General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsVote Against FDR in '44
by wmtriallawyer
Executive Order 9066 is a crime against our constitution. It allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens by the military inside the US - without a trial. It is the worst law ever handed down by a President and it was done with nary a peep of opposition. I'm positive that a huge percentage of the population is not even aware of it, partly because the establishment media didn't even bother covering it, and partly because most people don't give a sh*t about Japanese-Americans.
But it appeared for a while that maybe, just maybe, the Supreme Court would stand up and end the law. Then that bastard FDR packed the Court and they went ahead and upheld the law because they wanted FDR to have even more executive power, not less. This president has been a disaster for civil liberties. But if that's not bad enough, his New Deal sucks too.
We should have listened to Carter Glass, he of Glass-Steagal fame. Or even better, Champion of the Working People, John Lewis, who had the good sense to support Willkie four years ago. They knew the New Deal was a fraud. They knew it didn't go far enough. Bad enough we have a President on steriods that can shred the Constitution at will because we are at war...but his so-called economic social safety net? Feh. What good will it be after the war, when the military-industrial complex has its claws fully into the fabric of our nation?
<...>
We voted for change, dammit. And FDR is nothing but a disappointment.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/29/1049734/-Vote-Against-FDR-in-44?via=siderecent
I love good satire.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The rest of the historical parallel you're trying to draw isn't much more accurate.
"The rest of the historical parallel you're trying to draw isn't much more accurate."
..., you're right. NDAA, doesn't do this: "It allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens by the military inside the US - without a trial."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100248562
leveymg
(36,418 posts)or as civilians living in areas in Germany, Italy or Japan bombed by the U.S. There were a handful tried as war criminals afterwards. But, I am not aware of a single instance where the US targeted and assassinated specific US persons because of their aid to the enemy.
This is a different sort of war under Bush/Obama, and it's not even a declared war.
As for NDAA, it appears to allow for the indefinite military detention of any US Citizen inside or outside the US, and requires it for non-US persons, and is thus unconstitutional.
Sec 1021, Indefinite Military Detention
Pursuant to the AUMF passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NDAA text affirms the President's authority to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces," under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of hostilities." The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."[13] An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected.[14]
Addressing previous conflict with the Obama Administration regarding the wording of the Senate text, the Senate-House compromise text also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authority for Use of Military Force."
Requirement for Military Custody: Section 1022
All persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to be held by the United States Armed Forces. The requirement does not extend to U.S. citizens. Lawful resident aliens may or may not be required to be detained by the Armed Forces, "on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States."[
or as civilians living in areas in Germany, Italy or Japan bombed by the U.S. There were a handful tried as war criminals afterwards. But, I am not aware of a single instance where the US targeted and assassinated specific US persons because of their aid to the enemy.
...does that have to do with this: "It allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens by the military inside the US - without a trial."
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Also, see the edit I made to the body of my message about NDAA - Sec. 1021-22 appear to allow for indefinite military detention of US Citizens inside or outside the US, and Sec. 1022 requires military detention for non-US persons.
"I'm making a larger point about how the GWOT is dissimiliar to the methods used by the US in WWII "
...maybe your "larger point," but everyone knows that there are dissimilarities. The larger point is that "indefinite detention of US citizens by the military inside the US - without a trial" was sanctioned by a past U.S. President. Furthermore, President Obama has not authorized any such action.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)He hasn't had to hold US Citizens without trial because they're killed by the CIA or the military, instead.
"He hasn't had to hold US Citizens without trial because they're killed by the CIA or the military, instead."
...what?
Can you see the difference between a person overseas taking up arms with a terrorist group and this statement from the OP: "indefinite detention of US citizens by the military inside the US - without a trial"
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Both al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were propagandists -- useful as bait to ID other targets, and al-Awlakhi had been closely watched since before 9/11, if indeed he wasn't already doubled. Al-Awlaki's 16 year old son, also a US Citizen, was guilty of nothing more that the sins of his father. Kamal Derwish was among the first Predator targets, and he had also long been known to US intelligence and like Awlaki was allowed to depart the US while under surveillance. Awlaki, who had been "spiritual advisor" to the Flt. 77 hijackers, departed the US after he was briefly taken into custody after 9/11. That's a pretty good indication that he was a double, if not merely a "tag and release."
See my original post, up-thread, in which I pointed out that there have been US Citizen combatants for the other side who have died in battle and civilians killed in bombing raids by US Forces in previous wars, but never targeted killings of US Citizens (that we were ever made aware of, anyway).
This GWOT is a very different kind of war from any the U.S. has ever fought. The rules of engagement have changed, and continue to change to blur the distinctions between combatants and those U.S. Citizens merely held to have helped the enemy. There are the additional blurring of the lines for those who appear to have been at some point "turned" and working both sides. That is, indeed, a "slippery slope," which has become steeper and greasier under Obama.
"None of the US Citizens targeted recently had 'taken up arms'"
...your opposition to this is that you believe they hadn't "taken up arms"?
"This GWOT is a very different kind of war from any the U.S. has ever fought. The rules of engagement have changed, and continue to change to blur the distinctions between combatants and those U.S. Citizens merely held to have helped the enemy. There are the additional blurring of the lines for those who appear to have been at some point "turned" and working both sides. That is, indeed, a "slippery slope," which has become steeper and greasier under Obama."
"Merely held to have helped the enemy"? What does that mean? If a person doing exactly what bin Laden or any other al-Qaeda leader is doing and at a known al-Qaeda location, are they "merely" helping the enemy?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)In fact, they may have been double-agents (presently or formerly) working for US and/or "friendly" intelligence agencies. If they were working for someone else, doesn't it make better sense to capture and interrogate them?
Those are two (or three) separate reasons to have a problem with these targeted killings.
Killing these persons raises questions about our motives in doing so. Were they killed to eliminate actual threats or tie up loose strings? Both? Neither? Should the U.S. be carrying out counter-terrorism operations in such a way that we raise these questions?
Bucky
(55,334 posts)When Jonathan Swift wrote "A Modest Proposal" I'm sure a lot of readers got all huffy and declared, "That's disgusting. I would never eat an Irish baby!" They, too, missed the point.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Or, do you need an icon? (rain:////) By the way, the thrust of the OP is simply wrong-headed, and I couldn't let it simply pass as an attempt at satire, or whatever the intent may have been - it was an historically inept put-down of Obama's critics.
Survivoreesta
(221 posts)Steroids? Not then!
treestar
(82,383 posts)Always needs a few reminders of how every President has had similar problems!
MilesColtrane
(18,678 posts)Of course, there's the whole problem of reanimation...
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"A fifth-term FDR would be more effective than a second-term Obama"
...we've move beyond that. We're now planning to vote for "uncommitted" and people who aren't running.
Bucky
(55,334 posts)MilesColtrane
(18,678 posts)In fact, the GOP seems pretty good at that kind of thing.
(...that brainless slab of meat Rick Perry being the exception.)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts) quinnox
(20,600 posts)Unless the intent is to make President Obama look bad, indeed. No offense.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)
dawg
(10,777 posts)And one of the most shameful things our nation has done since the days of slavery.
I guess I just don't get the joke.
I guess I just don't get the joke.
...OK, I didn't get Cenk's point either.
dawg
(10,777 posts)I get it now!
Since our sainted hero FDR authorized indefinite detentions of U.S. citizens without trial, we liberals are silly to be so concerned about the government claiming the authority to do the same thing now!
Now that I think about it - it is hilarious.
Oh wait.
No it isn't.
What FDR did was a blight against every thing our country stands for and people *should* have stood up and protested it then. I would have.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)The New Deal still enchants. It even outdoes Mount Rushmore.
For the fifth time in five surveys, Franklin D. Roosevelt tops a Siena College survey of the best U.S. presidents, the school said Thursday.
Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson — the four faces of Mount Rushmore — are all runner-ups, according to 238 historians, presidential scholars and political scientists who participated in the Siena College Research Institute Survey of U.S. Presidents.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/1/survey-finds-fdr-best-president/
Presidential scholars, historians, political scientists? What do they know? Bunch of liberal commies brainwashing the kids nowadays.
What's really amazing here is that FDR accomplished so many absolutely totally awesome important things for the 99% during his Presidency that these scholars are willing to overlook the heinous error he made with EO 9066.
Hopefully, President Obama will have a more productive second term, and will be ranked highly in this survey after his 8 years are up..
"Survey finds FDR best president"
...came in 15th in that survey, the highest debut of any President.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)That is the historical measure, regardless of how much you wish it was not. Obama is in office and will be for five more years. Obama is not ready for rating by historians, so can't dislodge one of the top five. I honestly don't think that Obama will dislodge one of the top five, but I won't be surprised if he comes close when historians rate him.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Opened 'em wide.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Edweird
(8,570 posts)MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)instead of coming up with excuses for why he couldn't even try it.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)FDR had a sane GOP to deal with.
Obama doesn't have that luxury.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)Get off it. FDR had it worse, but had the resolve - and DESIRE - to stand up to them and do what was right for the citizens instead of the corporations.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Edweird
(8,570 posts)FDR fought for the people. That's why he was essentially president for life.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Edweird
(8,570 posts)
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Executive Order 9066 and its implementation of gulags in the U.S. is a dark period of U.S. history.
1942: Military police fire on protesters at Manzanar concentration camp, killing one young Japanese American.
1942: Two Issei (farmer Toshiro Kobata and fisherman Hirota Isomura) are shot to death by camp guards at the Lordsburg, New Mexico, enemy alien internment camp. The guards say the Issei were trying to escape; however, the two men upon their arrival were too ill to walk from the train station to the camp gate.
1942: University of Washington student Gordon Hirabayashi, with the support of American Friends Service Center, challenges constitutionality of U.S. government internment order and is sentenced to 90-day jail sentence for curfew violation; in 1943, U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rules against his challenge.
1942: Fred Korematsu arrested in San Leandro, California for defying government’s mass imprisonment order; in 1944, U.S. Supreme Court upholds Korematsu’s conviction but does not rule on constitutionality of internment.
1942: In Poston concentration camp, an attack on a man widely perceived to be an informer results in the arrest of two popular inmates. This incident soon escalates into a mass strike.
1942: In Los Angeles, Mexican American high school student Ralph Lazo joins his Japanese American friends in Manzanar concentration camp for two-and-a-half-years. Thirty years later, he joins the community movement for redress and reparations for Japanese Americans.
1942: In Manzanar concentration camp, the arrest of Harry Ueno triggers a mass uprising.
1943: In Tule Lake concentration camp, 35 men who refuse to fill out the “loyalty questions: are arrested.
1943: In Heart Mountain concentration camp, 75 Japanese American truck drivers walk out following a fist fight between their Japanese foreman and a white employee. The strike last four days.
napoleon_in_rags
(3,992 posts)That's one of the great racist shames of American history. Are they saying what it sounds their saying, we shouldn't judge Obama's bad civil liberties call because of FDR's? That can't be...
dawg
(10,777 posts)
"It's the funniest piece of satire since 'An American Carol'."
...not funny to the people who continue to push the bogus spin. Tell them that Obama is the first President to enact health care reform and they'll find every reason to dismiss that as irrelevant.
On the other hand, they have no trouble portraying Obama as the first (and most "evil" ) President ever to "shred" the Constitution.
Then there are facts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100285404
dawg
(10,777 posts)Obama isn't the *first* President ever to 'shred' the Constitution.
dawg
(10,777 posts)It's about speaking out against a policy that is un-American and should be repudiated by anyone who values the principles of a free society based on individual rights.
Obama isn't the author of this thing. As far as I can tell, he might even have taken a small symbolic step towards mitigating the damage.
And if you've been paying attention to me, you know that I'm hugely supportive of the ACA, the President's stimulus efforts, the payroll tax cut, and even the dreaded Wall Street bailouts.
But this is about the slide I think this country has been on towards a police-state for the last ten years. And it isn't okay because someone else did it too.
It's about speaking out against a policy that is un-American and should be repudiated by anyone who values the principles of a free society based on individual rights.
Obama isn't the author of this thing. As far as I can tell, he might even have taken a small symbolic step towards mitigating the damage.
And if you've been paying attention to me, you know that I'm hugely supportive of the ACA, the President's stimulus efforts, the payroll tax cut, and even the dreaded Wall Street bailouts.
But this is about the slide I think this country has been on towards a police-state for the last ten years. And it isn't okay because someone else did it too.
...the point is that some people have used their platforms to disingenuously portray this as solely Obama's doing. I mean, the hyperbole runs from "Obama is going to shred the Constitution" to "never before has a U.S. President attacked the Constitutional rights of Americans."
And the basis for this is ENDA, which does no such thing. In fact, the debate shifted from the claim that it authorizes a situation similar to the this from the OP, "indefinite detention of US citizens by the military inside the US - without a trial," to conceding that while that's not the case, it does nothing to change an ambiguous existing law, but to codify it.
dawg
(10,777 posts)It's just that I'm pretty offended by something that attempts to make light of indefinite detention, either in the FDR era or the present.
It was so funny to me, that I forgot to laugh.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The biggest health care reform in history remains Medicare, enacted about 45 years ago.
Medicare is a single-payer system for people over 65. Also a "public option," if you will.
Apparently we've made some steps back in this sector, because Obama could not even deliver a public option, or much more than mandating the purchase of for-profit private insurance from the kleptocratic corporations who already run the real "death panels" (a.k.a. insurance adjusters).
Actually he could have tried, but he pre-capitulated.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Obama is not the first president to enact health care reform...The biggest health care reform in history remains Medicare, enacted about 45 years ago."
...Medicare was an expansion of Social Security. If Truman, Nixon, Carter and Clinton had succeeded, then you'd have a point.
Still, if you insist, Obama was the first President to enact health care reform for the entire population, which includes benefits for Medicare recipients, seniors. It's comprehensive.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100284280
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=89383
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100286001
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=86219
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Love it! I see those it pokes fun at have already self identified and NOT rec'd. lolz
Julie
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)
Enrique
(27,461 posts)you'd find it LAUGHABLE for people to complain about it?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The US also engaged in massive carpet bombings of cities (albeit of an actual, not imagined enemy country), so we should be grateful that the present administration murders innocent civilians (on the other side of the planet in places that don't actually matter to "our" "interests"
in a more retail fashion.
You have hit on a proper analogy, by the way. It exposes just how sick it is to draw the parallel, and how corrupt people are willing to be on behalf of their chosen "side." If Muslims were rounded up clearly there are indeed those who would still argue in Obama's defense on the basis that the Republicans are very, very bad.
"so if Obama put all Muslims in concentration camps
you'd find it LAUGHABLE for people to complain about it? "
...Obama proposed that?
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
hootinholler
(26,451 posts)But this ain't it.
I seem to recall recently there was a non-apology apology for the action against Japanese Americans. I'm still not sure what the status of the confiscation of property without due process is.
Personally I'm not upset with the Prez because he accomplished too little. I'm upset with him because he didn't fight. His strategy appears akin to whacking your horse's knees with a big stick before the race.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)
mmonk
(52,589 posts)The New Deal was quite a major deal and life changing for many. Yes, the detention of Japanese Americans was abhorrent. Not sure what the New Deal has to do with Japanese American detention except both were from the same administration. And don't see what it has to do with Obama and current reservations some may have (except Democrats are no longer New Deal types save a few).
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)and Obama's sellout on closing Gitmo.
The other problem with the analogy in the
OP is that it's absurd to imply that the current foreign policy situation for this country is analogous to the latter stages of World War II.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You can't seriously arguing that Obama's domestic stuff matches up to the whole New Deal.