[HN Gopher] Camp that imprisoned 7000 Japanese Americans could b...
___________________________________________________________________
Camp that imprisoned 7000 Japanese Americans could become National
Historic Site
Author : sofixa
Score : 71 points
Date : 2022-02-21 20:56 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.axios.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.axios.com)
| goldcd wrote:
| It should - but it's not so much about a piece of land, it's
| about what it represents.
|
| As a non-American, the US does still seem to be a 'very patriotic
| country' - national anthems played for any reason, standing for
| flags, pledging allegiance to abstract concepts, USA*n chants to
| fellow americans etc etc.
|
| Not in itself wrong - but always struck me as a bit try-hard on
| the homogeneity. Darker edge is that it means you (not you
| specifically, but <i>you</i>) still label people as being
| "unamerican".
|
| Even in political discourse - there seems to be an abstract
| "America" (that everybody loves) and then criticism from both
| sides is couched in terms of how the other side is trying to
| destroy this great abstract.
|
| I was just thinking of Eileen Gu and the whole balagan when she
| chose to compete for China. She's a skier. I can't think of any
| other country that would get so upset that a national would
| choose to perform sports for another country.
| pirate787 wrote:
| They can start by mentioning this history at the FDR memorial in
| Washington, DC.
| ghaff wrote:
| News related to this a few days ago got me thinking that people
| who want the US Supreme Court to ratify "sensible" mandates and
| orders coming out of the Executive Branch even if they're legally
| sketchy should perhaps be careful what they wish for.
|
| Korematsu v. United States which basically upheld FDR's executive
| order is probably one of the least defensible SCOTUS decisions of
| all time and definitely one of the worst if you include a few
| pre-Civil War cases.
|
| ADDED: And, yes, SCOTUS is political too but it should act as at
| least some degree of check. I'm also not specifically commenting
| on any particular decision but I've certainly read decisions (as
| a non-lawyer) that were counter to my personal preference but
| which seemed the right thing legally.
| colpabar wrote:
| You don't understand - that won't happen because the good guys
| are in charge now.
| pirate787 wrote:
| Not sure if you're being sarcastic but it was liberal icon
| FDR who sent these citizens to prison camps.
| zdragnar wrote:
| Don't worry, he'll get cancelled soon enough. That way,
| there wont be a problem giving good guy government more
| power in the future.
| ghaff wrote:
| I assume the comment (and early downvotes) was related to
| the fact that one could take this as commentary on SCOTUS
| shooting down some COVID vaccination mandates (along party
| lines). Which admittedly is what mostly triggered my
| thinking about the point.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't post unsubstantive comments or take HN threads
| further into hellish flamewar. It's not what this site is
| for, and it destroys what it is for. We want _curious_
| conversation here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| avs733 wrote:
| > News related to this a few days ago got me thinking that
| people who want the US Supreme Court to ratify "sensible"
| mandates and orders coming out of the Executive Branch even if
| they're legally sketchy should perhaps be careful what they
| wish for.
|
| Please explain how science-supported public health measures to
| control the spread of a deadly infectious disease are similar
| to imprisonment of a group based on their nationality because
| they were assumed to be helping the enemy during a way.
|
| You just compared antibiotics and the fear of eclipses.
|
| If institutions can't tell these apart they have already
| failed...all of them.
| SllX wrote:
| SCOTUS is a legal institution that interprets laws given the
| facts and case in front of them. It is not their job to
| ratify Executive powers in the absence of Congressional
| action. They are not, nor should they be, a backup Congress.
| avs733 wrote:
| > SCOTUS is a legal institution that interprets laws given
| the facts and case in front of them.
|
| >that people who want the US Supreme Court to ratify
| "sensible" mandates and orders coming out of the Executive
| Branch even if they're legally sketchy should perhaps be
| careful what they wish for.
|
| Yes...based on facts and laws...what are the facts and the
| laws in each case. Start with the facts, they are pretty
| simple.
| SllX wrote:
| The facts before them, which are provided by the
| plaintiff's and defendant's lawyers who are both charged
| with providing their best arguments; and according to the
| laws written by Congress.
|
| This is not a small distinction.
| ghaff wrote:
| You can read the decisions and there's no shortage of
| expert commentary on important SCOTUS decisions. If you
| actually care you're far better off going there than
| relying on comments from mostly non-lawyers.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| The use of facts in the Supreme Court is to determine
| whether a law is legal, not good policy. The court is a
| check on legality of the actions of other two branches,
| not a check on their judgement.
| ghaff wrote:
| I assume that any mandates re: vaccinations passed by
| states that roughly conformed to the facts of Jacobson v.
| Massachusetts would probably not even be taken up by
| SCOTUS as they would be matters of settled law (and have
| been effectively held up in more recent cases related to
| school vax requirements). However, expanding this to OSHA
| requirements was a bridge too far for (some) justices.
| ghaff wrote:
| At the time, there was a widespread fear, even among (as
| someone else mentioned) liberal icon FDR, that there was a
| significant security risk associated with Japanese-descended
| Americans. Even so, SCOTUS should have (ideally) said there
| was no legal case for interning them or (less ideally but
| better) simply declined to hear the case. It sounds very
| similar if the legal justification in equally weak. It's not
| the job of SCOTUS to make up legal reasoning for whatever the
| other branches of government want to do even if you (or the
| majority) agree with them.
| [deleted]
| justinzollars wrote:
| I think this is a good idea.
| dathinab wrote:
| Also interesting:
|
| As far as I know the Japanese Americans where forced to sell land
| they own for close to nothing and where never reimbursed.
| nataz wrote:
| Not just land. Bank accounts and personal property were also
| liquidated under duress.
| dathinab wrote:
| The think is, at least in some of the US states, there are
| major benefits for long term land holders (wrt. property tax)
| and some of the land once owned by Japanese Americans became
| very expensive (I have heard, as it was in Silicon Valley).
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| There were reparations paid in 1988 - not saying that it was
| enough, or should count as reimbursement, but there was some
| financial acknowledgement.
|
| _In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Civil
| Liberties Act of 1988 which officially apologized for the
| internment on behalf of the U.S. government and authorized a
| payment of $20,000 (equivalent to $44,000 in 2020) to each
| former internee who was still alive when the act was passed.
| The legislation admitted that government actions were based on
| "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political
| leadership."[30] By 1992, the U.S. government eventually
| disbursed more than $1.6 billion (equivalent to $3,500,000,000
| in 2020) in reparations to 82,219 Japanese Americans who had
| been interned.[29][31]_
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Liberties_Act_of_1988
| zxcvbn4038 wrote:
| Definitely worth preserving so that people are aware it happened
| and hopefully prevent it from happening again in the future.
| fr33d0m_ wrote:
| Why should something like this never happen again? War is war.
| Japan in current day is an ally, so let's discuss the CCP.
|
| Couldn't you say compared to the current modern day Communist
| Party of China and being as of today 21 Confusion institutes
| currently located in the United States? Do you think the
| current Communist Party of China does not have spies and people
| designed to infiltrate the United States government and the
| current Republic in various levels? Haven't they even been
| stealing secrets and intellectual property from governments?
|
| Also, alerts last month from British Intelligence (MI5)
| regarding infiltration in their parliament?
|
| And lastly, the CIA finally started a division to investigate
| China as of late last year.
|
| So if you ask me, if there was a large security threat in the
| United States or Canada for example or any allied nation
| regarding spies from lets say the CCP, I believe they should
| absolutely be investigated and potentially put into secure
| camps regarding national security of a country.
|
| It's not pretty(war isn't pretty), but how else would a
| military secure foreign threats in their country?
|
| Sources:
| https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/how_many_confucius_institu...
|
| https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/13/chinese-spy-infiltr...
|
| https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/china-is-stealing-our...
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/cia-china-m...
| mcphage wrote:
| > So if you ask me, if there was a large security threat in
| the United States or Canada for example or any allied nation
| regarding spies from lets say the CCP, I believe they should
| absolutely be investigated and potentially put into secure
| camps regarding national security of a country.
|
| Were the people imprisoned there actually a security threat?
| Were they investigated? Was it before or after they were
| interred?
| RunawayGalaxy wrote:
| I think you missed the point about Japanese American
| internment.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-21 23:02 UTC)