Thomas says:

#80
> The document in question dictated that
> when in the position we were in with
> Japan that you have your fleet’s
> whereabouts unknown to the enemy.
>
>> As CIC, FDR didn’t enforce this
>> policy and thus let our fleet
>> get sunk at anchor. Without his
>> active malfeasance as CIC the
>> attack would have
>> been a loss for the Imperial navy.

While it is true that basic strategy states that if you are on the brink of war with a country, especially a naval power, you ensure that your fleet’s whereabouts are kept secret, Pearl was widely known as the major American naval base in the Pacific. The Japanese had spies all over Hawaii sending telemetry about the fleet’s movements. Because of a series of fortuitous events, they were unable to locate or confirm the location the American carriers.

However, here’s the kicker, had the fleet not been at Pearl, the war would have likely gone far worse. The original Japanese attack plan was to wipe out the fuel stores on the third wave of the attack. For whatever reason, they decided against this given the utter destruction of the first two waves and *THAT* is what saved our bacon. The entire Pacific fleet’s fuel supply was at Hawaii. Had they hit that, what fleet we had remaining would have entirely immobile.

It is disingenuous to blame FDR for Pearl. There were thousands of false alarms in the weeks leading up to the attack. The US Military knew the odds were high for an attack. It was thought that Pearl would be a poor target because of its shallow harbor and it would be incredibly difficult to sneak up on it. Obviously, they were wrong on both accounts.

That said, FDR did intern thousands of Americans with no trial or just cause. Lincoln did the same.

#85
> How come you are ignoring his kidnapping of
> innocent civilians and throwing them into
> concentration camps?
>
>> Why? Was it illegal?

Could you be any more of a hypocrite? At least the vast majority of people that Bush threw into Gitmo were not Americans and thus their rights under American Constitutional law is/was questionable (although he crossed the line with the MCA which let him throw any person, American or not, into Gitmo). In FDR’s case, they *were* Americans and should have been afforded the same Constitutional protections as any other American.

QB says:

#94 “Remind me who we’re formally at war with right now?”

North Korea. Yea really. Still. Go figure.

ECA says:

93,
you could also add that MOST of the western islands were already invaded, and we had NOTHING to do with them..
Unless you wanted our fleet on the mainland, Hawaii was the Farthest point.
ALSO,
Our fleet at the time was OLD and almost obsolete.
It could be said that we DARED Japan to destroy it. And it lent to building NEWER BETTER FASTER ships. And gave us the initiative to Make MORE war weapons for the Navy.

Thomas says:

#98
First, my statement is still valid: FDR arrested American citizens and tossed them into prison. Second, while his acts in Latin America were reprehensible, I still think extracting foreign nationals during a World War is less of an issue than summarily arresting American citizens without habeas corpus or due process. Going into other nationals to extract potential enemy sympatheizers simply shows that in a World War, no place is truly neutral. However, it does shed light on hypocracy with which the left view Bush’s policy at Gitmo.

What would change my mind about the severity of the Latin American operations would be the level of knowledge that US administration had about the German concentration camps given that they were trading Jews for American prisoners. From what I know about that period, Churchill became aware of what the Germans were doing by late 1943 or so but whether he relayed that information to Roosevelt is another question.

Thomas says:

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

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

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

Mr. Fusion says:

#98, Brendal,

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

&

#100, Cow-Paddy

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

*

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

Thomas says:

#103

RE: Internment camps

You forgot the part of about forfeiture of your assets.

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

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

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

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

> Stupid people should not be allowed to vote.

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

Thomas says:

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

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

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