Far-right Jackass Wants - Internment Camps For Muslims.

[Coyote]

The same could be said of many Japanese-Americans in 1941-1942.

How many Japanese Americans were actually found to be collaborating with the Japanese?

Given that many terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by rightwing extremists who own guns - shouldn't we think about interning some of these dudes for public safety?

That gets one into a discussion of the relative merits and inherent dangers of the dogma associated with Islam, vis a vis its counterparts.

No...it doesn't.

Dangers of "dogma" is highly subjective...

Indeed.

But only if you are either (1) an adherent of the belief system being scrutinized or (2) so blindly committed to egalitarianism that you are willing to admit a viper into our midst because that alternative belief system poses too great a risk to the nation.

Observe:

====================================================

Premise: war and violence predicated upon religious beliefs is dangerous.

Supporting questions:

1. Did Jesus of Nazareth give his followers permission to wage war and to commit acts of violence against non-believers?

Answer: No.

2. Did Muhammed give his followers permission to wage war and to commit acts of violence against non-believers?

Answer: Yes - extensively, and repeatedly.

Conclusion: Islam's dogma is more dangerous than Christianity's.

===================================================

...Who gets to determine who has rights and who has not? Do you want your rights to religious freedom, for example, to be determined by someone who neither understand nor likes your religion? Do you want you and your family forceably incarcerated indefinately without charge or recourse? These are American citizens we're talking about and the only reason someone is even saying this is that they comprise such a small group of people in the US that it's easy to justify trampling their rights because their political voice is pretty small and the voices of fear-mongering very loud.

Just to be the Devil's Advocate - since we're talking about removing Constitutional rights - let's look at gun owners. The "survivalist" dogma is pervasive particularly in the US. It's been associated with rightwing terrorism, white nationalism, the collecting of huge amounts of armaments, anti-government propaganda and behavior. These people have at times proven themselves dangerous and the rhetoric wins converts. Why shouldn't they be they be put in internment camps?

Disclaimer: the above is NOT my view, I don't believe in putting ANY American citizens in internment camps who have not been convicted of crimes.

All good points.

Unfortunately, when Constitutionality and Safety are set against each other, Safety wins every time.

Every time.

The logical successor question is:

Is it likely that Islam in the United States will become so problematic or disruptive or dangerous that such draconian measures are ever undertaken against Muslims in this country?

I hope not, Insha'Allah.

But the very fact that it is being discussed - even sparsely and intermittently and theoretically - does not speak well for the way in which Islam is integrating into American (or Western European, for that matter) society, and that does not bode overly-well for the future.

I completely disagree. The fact that it is discussed, as you say, is more reminiscent of another event than it is of immigrant integration into American society. There is little (if any) evidence to support claims that Muslim immigrant's are are any different than other immigrant groups in regards to ingegrating in American society and for that matter, Britain.

This kind of rhetoric does not speak well for the safety and rights of Muslim citizens in our country and is very reminiscent of the anti-semitic that prevailed in the US in the 30's and 40's and continues to rear it's ugly head.

REPORT Muslim Americans Faith Freedom and the Future
A decade following September 11, 2001, Muslim Americans still face some public distrust and are more skeptical of law enforcement than are other U.S. faith communities. Despite these challenges, American followers of Islam are optimistic about their future, and they embrace their country’s civic institutions and religious pluralism.

Sadly, polling of many Americans show they hold a less favorible view of Muslim-Americans: Americans Attitudes Toward Muslims And Arabs Are Getting Worse Poll Finds

The poll found a growing number of Americans doubt that Muslim-Americans or Arab-Americans would be able to perform in a government post without their ethnicity or religion affecting their work. Thirty-six percent of respondents felt that Arab-Americans would be influenced by their ethnicity, and 42 percent said Muslim-Americans would be influenced by religion.

Results differed by political party, with the majority of Republicans holding negative views of both Arab-Americans and Muslims. Democrats gave Arab-Americans a 30 percent unfavorable rating and Muslim-Americans a 33 percent unfavorable rating, while Republicans gave Arab-Americans a 54 percent unfavorable rating and Muslim-Americans a 63 percent unfavorable rating.

...The survey also showed a generational gap in attitudes toward Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans, with younger respondents showing more favorability toward both groups. Part of that, according to the pollsters, has to do with exposure -- those ages 18 to 29 were likely to know Arab-Americans or Muslim-Americans, while respondents older than 65 were almost evenly split on that question.

This is also reflected in a Pew Poll: How Americans Feel About Religious Groups Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

Given the lack of any evidence of threat from the American Muslim community as a whole and the upswing in negative public opinion as represented by this poll, any kind of "draconian measures" will not be driven by threat but by fear mongering and bigotry and we, as Americans should fight any attempt to divest a person or group of his constitutional rights every inch of the way.

You also state when "Unfortunately, when Constitutionality and Safety are set against each other, Safety wins every time."...but it doesn't. If the targeted group has enough political power (gun rights) - percieved safety doesn't win out over fear. When the group is small and powerless and the negative rhetoric loud, percieved safety might win out over fear.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Far Left OP probably wants Internment Camps for Right Wingers.

 

[Kondor3]

...I completely disagree...

No surprise there.

...The fact that it is discussed, as you say, is more reminiscent of another event than it is of immigrant integration into American society...

Agreed. It resembles the rhetoric surrounding the internment of Japanese-Americans in the 1941-1945 timeframe.

...There is little (if any) evidence to support claims that Muslim immigrant's are are any different than other immigrant groups in regards to ingegrating in American society and for that matter, Britain...

All it takes is street demonstrations over Shariah and lawsuits forcing halal food upon eateries and volunteering amongst those immigrants to join foreign jihadi organizations and the like, to set people's teeth on edge, and to creep them out.

...This kind of rhetoric does not speak well for the safety and rights of Muslim citizens in our country and is very reminiscent of the anti-semitic that prevailed in the US in the 30's and 40's and continues to rear it's ugly head...

With the difference being that the Jews were not members of a religious group whose overseas domains practice misogynistic and archaic autocracy and theocracy and amongst which vast numbers of adherents are inherently hostile to Western culture and religion and philosophy and modes of governance and values.

...Sadly, polling of many Americans show they hold a less favorible view of Muslim-Americans...

Yup... they are not "us"... they hail from regions and sects manifestly hostile to our way of life... they are alien... and the fools in Europe who allowed them to gain too strong a foothold are finding out that when the Muslim population in a region reaches a tipping point they become far more obnoxious and demanding and openly hostile to The West.

Americans aren't fools, and many ask themselves: Why the hell should we subject ourselves to that? Let's be smarter than the Europeans were about all this. Understandable.

...Results differed by political party...

Yes.

Stereotypically - Democrats are all about religious egalitarianism at all costs, even to our own peril.

Stereotypically - Republicans are all about religious egalitarianism until that practice begins to pose a threat or otherwise becomes highly suspect and problematic.

Variations on the same theme.

...The survey also showed a generational gap in attitudes toward Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans...

To be expected. Generally speaking, younger people do not understand the risks and dangers; however, 9-11 took (and continues to) take care of some of that.

We need to look no further than the attitudes of our young people in the American military to see what the majority of young Middle America is thinking in this context.

...You also state when "Unfortunately, when Constitutionality and Safety are set against each other, Safety wins every time."...but it doesn't...

The Gun-Rights counterpoint that you served-up is too far buried on the micro level to serve as a useful comparison here. The life of the nation itself is not at stake in that context, merely the lives of individuals.

When the Civil War broke out, Abe Lincoln suspended the constitutional right of habeus corpus. The life or safety of the nation at-large was at stake.

When Pearl Harbor was attacked, FDR suspended the constitutional rights of Japanese-Americans and interned them. The life or safety of the nation at-large was at stake, or at least it was perceived to be at the time.

If we are subjected to an attack by nuclear weapons, the US government has made contingency plans that include the suspension of the Constitution; preparing for a time when the life or safety of the nation might be at stake.

If a town becomes broadly infected with the Ebola virus, the constitutional rights of the townspeople would be suspended as they are forcibly quarantined, because the life or safety of the nation might be at stake.

And on and on and on.

If Islam in the US ever reaches a tipping point in which mainstream Americans perceive them as too much of a threat, a suspension or altering of their constitutional rights might also be in the works.

It's not an attractive prospect, but the Real World is laden with examples of unattractive prospects, undertaken in the name of Safety - some right, some wrong, in the end.

 

[Coyote]

Agreed. It resembles the rhetoric surrounding the internment of Japanese-Americans in the 1941-1945 timeframe.

Yes, and at the end of it, there was no evidence that they were working for the enemy.

All it takes is street demonstrations over Shariah and lawsuits forcing halal food upon eateries and volunteering amongst those immigrants to join foreign jihadi organizations and the like, to set people's teeth on edge, and to creep them out.

All of which - should they occur - are perfectly legal and civil means of being heard in America. We have all kind of odd ball demonstrations yet they don't get singled out for interment. No one cares of a Jewish group demands Kosher but it's "creeping Sharia" if a Muslim group demands halal?

With the difference being that the Jews were not members of a religious group whose overseas domains practice misogynistic and archaic autocracy and theocracy and amongst which vast numbers of adherents are inherently hostile to Western culture and religion and philosophy and modes of governance and values.

Religious groups around the world vary with the culture of the country and people they exist in.

Hostile to Western culture and religion and etc.:
KKK
Westboro Baptists
Neo-Nazi's
Christian Identity groups
White Nationalist movements
The Barnes Review
The Church of the Creator
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Jewish Defense League
Nation of Islam
Black Seperatist movements
...just to name a few

Yup... they are not "us"... they hail from regions and sects manifestly hostile to our way of life... they are alien... and the fools in Europe who allowed them to gain too strong a foothold are finding out that when the Muslim population in a region reaches a tipping point they become far more obnoxious and demanding and openly hostile to The West.

And right there you echo generations of anti-immigrant rhetoric - the same rhetoric I might add that was once directed towards the flood of East European Jews at the turn of the last century. The rhetoric never changes - just the faces.

Americans aren't fools, and many ask themselves: Why the hell should we subject ourselves to that? Let's be smarter than the Europeans were about all this. Understandable.

Understandable only because fear of what we don't know is human nature. Rather than seek to uncover the facts (such as the fact that in the US, American Muslims have been here since our founding), we choose to demonize it.

Yes.

Stereotypically - Democrats are all about religious egalitarianism at all costs, even to our own peril.

Stereotypically - Republicans are all about religious egalitarianism until that practice begins to pose a threat or otherwise becomes highly suspect and problematic.

Variations on the same theme.

I propose a more accurate and fundamental them...stereotypically:
Liberals seek to be more inclusive and broaden what is considered "us".
Conservatives seek to be more exclusive, and protect what is consirdered "us".

Each has their advantages and disadvantages and operate best when counter-balanced by the other. After all, at one time "black" was not "us" but now is.

When the Civil War broke out, Abe Lincoln suspended the constitutional right of habeus corpus. The life or safety of the nation at-large was at stake.

Nothing like that is occuring to our nation.

When Pearl Harbor was attacked, FDR suspended the constitutional rights of Japanese-Americans and interned them. The life or safety of the nation at-large was at stake, or at least it was perceived to be at the time.

Nothing like that is occuring to our nation.

If we are subjected to an attack by nuclear weapons, the US government has made contingency plans that include the suspension of the Constitution; preparing for a time when the life or safety of the nation might be at stake.

Nothing like that is occuring to our nation or even remotely so based on real data rather than xenophobic fear-mongering.

If a town becomes broadly infected with the Ebola virus, the constitutional rights of the townspeople would be suspended as they are forcibly quarantined, because the life or safety of the nation might be at stake.

And on and on and on.

Yes, if such were really happening - each event would have to be scrutinized very very carefully and critically before even thinking of stripping away civil rights.

If Islam in the US ever reaches a tipping point in which mainstream Americans perceive them as too much of a threat, a suspension or altering of their constitutional rights might also be in the works.

No.

If mainstream American's "percieve" them as too much of a threat (rather than actually constituting such a threat) then we, as Americans, have an obligation to fight for our Constitution and the rights it gives every one of our citizens.

Otherwise - of what value is our Constitution?[/QUOTE]

 

[FJO]

Sounds like an absurd, illegal, and unconstitutional overreaction.

Kinda like the dimwit FDR did.

Undeniably a very low point in our nation's history. It was a monstrous crime and the overwhelming majority of the American public accepted it blithely.

And, yet liberals/democrats/progressives, this present day, hold this cripple, mental more than physical, in the highest esteem and consider him as one of the greatest presidents in history.

Forgetting that this same nicotine addict was also the best pal of "Uncle Joe" Stalin who killed millions by starvation and forced labor.

Also forgetting that thousands of Jews on ships who were fleeing certain death by Nazis were denied access to safety and were sent to their deaths by this commie loving bastard whose party, to this day - inexplicably - is still the party of choice by the majority of American Jews.

 

[FJO]

"Internment Camps For Muslims"

A few questions for rightists who agree with this:

Are you aware that this would constitute a violation of the First and 5th Amendments to the Constitution?

Are you aware that any measure authorizing 'internment' would be invalidated by the courts accordingly?

Are you aware that there are millions of Americans who are Muslim, citizens of the United States, born and raised in this country just like you?

Or are you aware of this but just don't care.

Obviously, the darling of bleeding heart liberals like you, Franklin Delano Roosevelt had no idea about, was not aware of or chose to ignore the Constitution.

To give the crippled bastard credit, his breaking the law worked.

Breaking the law and follow the example of FDR would work today as well.

 

[Ibentoken]

"Internment Camps For Muslims"

A few questions for rightists who agree with this:

Are you aware that this would constitute a violation of the First and 5th Amendments to the Constitution?

Are you aware that any measure authorizing 'internment' would be invalidated by the courts accordingly?

Are you aware that there are millions of Americans who are Muslim, citizens of the United States, born and raised in this country just like you?

Or are you aware of this but just don't care.

Are you aware FDR is considered one of the great Democrat Presidents and he did this?

 

[Ibentoken]

"Internment Camps For Muslims"

A few questions for rightists who agree with this:

Are you aware that this would constitute a violation of the First and 5th Amendments to the Constitution?

Are you aware that any measure authorizing 'internment' would be invalidated by the courts accordingly?

Are you aware that there are millions of Americans who are Muslim, citizens of the United States, born and raised in this country just like you?

Or are you aware of this but just don't care.

Obviously, the darling of bleeding heart liberals like you, Franklin Delano Roosevelt had no idea about, was not aware of or chose to ignore the Constitution.

To give the crippled bastard credit, his breaking the law worked.

Breaking the law and follow the example of FDR would work today as well.

Exactly. We have a precedent set by a liberal iconic President.

 

[AmericanFirst]

The same could be said of many Japanese-Americans in 1941-1942.

How many Japanese Americans were actually found to be collaborating with the Japanese?

Given that many terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by rightwing extremists who own guns - shouldn't we think about interning some of these dudes for public safety?

The majority of terrorist attacks are by lefty idiots, lefty idiot.

That's an opinion, a wrong one.

Not.

 

[Dot Com]

Once again USMB conservatives exhibit their ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

'twas ever thus. Just another day here

 

[AmericanFirst]

Once again USMB conservatives exhibit their ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

'twas ever thus. Just another day here

Like I said before, it is libtards who are ignorant of and have contempt for the constitution.

 

[Antares]

Or maybe we should just leave them alone. You know, so that we're always looking over our shoulders.

"Cuz that's always fun.

Yeah, OK supports that contention.

Geeeeeezus.

 

[blackhawk]

I love when people use one hyper partisan site to highlight stuff from another one.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I wouldn't go that far. I would however put an end to any further immigration by Muslims into western countries.
Islam and the west don't mix, and if the west wants to have any future at all, they need to stop it now.

Thank god for Hispanics and white conservatives, they're the only ones having any children at all. If not, there wouldn't be any counter to the huge families muslims have.

 

[Clementine]

If we think like the left, then some Muslims and many illegals should go to re-education classes. Do they have classes that teach respect for American culture? Of course, being anti-American isn't something the left sees as a problem. Patriotism and loving the country are seen as things that need to be eliminated. When people say something that the left finds objectionable, they force them to take training. Well, I want all the people who offend me with their anti-American bullshit to pay a fine and take classes to change their attitude.

The left is willing to bend or break the constitution when it suits their agenda.

Obamacare is unconstitutional because it means accepting two different things, it is a tax and it isn't a tax, in order to remain legal. If a tax, needed to be passed by House as a tax. Not a tax, not constitutional according to SCOTUS. The left claims it's both a tax and not a tax, depending on which law challenges it.

Allowing Sharia law to trump our nation's laws in certain cases is unconstitutional.

Seizing property and assets from people not charged with crimes is unconstitutional and that is happening at an alarming pace these days.

Having authority to kill American citizens without benefit of due process is unconstitutional.

Spying on all Americans randomly with no cause is unconstitutional.

Freedom of speech, like naming your team, is constitutional, but that is always being silenced because some don't like what other people say.

Schools, neighborhood associations and apartment owners stomp on freedom of speech by banning flags and yellow ribbons, but allow Mexicans to fly their flag and pander to Muslims by taking down flags or other symbols that support our country or military.

Nice that some cite the constitution when it fits their agenda, but otherwise doesn't matter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree that it is time Muslim immigration to be restricted here.

They need resolve their issues if at all possible in the ME and North Africa and elsewhere without inflicting it on us.

 

[Coyote]

I agree that it is time Muslim immigration to be restricted here.

They need resolve their issues if at all possible in the ME and North Africa and elsewhere without inflicting it on us.

What evidence is there that they are "inflicting it on us"?

Are most Muslim immigrants to the US causing problems?

 

[Coyote]

Allowing Sharia law to trump our nation's laws in certain cases is unconstitutional.

When has Sharia law "trumped" our nation's laws?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree that it is time Muslim immigration to be restricted here.

They need resolve their issues if at all possible in the ME and North Africa and elsewhere without inflicting it on us.

What evidence is there that they are "inflicting it on us"? Are most Muslim immigrants to the US causing problems?

We have had crazy Muslim attacks in this country who had connections to the ME. We have had convictions of folks conspiring. You don't think we have problems here?

 

[Coyote]

I agree that it is time Muslim immigration to be restricted here.

They need resolve their issues if at all possible in the ME and North Africa and elsewhere without inflicting it on us.

What evidence is there that they are "inflicting it on us"? Are most Muslim immigrants to the US causing problems?

We have had crazy Muslim attacks in this country who had connections to the ME. We have had convictions of folks conspiring. You don't think we have problems here?

How many?

We have crazy Christians.

We have crazy Athiests.

We have boatloads of crazies but no one talks about restricting them as groups.