Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Historical Scenario: Internment During Wwii


Nihil Obstat

Japanese Internment Camps  

18 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Groo the Wanderer
It makes God sad when you ignore my glorious posts.

 

haven't seen one yet.   not a single one.   evar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also moral to permit a kidnapper to take you, but that doesn't make it immoral to resist. Even if the kidnapper wears a cute little costume.

 

And all government officials who participated in the internment were guilty of kidnapping.

Edited by Winchester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was actually expecting there to be at least a few people voting that all resistance would be immoral. Was looking forward to a good discussion on that one.

Catherine and Debra, why do you think that using force to resist would be immoral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THere was nonviolent resistance in the form of legal battles.  Korematsu v. U.S. comes to mind in 1944.  The Supreme Court held that Fred Korematsu's liberty was secondary to the threat of espionage. Justice Murphy dissented, saying it was outright racism.  Justice Jackson, who would be one of the judges at the Nuremburg Tribunals,  agreed also that the executive order was racist, but said that it was outside the scope of the Supreme Court's power to rule on military matters.

 

Justice Jackson said, in his dissent:

[quote]Korematsu was born on our soil, of parents born in Japan. The Constitution makes him a citizen of the United States by nativity and a citizen of California by residence. No claim is made that he is not loyal to this country. There is no suggestion that apart from the matter involved here he is not law abiding and well disposed. Korematsu, however, has been convicted of an act not commonly a crime. It consists merely of being present in the state whereof he is a citizen, near the place where he was born, and where all his life he has lived. [...] [H]is crime would result, not from anything he did, said, or thought, different than they, but only in that he was born of different racial stock. Now, if any fundamental assumption underlies our system, it is that guilt is personal and not inheritable. Even if all of one's antecedents had been convicted of treason, the Constitution forbids its penalties to be visited upon him. But here is an attempt to make an otherwise innocent act a crime merely because this prisoner is the son of parents as to whom he had no choice, and belongs to a race from which there is no way to resign. If Congress in peace-time legislation should enact such a criminal law, I should suppose this Court would refuse to enforce it.[/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Nihil Obstat" data-cid="2532500" data-time="1358122968"><p>
I was actually expecting there to be at least a few people voting that all resistance would be immoral. Was looking forward to a good discussion on that one.<br />
<br />
Catherine and Debra, why do you think that using force to resist would be immoral?</p></blockquote>

I'm not sure the word immoral is really what I was thinking about. I'm a survivor and a realist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, but I am getting at the morality of resistance here. Prudence aside, I am interested in what people think on the morality of resistance, with or without varying degrees of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eagle_eye222001

:think:

 

Really hard to say.  For some, I think use of force is justified.

 

For others, I could see it not being.

 

Vivo Cristo Rey!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THere was nonviolent resistance in the form of legal battles.  Korematsu v. U.S. comes to mind in 1944.  The Supreme Court held that Fred Korematsu's liberty was secondary to the threat of espionage. Justice Murphy dissented, saying it was outright racism.  Justice Jackson, who would be one of the judges at the Nuremburg Tribunals,  agreed also that the executive order was racist, but said that it was outside the scope of the Supreme Court's power to rule on military matters.

 

Justice Jackson said, in his dissent:

 

I say heartily: Screw the Supreme Court and screw the asinine belief that an arm of the Federal Government is supposed to be the final arbiter.

 

Cue cartoon history defenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PhuturePriest

This entire situation reminds me of something that happened in my town. The night of the tornado, cops were going house to house saying "Marshall Law. You have to get out and go to the buses at the Dillons store." They went to our friend's house and said this, and he pulled out his shotgun, pumped it, and said "Marshall Law: Get the hell out of my house."

 

This really has no point, I just wanted to share because that guy is awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...