riots or anti-Korean violence in the '70s and '80s? Even if it was "all over the West coast," well, there are police forces all over the West coast, too.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

If they lost their property don't you think that's a sign of the kind of hostility that existed at the time? Unless you're talking about bank foreclosure. In which case maybe that was what was partially recompensed.

No, they lost their property because official U.S. government policy made no attempt at saving it for them. They were told they had to give it up while interned. It was in no way designed to protect them.

From the Wiki article:

Most internees suffered significant property losses. Upon evacuation, the Japanese American internees were told that they could bring only as many articles of clothing, toiletries, and other personal effects as they could carry. The US government promised to find a place to store larger items (such as iceboxes and furniture) if boxed and labeled, but did not make any promises about the security of those items.

In some cases, Japanese American farmers were able to find families who were willing to tend their farms for the duration of their internment. In other cases, however, Japanese American farmers had to sell their property in a matter of days, for pennies on the dollar. In these cases, the land speculators who bought the land made huge profits. California's Alien Land Laws of the 1910s, which prohibited most non-citizens from owning property in that state, contributed to Japanese American property losses. Because they were barred from owning land, many older Japanese American farmers were tenant farmers and therefore lost their rights to those farm lands.

...

Some estimate that by the time the last of the relocation camps closed on December 1, 1945, the Japanese Americans had lost homes and businesses estimated to be worth, in 1999 values, 4 to 5 billion dollars, and that deleterious effects on Japanese American individuals, their families, and their communities, went beyond monetary damages.

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Oh, and I'll remember that if we are ever together inside a building that catches fire. (Heaven forbid.) You are in essence saying you'd rather risk your life for property.

As for me, I'll just buy new stuff as long as I have my health.

I think you will find that there have been many, many times in history when particular groups have risked their lives to defend their property. Particularly when they, like many Japanese Americans at the time, were tenant farmers or (in the case of those who were citizens) owned their own small businesses. Losing their property meant losing everything to them. It's not the same as losing your house and then collecting your fire insurance.

[cpt kangarooski]

Aberdeen--
And I'll say it again: McCarthy was a drunken idiot who could not have found a real Russian spy if he had a map. His list -- to the extent that there ever was one at all, as he was usually making crap up -- was old, outdated, riddled with errors and duplicates, and compiled by other parts of the government. Most of them had been investigated and cleared, and being a communist was no crime.

On the rare instance that McCarthy named someone who was a spy (such as Keeney, who McCarthy said was not a spy, even though she was -- told you he was incompetent) it was sheer luck. He might as well have just pointed to the phone book. But then, you support that lunacy of mass imprisonment of the innocent just to get at a handful of culpable people, or you wouldn't be supporting internment.

Summing up: Your source, as much as it makes dubious claims to accuracy is at best highly and deliberately misleading. McCarthy is still a drunken moron who is worthy of everyone's scorn. And you're still a hateful dumbass who hates civil liberties and doesn't understand American values.

[aberdeenwriter]

http://www.aim.org/aim_report_print/7_0_4_0/

AIM Report: Joe McCarthy Was Right
July 3, 2003
Not only does China control ports at each end of the Panama Canal, it dominates seven of the 10 major global shipping chokepoints.


The release of transcripts of closed-door hearings conducted by Senator Joseph McCarthy gave the media another opportunity to charge that the Wisconsin Senator made reckless charges about communists that destroyed the lives of innocent people. But many of the stories about the hearings and McCarthy were far more reckless, inaccurate and misleading than anything he ever said or did.

The media have had 50 years to get the story straight but still can't present the basic facts to the American people about the communist threat that McCarthy tried to expose-and which still exists today in a different but equally deadly form.

Consider that the government has indicted Katrina Leung, a suspected Chinese-American double agent, and her FBI case officer, who also was her lover. The full story of this spectacular case is yet to be told, but Leung through her FBI handlers may have provided disinformation about Chinese Communist aims and ambitions to U.S. presidents and Congress for over a decade.

Brian P. Regan, a retired Air Force sergeant, was recently convicted of espionage and barely escaped the death penalty. He was selling U.S. secrets to China and Iraq. And more details about convicted Cuban spy Ana Montes, a former senior analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency, are coming to light. Insiders are comparing her role as an agent of influence on behalf of Cuba to the service Alger Hiss gave to the Soviet Union. We already know that she peddled the line in an official report that the Castro regime was not a significant security threat to the U.S.

All of these recent cases involve the deep and long-term penetration of our intelligence agencies.

Meantime, in a troubling comment that largely escaped critical media scrutiny or even notice, Secretary of State Colin Powell declared on Black Entertainment Television that U.S. policy toward Chilean Marxist President Salvador Allende in the 1970s was "not a part of American history that we're proud of." Powell appears not to know that in toppling Allende the Chilean military saved Chile from suffering the same fate as South Vietnam with very little loss of life.

The Bush administration is, of course, preoccupied with the Middle East, and this drives media coverage of foreign affairs. But voices are struggling to be heard in the media about the communist danger and potential terrorist threat we face just south of the border.

Al Santoli, Senior Vice President of the American Foreign Policy Council, told the Free Congress Foundation's radio news service that Venezuela, an oil exporting nation ruled by a friend of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, is more of a national security problem than Iran. Santoli, who served as a top congressional aide, says Chavez and Castro are helping run guns to the Colombian terrorists. There are currently more than 350 U.S. military advisers in Colombia and the number is growing. He says Chinese special forces are now training Chavez's military, and that there are reports of al Qaeda members being brought into Venezuela as Chavez's guests. He is Venezuela's Allende.

In a new report, the American Defense Council notes that not only does China control ports at each end of the Panama Canal, it dominates seven of the 10 major global shipping chokepoints.

Shane Connor, a Texas businessman who has traveled several times to Venezuela and interviewed military officials who have quit the Chavez regime, tells AIM that Air Force Major Juan Diaz Castillo, a former pilot for Chavez, has revealed his own role in the payment of $1 million from the regime to al Qaeda after 9/11. Connor said this disclosure made headlines in Venezuela but not in any major American newspapers. Connor also said there is evidence that a controversial bioweapons lab reported to be in Cuba has been secretly transferred to Venezuela. The location has been posted at www.MilitaresDemocraticos.com, a Web site in English for opponents of the Chavez regime.

Writing in Human Events, the conservative weekly, intelligence expert Herbert Romerstein says Cuba should be considered a member of the Axis of Evil for its long-time support of international terrorism.

Mary Anastasia O'Grady of the Wall Street Journal is one of the few national media voices expressing alarm about the deteriorating situation in Latin America and the seeming inability of the CIA to recognize the dangers we face. She said in a March 14 column that the U.S. intelligence officer for Latin America, Fulton T. Armstrong, backed out of a scheduled February 27 public appearance before the House International Relations Committee because he feared being questioned about the CIA's nonchalance toward adverse political trends in Latin America and the threat to U.S. security posed by the Chavez regime.

Senator Joseph McCarthy would never have tolerated such behavior from U.S. officials. He was accused of bullying or browbeating witnesses before his committee, but there can be no doubt that he was motivated by concern about the failure of the U.S. government at the time to recognize the communist danger we faced.

McCarthy was quite specific in his charges, having cited 59 suspected communists in the State Department. He produced that list, plus 22 others. McCarthy helped uncover a communist spy ring involving Foreign Service officer John Stewart Service and Philip Jaffe, the editor of Amerasia, a pro-communist magazine. He targeted Owen Lattimore, a key State Department adviser and a Communist. McCarthy's charge against Mary Jane Keeney, a Soviet agent who served as a State Department employee at the U.N., was proven correct. McCarthy was right about Annie Lee Moss, an army code clerk who was proven to be a member of the Communist Party.

In addition to Service, other State Department China hands who gave aid and comfort to the Communists were John Paton Davies, Edmund Clubb and John Carter Vincent. Soviet agents in high positions included Harry Hopkins, who was so close to FDR that he lived in the White House, Laughlin Currie, an economist who was a top Roosevelt aide, and Alger Hiss, a high State Department official who was at FDR's elbow at Yalta and a key figure in getting the U.N. started.

On May 5, NBC News correspondent Pete Williams aired a report about the transcripts of the closed-door McCarthy hearings. He focused on another alleged innocent victim of the senator. Williams claimed that McCarthy had unfairly singled out composer Aaron Copland for scrutiny. Williams said that Copland, when asked about Soviet policies replied, "I spend my days writing symphonies, concertos, ballads, and I am not a political thinker." Williams said Copland "was never called to testify in public," suggesting he was completely innocent of charges that he had Communist connections.

Red Tunes

But writing in National Review, historian Ronald Radosh noted that Copland had "a record of a vast amount of cooperation with Communist front groups." Radosh said that Copland was "thoroughly dishonest" in claiming he didn't have Communist connections and that his attendance at a Communist "peace" conference was for the purpose of investigating the Communists.

Radosh said that Copland, who swore under oath in 1934 that he never knew a Communist, was in fact a member of the Composers Collective, an affiliate of the Workers' Music League of the Communist Party. Copland even wrote a May Day song for the Communists, "Into the Streets May First," whose music and text were featured on the cover of a Communist Party cultural magazine, New Masses.

An AP story of May 10, 2003, said that FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that the FBI "wanted to prosecute Copland for perjury and fraud for denying he was a Communist." No such prosecution ever took place. It said Copland's music was pulled from President Eisenhower's inaugural concert in 1953 because of concern about his Communist ties. AP quoted Terry Teachout, a New York-based music critic and commentator, as saying, "He was involved with the Communist Party up to his ears. Whether or not he was an actual card-carrying member of the party, nobody knows."

Professor David Schiff of Reed College says that the Depression transformed Copland "from an alienated aesthete into a politically engaged populist. Most of his friends turned to communism for solutions to the economic crisis. Howard Pollack reveals that on two occasions in 1934 Copland actually got on the stump to support Communist Party candidates..."

The news stories about the five volumes of McCarthy hearings released by the Senate were all alike, reporting that McCarthy accused people of being Communists who were not, and saying that he bullied them. Lacking time to peruse 5 thick volumes, reporters wrote what Donald Ritchie, the Senate historian who edited the published hearings, told them.

M. Stanton Evans, author of a forthcoming book about McCarthy, contacted reporters for Roll Call newspaper, the Washington Post and Reuters in a fruitless attempt to get the name of one innocent victim of McCarthy. They all told him to contact Ritchie. Ritchie asked Evans to send him a letter.

Ritchie appeared on a Fox News show hosted by John Gibson, who said McCarthy was a drunk who "went around the bend" and who had a list of 1000 alleged Communists that was "bogus, completely bogus, right?" Ritchie said that while McCarthy did find Communists and security risks "from time to time," he uncovered no espionage agents or subversion.

Wes Vernon of Newsmax.com wrote a series of stories noting that Ritchie's criticism of McCarthy was just wrong.

But Ken Ringle, in a Washington Post story about the release of the hearings, still insisted that Annie Lee Moss was "a frail file clerk in the State Department [sic] who had no idea who Karl Marx was…" He and John W. Dean, in a column posted by CNN.com, made the claim that the derogatory term "McCarthyism" was coined by Washington Post cartoonist Herblock, when, in fact, Romerstein points out that the term was actually introduced by the Communists to discredit their opposition.

Joel Brinkley in the New York Times said McCarthy did not hesitate "to destroy reputations and lives." In fact, some in the media wanted to destroy McCarthy. The Washington Post was preparing to publish major allegations of illegal conduct against McCarthy until it learned at the last minute that its source was a con man.

Defending A Cover-Up

Media blindness to the continued activities of Communists was on display at the Washington Post annual meeting on May 8. Cliff Kincaid praised the paper for its editorial support of the liberation of Iraq and expressed regret over the death in Iraq of Post columnist Michael Kelly. But he also said:

"There needs to be a time when you evaluate your coverage of the war at home. By that I mean your coverage of the so-called anti-war protests, a number of which were held in Washington, D.C., your area of coverage…And it seems obvious to me that your coverage of these demonstrations was overall deficient because of the failure to emphasize the central role played in the Washington protests by an openly communist group, the Workers World Party. Ironically, Michael Kelly, your columnist, had done the best reporting in the form of a column in the Washington Post on this very subject. He had the story that your reporters who were covering these protests failed to uncover."

Kincaid had sent Post chairman Donald Graham and Post publisher Bo Jones a copy of one of his columns noting that Michael Powell, New York bureau chief of the Washington Post, had written an April 17 story about anti-war organizer Leslie Cagan, without saying that she is a co-chair of a group called the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS), an offshoot of the old Soviet-controlled Communist Party USA (CPUSA).

When Kincaid called Powell to ask about this omission, Powell said, "I call her a leftist," as if this were a complete and accurate description of Cagan's ideology.

Protecting A Red

Powell, a reporter for the paper that broke open the Watergate scandal, apparently could not find it within his power or ability to reveal that Cagan is a co-chair of a group dominated by former veteran CPUSA members such as Angela Davis.

Powell's article did acknowledge that International ANSWER, the Workers World Party (WWP) front group behind several Washington, D.C. protests, was a "Marxist-Leninist grouping that glorifies North Korea…" But he then ignored the hard evidence of Cagan's Communist connections and travels to Cuba. It's clear that Powell was trying to present Cagan, the head of a rival anti-war group called United For Peace and Justice, as a more responsible activist without the WWP baggage.

Powell said that, "She came of age as a radical protesting the Vietnam War, before doing graduate agitating on issues including the nuclear freeze, gay rights, El Salvador and the trade embargo on Cuba." The closest he came to acknowledging her red roots was when he noted allegations that Insight Magazine had called Cagan a Marxist agitator who has "roots in old Soviet . . . agitprop" and that she had been denounced for "letting various flavors of Trotskyites and Maoists join the antiwar marches."

Former congressional investigator Herbert Romerstein said the CCDS has "a close working relationship with the Stalinist remnants in the former East Germany, called the Party of Democratic Socialism…" Romerstein said these were the people who ran the concentration camps and the Communist Party apparatus in East Germany. Powell said he was unaware of this.

What's more, Romerstein cited evidence that Cagan organized the first meetings after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America to plan demonstrations to stop the United States from launching a military action against those responsible. Powell said he was unaware of this, too.

Powell's article alluded to her work on Cuba, but carefully avoided mentioning that Cagan is an apologist for Castro's Communist system who was identified as a member of the revolutionary Venceremos Brigades to the Communist island in the early 1970s. Cagan's bio at the CCDS Web site points with pride to her role as the coordinator of a U.S. delegation to Cuba for the 1997 World Festival of Youth and Students. This was a communist-controlled affair that staged an anti-American tribunal.

As the head of a rival anti-war group that has a more "moderate" image, it's understandable why Cagan would avoid the communist label. The description of "democratic socialist" is probably something she would accept, although Powell avoided even that. However, he told Kincaid, "There's nothing wrong with socialism. Much of Europe is socialist..."

Kincaid noted that the paper had run an excellent series on the Nature Conservancy, an environmental group, based on hundreds of interviews, internal documents, "but I have to question why you didn't have a comparable effort to explain the role of the Workers World Party in organizing these anti-war protests here in Washington, D.C. and the fact that its leaders have been investigated by Congress in the past, back in the 70s, that they traveled to Baghdad, Pyongyang and Havana, Cuba, that they're openly in support of the enemies of America. I was just astounded that with your first-rate investigative team, all the resources at your disposal, you had to leave it to Michael Kelly, who tragically is no longer with us, to provide your readers with some of these critical facts."

Don Graham responded that "Mr. Kelly's column was part of the newspaper," while Post publisher Bo Jones declared that the paper doesn't "throw labels-like someone's a communist-around, unless we have the basis for saying that ourselves. We do attribute things that we think are properly attributed to what other people think."

Marxists Pressure Post

He said readers were informed that the protest organizers "had left-leanings or were radicals and in fact a number of people were asked about this" at the protests. He added, "The main criticism we've actually had of our coverage of the anti-war protests was that we minimized it...was that we didn't cover the anti-war protests sufficiently, rather than focusing on one aspect like that or another..."

So the Post was more concerned about the criticism of the paper by the Marxists and fellow travelers who wanted even more favorable and extensive publicity for the demonstrations.

What You Can Do

Send the enclosed cards or letters of your own choosing to Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Mary Anastasia O'Grady of the Wall Street Journal, and Condace Pressley of the National Association of Black Journalists.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Aberdeen--
And I'll say it again: McCarthy was a drunken idiot who could not have found a real Russian spy if he had a map. His list -- to the extent that there ever was one at all, as he was usually making crap up -- was old, outdated, riddled with errors and duplicates, and compiled by other parts of the government. Most of them had been investigated and cleared, and being a communist was no crime.

On the rare instance that McCarthy named someone who was a spy (such as Keeney, who McCarthy said was not a spy, even though she was -- told you he was incompetent) it was sheer luck. He might as well have just pointed to the phone book. But then, you support that lunacy of mass imprisonment of the innocent just to get at a handful of culpable people, or you wouldn't be supporting internment.

Summing up: Your source, as much as it makes dubious claims to accuracy is at best highly and deliberately misleading. McCarthy is still a drunken moron who is worthy of everyone's scorn. And you're still a hateful dumbass who hates civil liberties and doesn't understand American values.

http://www.aim.org/aim_report_print/7_0_4_0/

[SpaceMonkey]

You should read this article, as well:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...060123fa_fact1

It's more about Murrow than McCarthy, but it does explain some of the reasons why the media chose to attack McCarthy when it did.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

You should read this article, as well:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...060123fa_fact1

It's more about Murrow than McCarthy, but it does explain some of the reasons why the media chose to attack McCarthy when it did.

I'm beginning to wonder in aberdeen actually reads the articles he spews onto here. I'm beginning to suspect he just Googles for an article with a title that appears to support his position. The fact that he copies-and-pastes these articles into the thread rather than summarize would seem to support this suspicion.

What's more, aberdeen has a habit of starting threads for the purpose of social manipulation. This thread reeks of that.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

You should read this article, as well:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...060123fa_fact1

It's more about Murrow than McCarthy, but it does explain some of the reasons why the media chose to attack McCarthy when it did.

I shall. Thanks.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I'm beginning to wonder in aberdeen actually reads the articles he spews onto here. I'm beginning to suspect he just Googles for an article with a title that appears to support his position. The fact that he copies-and-pastes these articles into the thread rather than summarize would seem to support this suspicion.

What's more, aberdeen has a habit of starting threads for the purpose of social manipulation. This thread reeks of that.

You won't buy ANYTHING without proof. Well, to your supposition, I say, "Prove it!" Hahahaha!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

You should read this article, as well:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...060123fa_fact1

It's more about Murrow than McCarthy, but it does explain some of the reasons why the media chose to attack McCarthy when it did.

WOW! That was a rewarding read! Thank you, SpaceMonkey.

[aberdeenwriter]

To Whom it may Concern:


~"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." - Eleanor Roosevelt~

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I'm beginning to wonder in aberdeen actually reads the articles he spews onto here. I'm beginning to suspect he just Googles for an article with a title that appears to support his position. The fact that he copies-and-pastes these articles into the thread rather than summarize would seem to support this suspicion.

What's more, aberdeen has a habit of starting threads for the purpose of social manipulation. This thread reeks of that.

I think there is a lot of projection and paranoia in this post.

Seems aber hit pretty close to the mark.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I think there is a lot of projection and paranoia in this post.

Seems aber hit pretty close to the mark.

Not at all. Here are the 2 most recent examples where aberdeen has openly admitted to doing so:
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=282636
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=282636

There are more, but I don't have the time to research through the 5 threads a day started by him.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

ebuddy--
Given that the Japanese didn't engage in pre-planned kamikazes until late 1944, years after Pearl Harbor, I bet they never even considered the notion.

Here, you're really arguing just for the sake of it. Whether or not they were pre-planned is irrelevant to the fact that suicide flights occurred in Pearl Harbor. To be attacked in such a manner and on our own homeland sent a shockwave through populace thought. Read any account you wish. This as well as other factors surrounding the surprise event invoked raw horror in the American people.

Pearl Harbor was mostly attacked by means of bombs and torpedoes. Plus, internees were beginning to be released in 1944, since Japan was losing so badly.

Again, irrelevant. Pearl Harbor, just as 9/11 had come and gone. The initial shock had worn off at that point. The fact of the matter is that great discipline would've been required to not intern an entire race of people attributed to the shockwave of horror. Perhaps a degree of discipline not exercised prior. I'm not excusing the actions of internment so much as to imply that we've now exercised that discipline as evidenced by our inablity to bring ourselves back to that low post 9/11.

Besides, it's actually not an unusual idea. Haven't you ever heard of the concept of a 'suicide mission'? Or any of a million idiotic charges from the trenches in WW1? The Japanese were a little too comfortable with the idea, which they only adopted when they had just about lost anyway, and had few alternatives. But it's not unknown to us.

By just about every account I've read, it was in fact a novel idea to us at the time. Us meaning; the collective. We're talking about the same collective that not many years prior thought UFOs were invading the country because of a radio show.

What makes you think it's effective? Profiling in general -- maybe -- but not where it's based on race. Behavior is a better basis.

I disagree. In a terminal of 500 people, it'd be much more effective to monitor a race of people (matching all 19 hijackers on 9/11) than it would be to look for behaviors. Your idea looks good on paper because it seems more fair, but unfortunately monitoring behaviors would be next to impossible in that particular environment. This is not to say however, that one cannot employ both methods for an altogether more effective policy.

Use the wrong criteria and you just harm the innocent while risking yourself due to a lack of a defense.

First of all I'm not sure how the above is relevant. In my example, we're talking about inconvenience. It makes no sense to base your policy on fairness.

Even a random policy is better than a predictable one that is based on the wrong criteria.

How would the criteria be wrong? Did all 19 hijackers not fit a profile that could be identified relatively easily or are we now pretending there was a casper-white McVeigh involved? This is also to suggest that only one method can be applied. Monitor behaviors and racially profile.

Would you have picked up on Richard Reid? No, because he's not from the Middle East.

...and apparently the only behavior indicating guilt had occurred after having boarded the plane and in the attempt of lighting a fuse in his shoe. If we wait for this obvious a degree of nefarious behavior, we'll never secure our people.

I will say this, from looking at pictures of the guy I may have picked up on Richard Reid. yes.

But he was caught (thanks in no small part due to how dumb he was) due to his behavior.

A behavior that made itself evident only after such time as for anyone less stupid would've been way too late.